Visual Resources 

Specialist Report 

Garkane Energy Cooperative, Inc. 

Tropic to Hatch 138 kV Transmission Line 

Prepared For: 

U.S. Forest Service – Dixie National Forest 

National Park Service – Bryce Canyon National Park 

Bureau of Land Management – Kanab Field Office 

Bureau of Land Management – Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument 

Prepared By: 

8160 South Highland Drive 

Sandy, Utah 84093 

& 

SWCA Environmental Consultants 

257 East 200 South 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 

December 2009 
SPECIALIST REPORT 

Visual Resources 

1.1. INTRODUCTION 

Garkane Energy Cooperative, Inc. (Garkane) proposes to construct a 138 kV circuit transmission line 

supported by wood pole H-frame structures between the communities of Tropic and Hatch in Garfield 

County, Utah. The proposed new transmission line would replace portions of an existing 69 kV 

transmission line between the Tropic and Hatch Substations that currently provides service west of 

Tropic. 

1.1.1. Purpose of the Specialist Report 

The purpose of this Specialist Report is to characterize existing visual resources within the Project Area 

and to analyze and disclose potential environmental effects on visual resources that would occur under the 

Proposed Action and Alternatives as described below. These data and impact analyses will be used to 

develop an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Garkane 138 kV Transmission Line proposal. 

1.1.2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

1.1.2.1. Alternative A: Proposed Action 

Alternative A would be constructed within a right-of-way crossing public lands administered by the U.S. 

Forest Service (USFS) Dixie National Forest (DNF), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kanab Field 

Office (KFO), and the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM); Utah State lands 

administered under the State Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA); and private lands. 

The Alternative A 100-foot-wide right-of-way would extend 30.41 miles. The route would begin at the 

proposed East Valley Substation located east of Tropic and extend northeast to adjoin the Rocky 

Mountain Power/PacifiCorp 230 kV transmission line right-of-way. The route would then parallel the 

west side of the Rocky Mountain Power/PacifiCorp transmission line route to the northwest across 

GSENM land and through Cedar Fork Canyon through a planning window for a utility right-of-way 

identified in the 1986 Land Resources Management Plan (LRMP). The route would diverge from the 230 

kV line access route and extend west across John’s Valley and skirt just to the north of the Bryce Canyon 

Airport. The route would continue west for approximately 4 miles and turn south, crossing SR 12, and 

extend southwest across the Johnson Bench area, passing to the south of Wilson Peak. The route would 

continue west down Hillsdale Canyon through a planning window for a utility right-of-way identified in 

the 1986 LRMP and turn north for approximately 0.5 mile. The route would continue to the west, 

crossing private property (Sunset Cliffs), and extend west to cross U.S. 89 where it would turn to the 

southwest for approximately 2 miles to the Hatch Substation. The proposed route would cross 17.35 miles 

of DNF, 3.31 miles of KFO, 3.68 miles of GSENM, 4.23 miles of SITLA, and 1.84 miles of private lands. 

In addition to construction of the proposed transmission line, the proposed project includes the 

development of a new substation (East Valley) east of Tropic and the expansion of the Hatch Substation. 

Garkane’s existing 69 kV transmission line between the Bryce Canyon Substation and Hatch Mountain 

Switch Station would be unnecessary once the proposed 138 kV transmission line is operational and 

would be removed (approximately 16.23 miles) and the right-of-way rehabilitated. 

The Proposed Action would involve the development of overland access routes in portions of the right-ofway where a suitable route is not available and where development of an access route is permitted by the 

authorizing agency. Access to the Rocky Mountain Power/PacifiCorp 230 kV transmission line in the 

 1 
Cedar Fork Canyon area would need to be improved. In limited access areas, the alignment would be 

accessed via helicopter and/or foot, and there would be no centerline access. 

Implementation of the Proposed Action would also require the amendment of the GSENM Management 

Plan (2000). 

1.1.2.2. Alternative B: Parallel Existing 69 kV Route 

Alternative B would be constructed within a right-of-way crossing public lands administered by the DNF 

and KFO, National Park Service (NPS) Bryce Canyon National Park (BRCA), and SITLA and private 

lands. This route would have no surface impacts on the GSENM. 

The Alternative B 100-foot-wide right-of-way would extend 29.11 miles. This alternative route would 

begin at the proposed East Valley Substation located east of Tropic and extend west through the Tropic 

Substation (the Tropic Substation would be decommissioned) and then cross SR 12 and continue across 

BRCA (deviating slightly from the existing right-of-way for approximately 1.5 miles) to a point near the 

current Bryce Canyon Substation near Bryce Canyon City. For this Alternative, the Bryce Canyon 

Substation would be decommissioned and a new replacement substation would be built at a new location 

approximately 1 mile to the west to allow for needed expansion. The route would extend approximately 

0.5 mile to the north around Bryce Canyon City, west across SR 63 and then parallel Garkane’s existing 

69 kV line right-of-way predominately across private and SITLA lands. The alternative route would 

parallel the existing right-of-way just to the south across the plateau in a northwest direction to Red 

Canyon, where it would generally follow the existing right-of-way through Red Canyon into Long Valley 

where it would cross U.S. 89 and continue to the Hatch Mountain Substation. From there the route would 

follow the existing line south to the Hatch Substation. This route would cross 5.58 miles of DNF, 8.29 

miles of KFO, 2.81 miles of BRCA, 3.63 miles of SITLA, and 8.80 miles of private lands. 

The proposed project includes the development of a new substation (East Valley) east of Tropic and the 

expansion of the Hatch Substation. The Tropic Substation would be removed. One new substation would 

be required in Bryce Valley. The existing Bryce Canyon Substation would be decommissioned, and a new 

replacement substation to the west of Ruby’s Inn would be built. It would be located in one of two new 

locations (Option 1 on DNF land or Option 2 on private land). Once the proposed 138 kV transmission 

line is operational, the entire existing 69 kV line from approximately 1 mile east of the existing Tropic 

Substation to the Hatch Mountain Substation would be removed (approximately 21.57 miles) and the 

right-of-way rehabilitated. 

In addition, under Alternative B approximately 9 miles of distribution lines would need to be constructed 

primarily on private and SITLA lands in 50-foot rights-of-way in conjunction with the new substations. 

A 22.75-mile long two-track access route along the centerline of the proposed right-of-way would provide 

construction access. Centerline access would not be developed within limited access areas, including 

BRCA and portions of Red Canyon. 

Under this alternative the GSENM Management Plan would not be amended. 

1.1.2.3. Alternative C: Cedar Fork Southern Route 

Like Alternative A, Alternative C would be constructed within a right-of-way crossing public lands 

administered by the DNF, KFO, GSENM, SITLA, and private lands. 

The Alternative C 100-foot-wide right-of-way would extend 29.78 miles. This alternative route would 

begin at the proposed East Valley Substation located east of Tropic and extend northeast to adjoin the 

Rocky Mountain Power/PacifiCorp 230 kV transmission line right-of-way. The route would then parallel 

the west side of the Rocky Mountain Power/PacifiCorp transmission line access to the northwest across 

GSENM land and through Cedar Fork Canyon through a planning window for a utility right-of-way 

identified in the 1986 LRMP. The route would diverge from the 230 kV line access and extend west 

 2 
across John’s Valley and follow the south side of State Route (SR) 22 for just under 2 miles and then 

follow the western boundary of BRCA for approximately 1 mile. The route would then extend west to the 

north of Bryce Canyon City and across SR 63. The route would continue west across the southern portion 

of Johnson Bench and to the upper reaches of Right Fork Blue Fly Creek. The route would drop off the 

plateau at this point and traverse an unnamed canyon to Hillsdale Canyon and would extend south of 

private property and continue west, crossing U.S. 89, where it would turn to the southwest for 

approximately 2 miles to the Hatch Substation. This route would cross 13.58 miles of DNF, 3.43 miles of 

KFO, 3.68 miles of GSENM, 2.06 miles of SITLA, and 7.03 miles of private lands. 

In addition to construction of the proposed transmission line, the proposed project includes the 

development of a new substation (East Valley) east of Tropic and the expansion of the Hatch Substation. 

Garkane’s existing 69 kV transmission line between the Bryce Canyon Substation and Hatch Mountain 

Switch Station would be unnecessary once the proposed 138 kV transmission line is operational and 

would be removed (approximately 16.23 miles) and the right-of-way rehabilitated. 

The Proposed Action would involve the development of overland access routes in portions of the right-ofway where a suitable route is not available and where development of an access route is permitted by the 

authorizing agency. Access to the Rocky Mountain Power/PacifiCorp 230 kV transmission line in the 

Cedar Fork Canyon area would need to be improved. In limited access areas, the alignment would be 

accessed via helicopter and/or foot, and there would be no centerline access. 

Alternative C would also require the amendment of the GSENM Management Plan (2000) by changing 

the designation of a 300-foot-wide 3.68-mile stretch (133.81 acres) of the Primitive Zone to Passage Zone 

to accommodate both the proposed right-of-way and the existing 230 kV Rocky Mountain 

Power/PacifiCorp transmission line, as well as provide for future utility needs; and within this area, 

changing the existing Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class designation from Class II to Class III. 

1.1.2.4. Interconnect Options 

The purpose of the interconnect route options is to provide flexibility to decision makers to combine 

segments of the action alternatives to select the most appropriate route among the various alternatives to 

minimize impacts to resource values. 

The North-South Interconnect option would extend 1.84 miles across DNF land west of Johnson Bench 

and could connect segments of Alternatives A and C together. 

The East-West Interconnect option would extend 3.70 miles across DNF land south of Johnson Bench 

and could connect segments of Alternatives A and C together. 

1.1.2.5. Alternative D: No Action 

Though it does not meet the purpose and need statement, the No Action alternative is required under 

Council of Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) [40 CFR 1502.14(d)]. For this analysis, the No Action alternative is considered to be the 

continued operation of the existing 69 kV transmission line and future circumstances that would occur 

without federal approval of Garkane Energy’s proposal to construct and operate a 138 kV transmission 

line from Tropic to Hatch. Specifically, it means that “no action” would be achieved by any one of the 

federal agencies declining to grant Garkane permission to build in the agency’s respective jurisdiction. 

Thus, in the case of DNF, “no action” means denying the transmission line easement; for BLM, “no 

action” means denying approval of the proposed plan amendment and granting of a right-of-way permit 

for BLM lands; and, for BRCA, “no action” means denying a right-of-way permit. Each agency makes its 

decision independent of the others, so it is possible that one or more agencies could grant permission for 

the proposal while another could deny permission. Thus, if any agency denied permission for the 

proposed transmission line, it would not be built. 

 3 
The existing 69 kV transmission line has already passed its life expectancy. To maintain system stability 

and reliability, Garkane would need to overhaul the line within its existing right-of-way and permit 

conditions. Overhaul of the existing 69 kV transmission line would involve replacement of conductor and 

poles. Each pole would be inspected; Garkane estimates as much as 90 percent of the poles would need to 

be replaced. Overhaul would involve disturbance to the centerline access outside limited access areas

using vehicles and equipment. Overhaul would require the use of temporary disturbance areas identified 

in conjunction with Alternative B, as the sites would be needed for pulling and splicing of wire and 

overall project staging. Total cost would range from 1.4 to 2.1 million dollars. 

These activities would increase the amount of trucks, heavy equipment, and crews within the right-of-way 

far above average annual activity levels. 

1.1.3. Impact Inducing Activities on Visual Resources 

Impacts to scenic quality and visual resources within the Garkane Project Area would be caused by one or 

more of the following surface disturbances or alterations to the landscape: 

1. Vegetation removal or clearing within and adjacent to the proposed transmission line rightof-way. 

2. Roads and tracks caused by transmission line construction and removal vehicles and 

equipment. 

3. Construction and removal infrastructure (e.g., outhouses, trailers, equipment staging areas). 

4. The presence of transmission line power poles and powerlines in and along the right-of-way. 

The impacts to scenic quality would be caused by the visual intrusions, and introduced line, form, color, 

and texture contrasts on the existing landscape. 

1.1.4. Visual Resources Issue Statement 

The issues related to visual resources, as documented in the scoping report, include 1) short-term 

reductions in scenic quality from construction-related surface disturbances, vegetation removal and 

clearing along the right-of-way, construction vehicles and construction infrastructure; and 2) the potential 

long-term impacts to scenic quality from the constructed power lines, power poles, and maintenance 

access roads along the expanded right-of-way. These potential short-term and long-term impacts could 

impact scenic views and viewing locations within and of BRCA, DNF, and BLM-administered public 

lands along SR 63, County Road 22, and SR 12 and U.S. 89. These potential impacts could also affect 

scenic views along the SR 12 and U.S. 89 scenic byway travel corridors. There are concerns that these 

visual impacts could exceed existing scenic quality objectives within the DNF, BRCA, and the KFO, and 

those amendments to the Forest Plan and the KFO RMP may be necessary to allow construction of the 

project. 

1.2. DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

The portion of southern Utah that includes the Garkane Project Area is internationally recognized for its 

diverse landscapes and world-class scenic quality. The Park and Monument within which lies the Project 

Area draw visitors from throughout the U.S. and from other countries for sightseeing, wildlife viewing, 

developed and dispersed backcountry recreation, and on-road touring. 

Within the GSENM, elevated, remote, and rugged sedimentary rock layers present a wide variety of 

brilliantly colored formations and shapes that are unobscured by vegetation. The Monument encompasses 

about 1,600 square miles of sedimentary rock, consisting of successively ascending plateaus, terraces, and 

cliffs that are deeply cut by steep-walled canyon. 

 4 
BRCA is internationally known for its unusual scenic beauty, and as discussed below, was established to 

protect the scenic quality of the geologic resources within the canyon. Bryce Canyon geology is a unique 

display of brilliantly colored limestone, clay, and silt sedimentary rocks in an extraordinary diversity of 

shapes. The formations range in color from white to red and create strong contrasts with the lowlands east 

of the Park and the timbered hillsides and plateaus to the west. 

The DNF is similarly endowed with high scenic quality, and is adjacent to or surrounds three National 

Parks and the Monument. Red Canyon is particularly noted for its geologic formations, comparable to 

those found in BRCA. Scenic quality within the Forest is one of the major attractions, and is often the 

reason cited for visiting southern Utah. 

The KFO includes a broad and diverse range of visual settings and visual quality, ranging from basalt 

cliffs, sandstone buttes, mesas, sand dunes, desert plateaus, and canyons to views of the Grand Staircase 

geologic area. The scenic quality of these areas is high, and is appreciated by Utah residents, and by 

national and international visitors to the region. Noted locations with outstanding scenic quality include 

the Pink Cliffs (also found in BRCA), the White Cliffs, the Vermillion Cliffs, and Coral Pink Sand 

Dunes. 

All of these areas include important travel corridors and recreational routes that contain very high scenic 

quality, notably SR 12 Scenic Byway and U.S. 89 Scenic Byway. The area also provides many hundreds 

of miles of mountain bike, foot, equestrian, off-highway vehicle, and jeep trails for experiencing this 

scenic quality in a variety of ways. 

1.2.1. Project Area 

The Project Area is in Garfield County, between the communities of Tropic and Hatch in southern Utah. 

The Project Area includes the following: 

• Proposed Action and alternative transmission line right-of-way. 

• Temporary work areas. 

• Proposed substation sites. 

• Proposed access roads and routes, and access improvements. 

• Existing 69 kV transmission line right-of-way. 

1.2.2. Data Sources 

The Study Area for visual resources includes (1) the proposed transmission line construction and removal 

rights-of-way and (2) the viewshed from paved and/or unpaved travel routes, hiking trails, scenic 

viewpoints and overlooks, and population centers that are near or adjacent to the proposed Project Area. 

The following data sources were referenced when conducting the field survey, visual resource 

characterization, and subsequent analyses: 

• GIS—Field maps, including GIS coverages of visual management within BRCA, DNF, the 

GSENM, and the KFO were prepared and reviewed for use in field surveys and impacts analysis. 

A GIS-based viewshed analysis was conducted to determine the extent of visibility along the 

major thoroughfares in the Project Area. 

• Field survey—A field survey was conducted in July 2008 along and within the Garkane Project 

Area, including trails within the DNF and BRCA. Surveys were also conducted along SR 12 and 

U.S. 89, SR 63, a portion of SR 22, and the existing transmission line route. Analysis observation 

points were selected based on the results of the surveys. 

 5 
• DNF LRMP—The LRMP was considered for its policy and management directions (USFS 

1986). The DNF LRMP Amendment to update the methods used for scenic inventory and 

management was used as the reference for visual analysis within DNF (USFS 2000). 

• GSENM Management Plan—This Plan was considered for its policy and management directions 

(BLM 2000). 

• KFO Final RMP and EIS—The recently approved RMP and EIS was considered for its policy 

and management directions (BLM 2008). 

• NPS—BRCA General Management Plan (NPS 1987) and the NPS Management Policies related 

to scenic quality (NPS 2006b) were reviewed for direction and guidance on resource impacts and 

management direction. Other NPS NEPA documents were considered for additional information 

on impacts thresholds for visual resources (NPS 2003). 

• Garkane—Project-related data and construction details were considered for their potential 

impacts on visual resources. 

1.2.2.1. Assessment Methodology 

Federal land use management agencies have developed a variety of methods for describing landscapes 

and for analyzing the impacts to the scenic quality of a landscape. The common goal of these methods is 

to apply a level of objectivity and consistency to the process and to reduce the subjectivity associated with 

assessing landscape visual quality. One concept commonly used by federal land managers in the BLM, 

NPS, and USFS to assess impacts to scenic quality is contrast analysis. Contrast analysis can be 

summarized as the degree to which a project or activity affects scenic quality or visual resources 

depending on the visual contrasts created or imposed by a project on the existing landscape. The contrasts 

can be measured by comparing the project’s features with the major features in the existing landscape 

(BLM 1986). Each land use agency applies the concept differently (e.g., different terminology, different 

methodologies for assessing impacts); however, the essential contrast analysis process described below is 

common to the USFS, BLM, and NPS. The appropriate terminology and applicable analysis methods 

required by each federal agency with jurisdiction where the Garkane project would lie were used in 

applying the contrast analysis process throughout the Project Area. The process was used to characterize 

scenic quality and assess potential scenic quality impacts from new transmission line construction and 

removal of the existing line. 

Visual contrast analysis compares the existing, characteristic features and contrasts of the landscape to the 

contrasts imposed on that landscape by a proposed project. The landscape features used in the comparison 

are the forms, colors, textures, and lines that comprise the existing and potentially modified landscape. 

Landscape form refers to the unified masses or shapes of the landscape being analyzed, such as existing 

structures, topography, and natural objects (e.g., conical peaks, blocky mesas, rolling grassland). 

Landscape color refers to the colors of structures, vegetation, soil, water, rock, and sky. Landscape 

textures are the variations, patterns, density, and graininess of the landscape surface (e.g., uneven, sparse, 

and seemingly random-ordered shrubs in an arid landscape; even, orderly, and dense rows of trees in an 

orchard), and the dimensions of those surface variations (e.g., tall conifers, short grasses). Linear 

landscape features are the real or imagined paths that the eye follows when perceiving abrupt changes in 

form, color, or texture. These are often noticeable as the edge effect created at the boundary of two 

contrasting areas (e.g., a line of trees along a rocky slope or ledge, the abrupt boundary between forest 

and grassland, a dark ridgeline silhouetted against a bright sky). It should be noted that all of these 

observable landscape features (line, form, color, and texture) can be affected by environmental factors 

that include the viewing distance, the angle of view, atmospheric effects (e.g., haze, fog, dust, smoke), 

lighting conditions, and time of day. 

 6 
In general, the project-related landscape changes that repeat the natural features of the landscape or are 

well integrated with existing landscape features are considered to be in harmony with their surroundings. 

These changes produce low levels of contrast and are considered to have a low impact on existing scenic 

quality or on the aesthetic values of the landscape. Landscape modifications that do not harmonize with 

the surrounding landscape are considered to be in contrast with that landscape. The contrasts appear 

obvious, they stand out, and they can be scenically displeasing to viewers because they are not well 

integrated with the existing natural landscape. 

For the Project Area, aesthetic or visual analysis involves determining the degree of visual change 

between the existing landscape and the landscape that would be produced by the proposed development. 

The degree of change to the landscape is determined for areas of “high scenic value” or “high visual 

sensitivity,” that is, landscapes that are most interesting and appealing. These tend to be the undeveloped, 

natural landscapes with a harmonious blend, abundance, and diversity of lines, forms, colors, and 

textures. In general, the landscapes viewed from the Project Area that meet the above criteria include the 

BRCA overlooks and trails; the DNF trails, scenic roadways, and areas in and adjacent to Red Canyon; 

the SR 12 and U.S. 89 Scenic Byways within the KFO; and the northern portion of the GSENM near the 

town of Tropic. 

1.2.2.2. Contrast Analysis Process 

In general, the process of analysis consists of an evaluator: 

1) Obtaining a description of the proposed project or plan to ascertain the types of activities 

proposed. 

2) Identifying the designated scenic or visual management objectives within the proposed Project 

Area. 

3) Selecting representative viewpoints from which the plan or Project Area's landscapes are 

described and the plan's impacts on visual resources are determined. The criteria for selecting 

representative viewpoints are as follows: 

• Areas with visual sensitivity (as discussed above), which for the Garkane Project Area, would 

include the BRCA scenic overlooks, Park approaches, and hiking trails; areas designated as 

having High or Very High scenic integrity, Red Canyon, and scenic backways within the 

DNF; scenic byways within the KFO; areas with designated high BLM VRM Class 

objectives (typically VRM Class I and Class II) , trails, and scenic byways within the 

GSENM; the SR 12 Scenic Byway (a designated All-American Road), and U.S. 89 (a 

designated Utah State Scenic Byway. 

• The potential number of viewers of the Project Area. The most comprehensive views of the 

Project Area would be from major thoroughfares (along U.S. 89 and SR 12 [both designated 

scenic byways as mentioned above]); scenic backways, popular hiking trails and overlooks, 

and major travel intersections. 

• The length of time the Project Area is in view. Motorists on the major thoroughfares that stop 

at a Byway wayside or pullout, and pass through or close by the Project Area (typically along 

SR 12 and U.S. 89, and SR 63) would have the best views of existing scenic quality and any 

changes to that quality. 

• The angle of observation. More weight is given to those potential viewpoints that show more 

of the Project Area, as more potential impacts would be visible. Views that are elevated, 

present slopes, and aspects that show more of the Project Area are preferred. Conversely, flat 

areas are not considered ideal representative viewpoints because a relatively small portion of 

the Project Area is likely to be visible. 

 7 
Typically, viewpoints used for analysis are selected along well-used roadways and trails, and near 

communities, as these are areas where the greatest number of people will see the project impacts 

for the longest time. Based on the above criteria, a total of 15 representative viewpoints were 

selected within the Project Area. These viewpoints provide representative views of the existing 

landscape and of potential impacts to the landscape from project development, and were 

established along U.S. 89, SR 12, in Red Canyon, along a DNF scenic backway, in BRCA, and 

north of the town of Tropic. 

4) Describing the Project Area landscape from the selected viewpoints, using the landscape elements 

or features of form, line, color, and texture as discussed above. The purpose of characterizing or 

describing the landscape is to establish a baseline of existing scenic values and aesthetic quality. 

Typically, the landscape is digitally photo-documented from the selected viewpoints, the precise 

location of the viewpoint is recorded using GPS, and any relevant field notes are recorded at that 

time. The digital photographs are then used to prepare the landscape description. 

5) Having reviewed the project description, determined the types and intensities of proposed 

development, described the Project Area landscape, and noted the visual management objectives 

for the area, contrast analysis is conducted to determine the potential impacts to the baseline 

scenic quality. Visual simulations of the proposed project development and visual contrasts are 

produced as an aid in visualizing the degree of change that would be imposed on the existing 

landscape. 

6) A contrast analysis between the baseline scenic landscape and proposed project activities and 

elements is conducted using the best professional judgment of visual resource specialists, 

landscape photographs of KOPs, and visual simulations of potential impacts. 

7) Determining if the degree of proposed impacts and project-created visual contrasts meets or 

exceeds visual resource management objectives or scenic integrity objectives of federal agencies 

on that portion of the Project Area that lies within its jurisdiction. The impacts to visual resources 

would be considered important, substantial, an impairment of the resource, or significant if the 

effects of the Proposed Action or the alternatives were to exceed the BLM, USFS, and NPS visual 

resource objectives on lands under their jurisdiction within the Garkane Project Area. 

1.2.2.3. Federal Visual Resource Management Systems 

As mentioned above, the BLM, USFS, and NPS all use the contrast analysis concepts in analyzing 

impacts to visual resources. However, each agency applies its own system to establish visual resource 

management objectives or scenic integrity levels. 

U.S. Forest Service

The USFS uses a Scenery Management System (SMS), which replaces the USFS's older Visual 

Management System (VMS). Similar to the BLM, both of these systems rely on visual inventory and 

scenic quality classes to manage visual resources. Note that during the preparation of the current DNF 

Plan, the older VMS concepts were used, and that the Forest Plan was amended in 2000 to adopt the SMS 

(USFS 2000). The SMS concepts and terms are used in this report. 

The amended DNF Plan applies four of the five SMS Scenic Integrity Objectives to manage visual 

resources (the Very Low Scenic Integrity Objective is not applicable in the Dixie NF). They are described 

below in Table 1.2-1. The Scenic Integrity Objective, as described in the amended Forest Plan, refers to 

the "degree of acceptable change or alteration of the landscape." The SMS also considers Concern Levels, 

which are a categorization of the importance of scenic resources to forest visitors. This concept is 

analogous to the BLM's viewer sensitivity levels (see the analysis Methodology description above). 

Concern Level 1 is applied to road, trails, and travelways where people have a concern for scenic 

resources, where there is a high degree of visitation, and where there is a sense of the area having regional 

 8 
or national significance. Examples of Concern 1 areas include designated scenic byways and areas such as 

Red Canyon (USFS 2000). 

Table 1.2-1. USFS SMS Scenic Integrity Objectives 

LANDSCAPE THEME SCENIC INTEGRITY OBJECTIVE

The landscape is intact, with only minute, if any, deviations. The 

existing character and sense of place should be expressed at the 

highest level. Human influence from historic use or management 

should appear completely natural to the majority of viewers. 

Very High 

The landscape appears unaltered and intact. Deviations may be 

present, but should repeat the line, form, color, and textures of the 

existing landscape character so completely, and at such a scale, 

that they are not evident. 

High 

The landscape appears slightly altered. Noticeable changes should 

remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being 

viewed. 

Moderate 

The landscape appears moderately altered. Deviations and 

changes to the landscape may begin to dominate the landscape 

character. These changes should borrow valued landscape 

attributes such as size, shape, edge effects, patterns of natural 

openings, vegetative type changes, or architectural styles that are 

outside of the altered landscape. 

Low 

Source: USFS 2000 

Bureau of Land Management 

The BLM (which for this project includes the KFO and the GSENM) uses a VRM system to manage 

visual resources on public lands. The primary objective of VRM is to maintain the existing visual quality 

of BLM administered public lands and to protect unique and fragile visual resources. The VRM system 

uses four classes to describe the different degrees of modification allowed to the basic elements of the 

landscape (i.e., line, form, color, and texture; BLM 1980). 

The VRM Classes and their objectives are described in Table 1.2-2. 

Table 1.2-2. VRM Classes and Objectives 

VRM CLASS OBJECTIVE DESCRIPTION

I The objective of this class is to preserve the existing character of the 

landscape. This class provides for natural ecological changes; however, it 

does not preclude very limited management activity. The level of change to 

the characteristic landscape should be very low and should not attract 

attention. 

II The objective of this class is to retain the existing character of the landscape. 

The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low. 

Management activities may be seen but should not attract the attention of the 

casual observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, 

color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of the 

characteristic landscape. 

III The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing character of the 

landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be 

moderate. Management activities may attract attention but should not 

 9 
VRM CLASS OBJECTIVE DESCRIPTION

dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic 

elements found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic 

landscape. 

IV The objective of this class is to provide for management activities that require 

major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of 

change to the characteristic landscape can be high. These management 

activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. 

However, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these 

activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the 

basic elements of the landscape (BLM 1986). 

National Park Service

The NPS does not apply a classification system to managing scenic quality within National Parks. 

However, it should be noted that Bryce Canyon was designated as a National Park to preserve its 

extraordinary and unique rock formations. The variety and type of rock colors and forms within the 

canyon are at least comparable to those found in Red Canyon (DNF, Powell Ranger District), which has 

been designated by the USFS for management with High visual quality objectives. As stipulated in the 

Park’s mission statement, preservation, conservation, and protection of the Park’s spectacular geologic 

formations is a primary and overarching objective in park planning and management (NPS 2006a). As 

mandated under the Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1; NPS 1916), all visual resources and scenic quality within 

National Parks are to be conserved and managed in an unimpaired condition for the enjoyment of future 

generations. Potential impairment of the resource is determined using context, intensity, duration, and 

timing to gauge the level of impacts of proposed projects within the National Park System. 

1.2.2.4. Visual Resources Field Survey 

Prior to conducting the field survey, a GIS viewshed analysis was conducted to ascertain the areal extent 

of Project Area visibility from the major thoroughfares within the Garkane Project Area: U.S. 89, SR 12, 

SR 63, and SR 22. The result of the viewshed analysis showed that substantial segments of the Proposed 

Action and alternatives transmission lines would be visible from these major roadways. The conclusion 

derived from the viewshed analysis results was that, with a few exceptions, most of the Project Area 

needed to be considered when trying to establish representative visual analysis viewpoints. It should be 

noted that the visibility information derived from the viewshed analysis was not used to modify the 

proposed and alternate transmission line alignments into areas of lower visibility. 

Representative viewpoints for analyzing impacts to scenic quality within the Project Area were selected 

through consultation with USFS, NPS, and BLM resource specialists to determine what areas they 

considered to possess visual quality and visual sensitivity along the proposed transmission line rights-ofway. The SWCA visual resource specialist visited each of these proposed sites, accompanied by either a 

USFS or NPS agency specialist (depending on the jurisdiction within which the viewpoint lay) for most 

locations, to photographically record, establish GPS locations, take compass bearings, and take field 

notes. For some proposed viewpoints, the locations were suggested by the agency specialist and then 

visited alone at a later date by the SWCA resource specialist (e.g., Golden Wall Trail, SR 89 Scenic 

Byway). Several viewpoints were independently selected by the SWCA resource specialists, based on the 

proposed route alignments and visibility from the major travel routes within the Project Area. 

A total of 15 viewpoints were selected from the viewpoint data collected during the field survey, based on 

the criteria described under the Contrast Analysis Process above and agency input (Table 1.2-3). The 

locations for all of the selected viewpoints were mapped and are shown in Figures 1.2-1 and 1.2-2. 

 10 
Table 1.2-3. Visual Analysis Viewpoints 

VIEWPOINT NUMBER VIEWPOINT

1 U.S. 89 

2 U.S. 89/SR 12 junction 

3 SR 12 Red Canyon eastbound 

4 SR 12 Red Canyon westbound 

5 Golden Wall Trail 

6 USFS boundary/SR 12 

7 USFS Scenic Backway 

8 Bryce Airport Wayside 

9 SR 12/SR 63 junction 

10 Park boundary–SR 12 

11 SR 12 wayside 

12 Fairyland Overlook 

13 Mossy Cave Trail 

14 Tropic/SR 12 

15 GSENM primitive road 

1.2.3. Resource Management Direction 

1.2.3.1. Dixie National Forest 

The 1986 LRMP states that one of DNF’s recreation management direction and goals (which includes 

management of scenic resources) will “provide for a pleasing visual landscape.” The objective of this goal 

is to “rehabilitate or mitigate visually unacceptable conditions or facilities.” The LRMP also stipulates 

that the USFS VMS will be applied to the DNF, with the general direction of rehabilitating all projects 

and areas that do not meet visual quality objectives. This would be accomplished by 1) planning and 

locating vegetation manipulation which retains landscape color and texture, 2) blending soil disturbances 

into the natural topography, 3) re-vegetation, and 4) choosing facility designs, colors, locations, and 

orientations that meet the adopted visual management objectives for an area. 

In 2000, the DNF amended the LRMP by implementing the updated and improved SMS to replace the 

older VMS method of scenic management. Implementation of SMS was mandated by the USFS, and the 

newer system is being applied within the context of the DNF’s current visual management goals, 

objectives, and management directions. 

1.2.3.2. Bureau of Land Management 

Kanab Field Office

The KFO RMP (2008) management action for visual resources states “To the extent practicable, bring 

existing visual contrasts into VRM class conformance as the opportunity arises.” The current RMP goals 

and objectives for visual resource management are to 1) maintain or improve, where possible, the quality 

of visual resources, and 2) plan, modify, or implement management activities in a manner that will 

minimize impacts to visual resources, and 3) apply special emphasis in environmental assessment and 

project design to projects in the seen area (foreground) in order to meet VRM objectives (BLM 2008). 

 11 
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument

The GSENM Management Plan states that “All proposed actions must consider the importance of visual 

values and must minimize the impacts the project may have on these values. While performing an 

environmental analysis for projects, the visual resource contrast rating system will be utilized as a guide 

to analyze potential visual impacts of the proposal. Projects will be designed to mitigate impacts and 

conform to the assigned VRM Class objective...” 

1.2.3.3. Bryce Canyon National Park 

The BRCA General Management Plan states that the primary objective in Park management is to preserve 

the natural values within the Park for visitor use and enjoyment. To do this, visibility would be 

maintained to ensure that the "primary attraction" of the Park ("the multitude of high panoramic vista 

points") be preserved through maintenance of air quality and control of energy-related projects. General 

management direction for visual resources is directed by the NPS Policy that requires a determination that 

a proposed action would not lead to impairment of the resource. "Impairment" is defined as an impact that 

would harm the integrity of the Park's visual resource values, including opportunities for enjoying those 

resources and values, as determined by the severity, duration, and timing of the impacts to those values 

and resources. 

1.2.4. Project Area Visual Character 

A mentioned above, a GIS viewshed analysis was conducted to determine the visibility of the proposed 

Project Area, as seen from major thoroughfares. Based on the results of that GIS analysis, discussions 

with agency resource specialists, and a field survey, the following viewpoints were selected as 

representative of the potential impacts from the proposed transmission line alignments within the Project 

Area. These points have been mapped and are shown in Figures 1.2-1 and 1.2-2. Representative 

photographs are also shown in the Appendix A to give the reader a sense of the landscape being 

described and analyzed. 

1.2.4.1. Viewpoint 1 (U.S. 89 Scenic Byway) 

This viewpoint along U.S. 89 (Figure 1.2-1) was selected because it is representative of scenic quality 

along U.S. 89 (a State Scenic Byway) north of Hatch and because it is located approximately 0.25 mile 

north of the highway crossing of Segment A-3 of the Proposed Action or Segment C-3 of the Cedar Fork 

Southern Route Alternative. Views to the east and west in the foreground and middleground are 

designated VRM Class III. Background and far middleground views lie within the DNF and have a 

Moderate scenic integrity. From this perspective, the proposed transmission line and impacts to the 

viewscape would likely be observed for a relatively long time by southbound motorists. 

Foreground views to the east and south are of a flat to gently rolling topography covered by sagebrush, 

forbs, shrubs, and grasses, and interspersed with scattered, taller juniper and deciduous trees. Tan to buffcolored soil lies exposed along the Sevier River bank just to the east of the roadway. Landscape colors 

also include dark green trees, gray-green sagebrush, light green grasses and forbs, gray asphalt roadway, 

and gray-green water within the river. The river and river bank create a distinct linear feature within the 

landscape. Foreground views to the west are of tree-, shrub-, and grass-covered low, steep slopes and 

cliffs that lie adjacent to the roadway. Vegetation colors and soil exposure are similar to the south and 

east foreground views. Middleground views to the east and south are of a flat topography, with a fairly 

uniform covering of light green vegetation, occasionally broken by exposed tan-colored soil. Low hills 

covered with dense stands of conifers lie at the far end of the middleground. Middleground views to the 

west are obscured by the steep slopes and cliffs in the foreground. 

 12 
Figure 1.2-1 Viewpoints used for Visual Analysis in Western Portion of Project Area 

 13 
Background views to the south and east are dominated by the rugged, steep slopes and escarpments of red 

rock and dark green conifer that comprise the Sunset Cliffs. The background view to the west is obscured 

by the foreground steep slopes and cliffs along the roadway. 

1.2.4.2. Viewpoint 2 (Junction of U.S. 89 and SR 12) 

This viewpoint lies at the intersection of U.S. 89 and SR 12 (Figure 1.2-1), where visitors to Red Canyon, 

BRCA, and the GSENM would turn onto the SR 12 Scenic Byway and leave the U.S. 89 State Scenic 

Byway. This location was chosen because it would provide the first views of the Parallel Line Route to 

travelers at the junction of two scenic byways and because the views of the line would be in view for a 

relatively long time while motorists proceed through the intersection. 

Foreground views on privately owned lands to the east and south are of a relatively flat to hilly 

topography, covered with light and dark green shrubs, grasses, and forbs. Clumps of conifers lie along the 

steeper slopes. Surface disturbances from road construction, road signs, light and sign posts, commercial 

and residential buildings, and transmission lines are visible within and intermingled with the natural 

landscape. Foreground views to the west are of a steep sagebrush-covered slope at the intersection. 

Landscape colors include exposed, buff-colored soil and gray rock, and light green sagebrush. Road 

shoulder surface disturbance, sign posts, light poles, and eroded soil are also visible within the natural 

landscape. 

Managed as VRM Class III, the middleground views that are not obscured by the hilly foreground show a 

fairly indistinct, flat, uniformly light green landscape to the east and south. Middleground views to the 

west are blocked by the steep slopes in the foreground. 

Background views to the east (managed for High Scenic Integrity Objectives within the DNF) and south 

(managed as VRM Class III) show a landscape very similar to that described in Viewpoint 1: red rock 

cliffs and conifer-covered steep lower slopes of the Sunset Cliffs to the south, and the western entrance to 

Red Canyon. Background colors include red rock and green conifers. The background views to the west 

are blocked by the steep slopes in the foreground. 

1.2.4.3. Viewpoint 3 (SR 12 Red Canyon Eastbound) 

Located near the western boundary of the Powell Ranger District of the DNF, this viewpoint (Figure 1.2-

1) was selected because it provides motorists traveling along SR 12 with views of the existing and 

proposed Alternative B and right-of-way clearing. The existing line and line clearing would be on the 

forested slopes leading into Red Canyon. The viewpoint viewscape and area of concern lie to the south of 

SR 12. The immediate foreground viewscape is designated as VRM Class III under the KFO RMP. 

Middleground and background views lie within the Powell Ranger District and are designated as High for 

scenic integrity. 

Foreground views are of a topographically flat, gently rising slope. The existing SR 12 roadway, road 

shoulder, road right-of-way fence, and sagebrush-covered flats are the predominant features in this view. 

Colors range from the gray roadway, tan grasses, and dark green shrubs along the right-of-way to light 

green sagebrush in the distance. Landscape linear features include the road edge and right-of-way fence. 

Middleground views are of the steep, forested slopes that rise abruptly from the light green sagebrush 

flats in the foreground. The conifer-covered slopes are uniformly dark green, and the transmission line 

clearing is clearly visible within the surrounding dense conifer vegetation. 

Background views are of the sparsely vegetated, rugged, redrock cliffs and steep slopes at the western 

entrance to Red Canyon. 

 14 
1.2.4.4. Viewpoint 4 (Red Canyon Westbound) 

This viewpoint is located near the west end of the SR 12 Scenic Byway (Figure 1.2-1) as it approaches 

the SR 12-U.S. 89 junction. The viewscape ranges from the southeast to the west. Within the exception of 

privately owned lands along the highway corridor, the landscape is designated as VRM Class III within 

the KFO. The viewpoint was selected because of its elevation above the landscape to the west that 

provides an unobscured view of the existing transmission line and the proposed Parallel Line Route as it 

proceeds west out of the Red Canyon and Sunset Cliffs area, crossing U.S. 89, to the existing Hatch 

Mountain Substation. 

The foreground view to the southeast is similar to that described in Viewpoint 3 (Approach to Red 

Canyon): a topographically flat to gently rising slope in the near foreground whose dominant features are 

dense, uniformly distributed, light green colored sagebrush. Looking to the southeast, the far 

middleground comprises a heavily forested west-facing slope that rises abruptly from the relatively flat 

near-foreground slope. An obvious edge effect is visible along the boundary between trees and sagebrush; 

a strong color difference is similarly visible between the dark green conifers and light green sagebrush. 

The existing transmission line clearing is partially and indistinctly visible on the wooded slope. The 

foreground view to the south is of a relatively featureless flat, sagebrush-covered landscape that gently 

slopes to the west. Westward foreground views are a continuation of the south view. 

The middleground and background view to the southeast is a continuation of the steep-sloped, wooded 

landscape described above. The middleground view to the south is the same as the foreground view. 

Middleground views to the west include the indistinctly visible roadcuts and the disturbed area along U.S. 

89, with weak, but visible, color differences between light green vegetation and tan exposed rock; the 

gently rising slopes on the opposite side of the U.S. 89 roadway present an indistinct color difference 

between light green vegetation on the lower slopes with dense, dark green conifer on the upper slopes and 

ridge tops. The existing transmission line clearing on the distant, wooded slopes to the west is obviously 

visible from this perspective. 

Background views to the southeast are obscured by the foreground and middleground slopes. Background 

views to the south are simple: low, long, ridges with indistinct color, shading, and forms except for a 

fairly distinct, undulating ridgeline. Background views and landscapes to the west are similarly indistinct 

and generally featureless, except for a long, slightly irregular ridgeline along the horizon. 

1.2.4.5. Viewpoint 5 (Golden Wall Trail) 

The Golden Wall trail viewpoint is located south of SR 12 in Red Canyon and is part of the canyon’s trail 

system. This location was chosen because the trail lies within the existing and proposed Parallel Line 

Route Alternative, because of the trail’s popularity and use by Red Canyon campers and day hikers, and 

because of the high scenic quality within and surrounding this locale. The viewpoint location lies at an 

intersection of the trail and the transmission line right-of-way (Figure 1.2-1), at a point where the 

transmission lines pass directly overhead and stretch cross-canyon. The USFS has designated and 

manages this locale for High scenic integrity. 

Looking west, the foreground view is very simple: a smooth, moderately steep, rising slope composed of 

rocky reddish-tan soil with very sparse vegetation. Widely spaced dark green, individual pinyon trees and 

shrubs and a random scattering of yellow and gray, low-growing forbs are visible among the reddish soil. 

The view is back up the trail and ends at a ridgeline dominated by the existing transmission line’s power 

pole and lines. The pole creates very strong line, color, and form contrasts with the surrounding landscape 

from this perspective as the light brown poles are highly visible against a dark blue sky. Middleground 

and background views are obscured by the proximity of the rising slope and ridgeline. 

 15 
The opposite view, looking downslope along the trail, is highly variable. The foreground view looking 

southeast down the trail is similar to that just described: sparse clumps of pinyon-juniper and a scattering 

of shrubs and low-growing forbs on rocky, reddish soil. The existing transmission line is entirely visible 

as it extends down slope and across the canyon to the opposite ridgeline. The north-facing slopes on the 

south side of the trail are covered with dense, uniformly scattered stands of dark green pinyon-juniper and 

gray tree snags. Views to the north are of the Golden Wall rock formation with its yellow, gray, and red 

vertical cliffs; horizontal, banded rock strata; and smooth talus slopes interspersed with clumps of dark 

green conifers. Middleground views are of the slopes and ridgeline on the opposite side of the canyon. 

The topography is variable, consisting of a steep, highly eroded canyon slope composed of the same 

reddish, coarse, rocky soil. Dark green conifers are unevenly scattered across the red-rock slopes and red 

soil at the base of the slopes. 

Background views are almost entirely obscured by the proximity of the Golden Wall formation and the 

high slopes and ridgeline on the opposite side of the canyon. Background views that are visible are of an 

indistinct, horizontal ridgeline and rocky tan-green slopes beneath it. 

1.2.4.6. Viewpoint 6 (USFS Boundary along SR 12) 

This USFS viewpoint (Figure 1.2-1) is located near the eastern boundary of the DNF along SR 12. It was 

chosen because the USFS has designated this area for High scenic integrity management in the 

foreground along the highway corridor. The Proposed Action route (in Segment A-2) would cross SR 12 

just to the west of this viewpoint, and motorists traveling both east and west along the highway would 

have this transmission line clearly in view for a relatively long time (the roadway is straight and there are 

few view-obscuring features). The view is to the west, along the SR 12 Scenic Byway. 

Foreground views are of a relatively flat topography. Vegetation to the north of the roadway is 

predominantly grass within the road right-of-way and low-growing light green sagebrush and regularly 

spaced dark green juniper and pinyon beyond. Buff-colored soil is exposed along a roadcut, and the 

roadway is a strong linear landscape feature. Views to the west and south are of light green grassland 

occasionally interrupted by solitary conifers. 

Middleground views to the north (also designated for High scenic integrity management) are obscured by 

the tall pinyon-juniper stand. To the south and west (designated for Moderate scenic integrity 

management), the landscape is dominated by a low, heavily wooded steep-sloped ridge. Dark green trees 

and exposed reddish soil are the predominant colors. Redrock and patchy, green vegetation on steep 

slopes are visible to the west, near the entrance to Red Canyon. 

Background views to the north are obscured by the foreground pinyon-juniper stand. To the west, the 

background view is obscured by the middleground ridge and the red hills near Red Canyon. To the south, 

the background comprises long, low, wooded slopes similar to that in the middleground. 

1.2.4.7. Viewpoint 7 (USFS Scenic Backway) 

The viewpoint (Figure 1.2-2) lies between the DNF boundary to the north and the proposed Cedar Fork 

Southern Route Alternative (in Segment C-2) to the south, along a USFS Scenic Backway (East Fork of 

the Sevier River Road, Forest Road 30087). It was chosen because of its proximity to the point where the 

proposed Southern Route transmission line would cross the backway and because the backway crossing 

area has been designated for High scenic integrity management in the foreground. 

 16 
Figure 1.2-2. Viewpoints used for Visual Analysis in Eastern Portion of Project Area 

 17 
The viewpoint lies just north of the existing (Wilson Peak) line and proposed Cedar Fork Southern Route 

(Segment C-1) crossing, and foreground views show the existing single-pole line stretched along an eastwest orientation and crossing the roadway. A USFS guard station (with access roads, main station, and 

out buildings) lies at the base of a gentle, conifer-, shrub-, and grass-covered slope. To the south, the 

landscape is flat and covered with dense stands of dark green conifers. To the west, the landscape 

becomes gently undulating, and a vegetation transition from light green grass and exposed buff-colored 

soil to random scattering and then dense stands of conifer is obvious. 

Middleground and background views to the east and south are obscured by the tall, dense conifer stands. 

To the west, the middleground is dominated by the steep-sided and heavily wooded Wilson Peak and by a 

long, low, dark green, wooded ridge. Exposed red-rock outcrops surrounded by dark green vegetation are 

visible in the far middleground. 

Background views to the west are of a gently north-sloping range that borders the Red Canyon area. 

Vertical, red-rock cliffs and patchy, dark green vegetation growing on the top and along the lower slopes 

of the range are the dominant landscape features. 

1.2.4.8. Viewpoint 8 (Bryce Airport Wayside) 

This viewpoint is located along SR 12 at an interpretive wayside, southwest of the Bryce Canyon Airport 

(Figure 1.2-2). This point was chosen because it provides unobstructed views of the Proposed Action 

Route to the northeast at a location along the SR 12 Scenic Byway where motorists are encouraged to stop 

to view the landscape and become informed about the historic Bryce Canyon Airport (visible to the north) 

and the surrounding Paunsaugunt Plateau. The viewscape is to the north, ranging from the northeast to the 

northwest. 

The foreground views (predominantly under private ownership except for small parcels designated as 

VRM Class IV within the KFO) are of topographically flat landscape, uniformly covered with low-lying 

shrubs and grasses. Scattered, unevenly distributed, low-lying dark green conifers are visible in the far 

foreground. The landscape texture is smooth. Visible foreground structures include the highway right-ofway fence and interpretive signs in the immediate foreground; electrical distribution transmission lines, 

occasional private houses, sheds, and outbuildings, unpaved roads, and airport structures are visible in the 

far foreground. 

The near middleground to the northwest is managed for Moderate scenic integrity and is dominated by an 

intermittent line of long, low, low-sloped hills (the Pine Hills). The hills are uniformly, but sparsely, 

vegetated with tall, dark green conifers. The exposed rock and soil on the hill slopes are brown, buff, and 

tan. The landscape texture is medium. The far middleground to the north (within private and State 

ownership) is defined by a rugged, steep-sloped, moderately high and undulating ridge. The ridge slopes 

are uniformly and densely covered with dark green vegetation. Exposed rock and soil on the slopes 

appear dark brown. To the northeast, beyond the foreground airport structures, the far middleground is 

bounded by a long, steep-sloped, heavily vegetated ridge. Exposed cliff faces and rocky outcrops visible 

along the ridge slopes are tan to reddish-pink. Textures appear coarse. 

Background views are of a series of long, high, very rugged ranges. The ridgelines are undulating to 

horizontal, and the numerous high, exposed cliff faces show numerous highly visible, horizontal rock 

strata with colors that range from reddish-pink, light orange, and tan to brown. Dense, patchy dark green 

vegetation covers the ridge tops and steep slopes. Landscape textures appear coarse. 

1.2.4.9. Viewpoint 9 (Junction of SR 12 and SR 63) 

This viewpoint was chosen because it lies at the road turnoff and access to BRCA (Figure 1.2-2). At this 

point, all eastbound motorists on SR 12 would have clear, long views of the proposed Cedar Fork 

Southern Route Alternative (in Segment C-1) as it runs north-south along the Park boundary. 

 18 
Looking east along SR 12, the foreground view (on privately owned lands) is dominated by the roadway 

intersection and road signs; tall, vertical light poles; billboards; and commercial buildings. The 

foreground landscape is flat to undulating, light green grassland. A line of dark green conifers is visible, 

growing along the top of a long, low hill in the far foreground. 

The middleground view is to the northeast and within the Park boundary and consists of a long, low hill 

of exposed redrock outcrops within variably dense, dark green wooded slopes. SR 22 (Antimony Road) is 

also visible in the middleground as it proceeds northeast. 

Background views are also to the northeast, and comprise a continuous line of horizontal to undulating, 

high mountain ranges that ends abruptly in a steep cliff. Landscape colors are visible as horizontal bands 

of red and tan rock and as dark green vegetation growing along the ridge slopes. 

1.2.4.10. Viewpoint 10 (Park Boundary along SR 12) 

This viewpoint is located along SR 12 at the western Park boundary (Figure 1.2-2). The viewpoint was 

chosen because it provides a motorist’s SR 12 westbound and eastbound view of the proposed Cedar Fork 

Southern Route Alternative (in Segment C-1) as it crosses the highway along a north-south axis at the 

Park boundary. 

The foreground eastward view (all of which lies within the Park boundary) is similar to the foreground 

view described under Viewpoint 7 but closer and more detailed: flat to undulating, light green/brown 

grassland that rises to a long, low ridge in the far foreground. A line of dark green conifers is visible, 

growing along the top of the ridge in the far foreground. Exposed, tan to buff-colored rock and soil is 

visible to the north at the toe of the rising slope. Right-of-way fences bound SR 12 and converge at a 

point in the far foreground where the highway begins its descent into Tropic Canyon. Landscape textures 

appear smooth in grass-covered areas and moderately rough where conifers are visible. The Park 

boundary to the south is defined by a low wire fence that tends to blend in with the surrounding 

vegetation and landscape. To the north, the boundary fence appears more distinct but gradually blends in 

with the surrounding landscape in the distant middleground. The near foreground is dominated by wide 

gravel-covered road pullouts that lie on both sides of the highway. The foreground westward view, most 

of which is on privately owned lands with the immediate foreground on Park land, is of a topographically 

flat landscape, uniformly covered in low, green, tan, and brown grasses and shrubs. Road and Park signs, 

highway right-of-way and Park fences, and the gravel pullout are visible. Landscape textures appear 

smooth. Middleground and background views to the east, north, and south are generally obscured by the 

foreground ridge at the head of Tropic Canyon, with the exception of an indistinct view of distant, 

background ranges that is visible through the ridgeline road cut into Tropic Canyon. Middleground views 

to the west are similar to those described for the foreground: a relatively bland and homogenous, flat 

topography dominated by uniformly distributed low grasses and shrubs, interrupted by an occasional 

conifer. A long, low, flat ridge is visible in the far middleground to the northwest, whose dominant 

landscape characteristics are a continuous face of exposed, reddish-tan rock outlined by a line of dark 

green vegetation on the ridge top and at the base of the rock face. 

Background views to the west consist of undulating ridgelines underlain by dark green vegetation and of 

high, exposed rocky outcrops and escarpments of reddish-tan-buff rock and soil. 

1.2.4.11. Viewpoint 11 (SR 12 Wayside) 

The SR 12 Wayside viewpoint (Figure 1.2-2) is located at a scenic pullout along SR 12, near the midpoint of Tropic Canyon. This viewpoint was selected because it provides unobstructed views within the 

Park of the existing 69 kV transmission line and right-of-way between lower Tropic Canyon and the rim 

of the Pink Cliffs (at the eastern edge of the Paunsaugunt Plateau). The viewscape is generally to the 

 19 
south, ranging from southeast at the lower end of the canyon to the southwest where the Pink Cliffs define 

the edge of the plateau. 

Foreground views (all of which lie within the Park) are of a highly variable landscape and topography that 

ranges from vertical, rugged cliffs and rock outcrops down-canyon and along the Pink Cliffs escarpments 

to gently undulating, smooth hills and ridges within the central portion of the canyon. Dark green, tall 

conifers and brown snags are densely and regularly spaced throughout the foreground except on the cliffs 

and on the tops of ridges and hills, where vegetation gradually becomes more diffuse and unevenly 

sparse. Low-growing shrubs appear gray and light green. Soil and rock are visible though the vegetation 

covering, and colors range from brown, tan, and buff to reddish-pink. 

Middleground views are similar to the foreground (also within the Park boundary) but with additional 

views of tan and reddish-pink cliffs on the far side of the canyon and distant views of the Pink Cliffs as 

they extend southwest into the Park interior. The existing transmission line and right-of-way are 

topographically hidden from the casual view in the middleground except for a single power pole that is 

clearly visible on the southwest horizon at the edge of the Pink Cliffs escarpment, on the plateau. 

Background views are obscured by the viewpoint’s lower elevation in relation to the surrounding cliffs 

and canyon walls in the middle distance, with the exception of the view to the southeast through Tropic 

Canyon. This abbreviated background view shows an indistinct, receding series of flat to undulating 

ridgelines within the GSENM. Background colors include lines and patches of dark green vegetation 

covering the ridge slopes interspersed with patches of tan-buff exposed rock and soil. 

1.2.4.12. Viewpoint 12 (Fairyland Overlook) 

The Fairyland Overlook viewpoint (Figure 1.2-2) was chosen because of the major BRCA overlooks 

(including Sunset, Sunrise, and Bryce Point overlooks) and because it is the closest to the existing 

transmission line that passes through the Park and to the proposed Parallel Line Route Alternative. The 

viewpoint lies at the edge of the Pink Cliffs, and the view extends from north to east along the existing 

transmission line route. 

Foreground views lie within the Park and are of deeply incised, eroded, steep slopes and cliffs, mounds, 

towers and columns, walls, and standing stones. The landscape topography and form features are 

extremely variable and diverse, ranging from vertical cliffs and towers to flat or gently sloping canyon 

bottoms. Foreground colors are also extremely variable and diverse, ranging from red to yellow/tan to 

gray to white/cream within exposed rock strata overlain with patches, dense clusters, and lines of dark 

green conifers. Landscape line and texture contrasts are extreme, caused by tall, isolated and clusters of 

vertical columns, a multitude of short and long, horizontal ridgelines, and bands of horizontal rock strata. 

A network of hiking trails is visible along the less steep slopes. All of these foreground natural landscape 

features create an extremely variable and visually complex landscape, producing a scenic quality of the 

highest degree because of the high degree of diversity of landscape features. 

Middleground views, also within the Park, are of a relatively indistinct series of roughly parallel, low, 

rugged, ranges receding into the background. Highly visible horizontal, linear ridgelines predominate. 

Exposed redrock outcrops and dense stands of vegetation are visible on the ridge tops and slopes. 

Background views are similar to the middleground: parallel series of horizontal, linear ranges of brightly 

colored rock and dark green vegetation. 

1.2.4.13. Viewpoint 13 (Mossy Cave Trail) 

The Mossy Cave Trail viewpoint (Figure 1.2-2) is located near the cave and trail end, at a point where the 

existing transmission line passes directly overhead. This viewpoint was chosen because of the proximity 

 20 
of the existing line and proposed Parallel Line Route Alternative to a popular, highly accessible trail 

within BRCA. 

Located within a narrow, high canyon, there are no middleground or background views. The foreground 

view is of exposed red, dark brown, yellow, and buff-colored soil, rock outcrops, boulders, and smooth 

talus slopes on steeply sloped canyon walls. Vegetation is predominantly composed of tall dark green 

conifers and a scattering of light green shrubs clinging to the talus slopes and relatively stable areas 

around rock outcrops. The tall conifers are rough textured. A single power pole is visible at the top of the 

canyon wall but is partially obscured by the canyon walls from this perspective. Transmission lines run 

overhead but are also not obviously visible to the casual observer. 

1.2.4.14. Viewpoint 14 (North of Tropic along SR 12) 

The North of Tropic viewpoint (Figure 1.2-2) was selected because it includes views of the existing and 

proposed Parallel Line Route at a point where the line crosses the SR 12 Scenic Byway, because the line 

would be visible to all motorists traveling westward during the day toward BRCA, because of its 

proximity to Tropic and the impacts of the proposed line on visual quality as seen from town, and because 

the line lies within the foreground of public lands managed under the jurisdiction of the GSENM. From 

this viewpoint’s perspective, the viewscape ranges from south along SR 12 into Tropic Valley, east into 

East Valley, and then northeast and north along SR 12 into the GSENM. 

The foreground view to the south and southeast is privately owned and consists of a flat to rolling 

landscape interspersed with isolated, flat-topped, low hills; power distribution lines and poles stretched 

across and along SR 12; and residential dwellings and access roads. Vegetation colors range from dark 

green trees, light-colored shrubs, and buff and tan grasses. Distant foreground views include patterned, 

irrigated fields surrounded by buff and light green scattered vegetation. To the east, irrigated fields are 

predominant in the near foreground, with landscape features similar to those described above. The far 

foreground is dominated by gray, tan, light brown, and buff-colored steep slopes and escarpments of The 

Backbone. The existing transmission line power poles are visible from this foreground view; the line 

appears to lie directly below The Backbone slopes and creates a weak to moderately strong vertical line 

contrast with the surrounding landscape. The near foreground view to the north, along SR 12 as it turns 

toward the entrance to Tropic Canyon, is on privately owned lands and is a continuation of the east view, 

with green, irrigated fields surrounded by tan and buff-colored vegetation in a topographically flat 

landscape. The distant foreground view lies within the GSENM (designated as VRM Class II) and is of 

the steep lower slopes along the toe of the above-mentioned escarpments. From this perspective, the 

existing transmission line appears closer, is more clearly in view, and appears to converge with and cross 

the SR 12 roadway several hundred yards to the north. 

Middleground and background views on privately owned lands to the south are obscured by a low hill 

that crosses the roadway. To the southeast and east, the landscape is dominated by a series of long, low, 

flat-topped hills or mesas. Exposed, relatively unvegetated, gray and tan rock and soil are visible on the 

hill or mesa slopes. Dark green vegetation grows on top of these features, but the viewing distance tends 

to diminish these landscape features. To the north, the middleground is dominated by the rugged, 

uniformly vegetated slopes and cliffs that are a continuation of The Backbone feature. 

Background views to the southeast and east are simple: a low, undulating range and ridgeline is the only 

background landscape feature, and its distance from the viewpoint causes its features to appear indistinct. 

Background views to the north are obscured by the high slopes and cliffs in the middleground. 

1.2.4.15. Viewpoint 15 (GSENM Primitive Road) 

The Primitive Road viewpoint (Figure 1.2-2) is located within the boundary of the GSENM (and 

designated as VRM Class II and Class III) at a point where an existing power transmission line and line 

 21 
maintenance road proceed northwest into the northernmost portion of the GSENM. This location was 

chosen because of its proximity to East Valley, SR 12, and the town of Tropic; it was also chosen because 

it lies within the GSENM and because the Proposed Action route or Cedar Fork Southern route would lie 

adjacent to this existing transmission line. The viewscape is to the northwest, looking into the GSENM. 

Immediate foreground views lie within designated VRM Class III areas, with the far foreground to the 

north within a designated VRM Class II area. Foreground views are of a topographically flat landscape 

that rises abruptly in the far foreground into a long, low, gently sloping ridge. The abrupt rise of the low 

ridge creates a strong linear edge effect at the base of the ridge, where it meets the flat landscape. The 

existing dark brown, vertical power poles, horizontal transmission lines, and access road are clearly 

visible and also create landscape line and edge effects with the surrounding and background landscape as 

they recede into and converge in the far foreground–near middleground. With the exception of surface 

disturbances within the access road, vegetation is uniformly distributed within the foreground: dense, 

low-lying, brown, reddish, and green shrubs and grasses cover the flats; uniform, but more sparsely 

distributed, vegetation covers the ridge slopes. Tan, exposed soil is clearly visible on the slopes and on 

the access road. The foreground texture is smooth. 

Middleground views lie within designated VRM Class II and Class III areas (views to the northwest are 

generally within VRM Class III; views to the north lie within VRM Class II). The views are dominated by 

rugged, steep-sloping to vertical cliff faces that extend across most of the middleground landscape. These 

features are reddish-pink, buff to tan, with cliff tops and talus slopes irregularly topped with patches and 

lines of dark green vegetation. Background views are obscured by the high cliff faces in the far 

middleground. 

1.2.4.16. Agency Visual Resource Management Areas 

The Proposed Action and alternatives cross both USFS SMS Scenic Integrity Objectives and BLM VRM 

classes. Segments of the proposed rights-of-way that intersect the agency visual resource management 

areas are summarized in Table 1.2-4 and shown in Figures 1.2-1 and 1.2-2. 

Table 1.2-4. Agency Visual Resource Management Areas by Alternative 

ALTERNATIVE 

SEGMENT

DNF–SMS 

(MILES) 

GSENM–VRM 

(MILES) 

KFO–VRM 

(MILES) 

HIGH MOD LOW II III II III IV 

A-1 2.98 8.25 0.00 0.81 2.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 

A-2 0.35 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

A-3 2.80 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.15 0.16 

B 4.01 1.32 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.71 4.49 3.09 

C-1 1.64 2.93 1.20 0.81 2.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 

C-2 0.22 2.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

C-3 2.47 1.09 1.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.27 0.16 

East-West 0.10 1.74 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

North-South 0.00 1.27 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 

 22 
1.3. IMPACT ANALYSIS 

1.3.1. Direct and Indirect Effects 

As discussed, a GIS-based viewshed analysis of Project Area visibility from the major Project Area 

thoroughfares (SR 12 and U.S. 89, SR 63, and Country Road 22) was conducted to determine the extent 

of potential impacts to visual resources. In general, the conclusion derived from the analysis was that, 

with the exception of several areas, all of the Project Area would potentially be visible to motorists 

traveling along these routes. The areas of exception (where the proposed transmission lines would not 

likely be visible) are: 1) segments of the Proposed Action's Segment A-1 in East Valley, and adjacent 

areas in the GSENM and DNF ; 2) most of the Interconnects routes in the Proposed Action's Segment A-2 

and Cedar Fork Southern Route’s Segment C-2; 3) the southern and central portions of the Pink Cliffs in 

BRCA; and 4) the southern-most portions of the Proposed Action (in Segment A-3) and the Cedar Fork 

Southern Route Alternative (in Segment C-3). These areas were not surveyed for potential viewpoint and 

visual analysis locations. 

1.3.1.1. Indicators and Methods of Analysis 

The following table shows the levels of impacts (and their definitions) used to assess the degree of 

impacts to visual resources within the Project Area. As discussed above, the contrast analysis method is 

applied from the perspective of chosen viewpoints, using the terms and concepts, and visual resource 

objectives applicable to each federal agency. The range of effects shown below in Table 1.3-1 is a more 

generalized, simplified range, derived from those agency classes, for use in preparing the analysis. 

Table 1.3-1. Magnitude and Degrees of Effects to Visual Resources 

ATTRIBUTE OF EFFECT DESCRIPTION RELATIVE TO VISUAL RESOURCES

Magnitude No Impact Would not produce obvious changes in landscape contrasts. 

Minor Project-related visual impacts that would retain the existing 

character of the landscape, create a low level of change, and 

while seen, would not attract the attention of the casual viewer. 

Moderate Visual impacts that would partially retain the existing character of 

the landscape, and while attracting the attention of the casual 

viewer, would not dominate the view. 

Major Project-related impacts that would create a high degree of change 

within the existing landscape, would dominate the view, and be a 

focus of viewer attention. 

Duration Short-term Less than 5 years 

Long-term Greater than 5 years 

As discussed above in the description of the contrast analysis method (Section 1.2.1.2), visual impacts are 

the increases in line, form, color, and texture contrasts imposed on the existing landscape. These contrasts 

can result from (but are not limited to) surface disturbances (e.g., from road and structure construction) 

loss of vegetation, visual intrusions (e.g., vehicles, equipment in the viewing area), and loss of longdistance viewing caused by vehicle exhaust emissions and fugitive dust. Low impacts would be those 

contrasts that tend to blend in with the existing landscape; high impacts would be highly visible and not 

blend in with the existing landscape. Unnatural, man-made contrasts are generally considered to have a 

degrading effect on scenic quality because they introduce unharmonious landscape features into the 

natural landscape. The magnitude of those introduced features is classified according to the degree to 

which they attract the attention of the casual viewer and the length of time that they would be visible to 

 23 
viewers. The following visual analysis uses these degrees of introduced project-related visual contrasts to 

determine whether the magnitude of contrast meets or exceeds USFS, BLM, and NPS visual resource 

management goals. 

Short-term impacts to scenic quality would include those project-related activities and surface 

disturbances that introduce contrasts on the existing landscape that are visible to the casual viewer for less 

than 5 years; long-term impacts would be those introduced contrasts that persist for longer than 5 years. 

The indictors for impacts to visual resources within the Project Area are: 

• Consistency with and conformity to NPS and USFS scenic quality management or integrity 

objectives. 

• Consistency with and conformity to designated BLM visual resource management class 

objectives. 

Through the NEPA process, threshold values have been developed to assist the evaluator in determining if 

a project’s activities would constitute an impairment of visual resources. The threshold values used for the 

Garkane project within BRCA are described below. Note that a Major determination would constitute an 

impairment of the resource. 

Table 1.3-2. NPS Visual Resource Impacts Threshold Values 

Threshold 

values No Impact Minor Moderate Major 

No short-term or longterm changes to the 

views of the right-ofway would occur. 

Some transient 

(temporary) visual 

changes may occur, 

caused by temporary 

alterations in vehicular 

traffic patterns or by 

the movement of 

equipment. 

Changes to visual 

resources would be 

short-term and nonsubstantive only, and 

would be limited to 

the immediate rightof-way. Only limited 

mitigation or 

interpretive 

measures would be 

required. 

Short-term changes 

to visual resources 

may occur both 

within and beyond 

the right-of-way. 

Long-term changes 

would be limited to 

the right-of-way. 

Both short-term 

and long-term 

changes may occur 

both within and 

beyond the right-ofway, and some of 

these changes may 

be substantive 

throughout. 

Source: NPS 2003.

1.3.1.2. Direct and Indirect Effects by Alternative 

Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives 

Vegetation clearing for the right-of-way would create a linear element in the landscape. This would be 

more pronounced in forested areas of the Project Area where vegetation above 4 feet would be removed. 

However, mitigation would ensure that vegetation along the edge of the right-of-way and extending 

outside of the proposed right-of-way would be selectively cleared so as to create irregular edges and open 

spaces that would mimic the natural vegetative patterns in the immediate area. The result would be to 

minimize the obvious linear edge often associated with utility rights-of-way. 

Longer-term disturbance that would be visible to viewers would include the two-track centerline route 

that would be used for ongoing operation and maintenance activities, and the denuded ground 

immediately around the base of each pole. Visual impacts would also vary by season and time of day as 

light conditions change, foliage changes color and falls, and snow creates a light, homogenous backdrop 

that may contrast more with project elements. 

 24 
Specific impacts associated with each of the viewpoints for all alternatives are discussed below. 

Construction

All alternatives would involve the use of construction equipment, helicopters, and work crews which 

would cause temporary visual intrusions in the landscape to the casual viewer. During construction these 

impacts would be more intense, as there would likely be more equipment visible for longer durations. 

Short-term, unavoidable adverse impacts to scenic quality would also be created by fugitive dust raised 

during line construction. 

Each alternative would also have short-term visual impacts from construction-related disturbance around 

pole structures that would effectively remove ground cover and expose soils. This would create temporary 

visual contrasts with surrounding landscape colors and textures until the areas are revegetated. 

Operations and Maintenance

During operations and maintenance activities, the presence of equipment and personnel would be less 

noticeable than during construction as they would be present for a short time and in smaller numbers at a 

given location. 

Alternative A: Proposed Action 

Simulations for selected viewpoints are included in Appendix A. 

Impacts as a Result of Amending the GSENM Management Plan

Alternative A would require the amendment of the GSENM Management Plan (2000) by designating a 

100-foot-wide Passage Zone through a designated Primitive Zone, and changing the existing VRM 

Management Class designation from Class II to Class III within the Passage Zone. The proposed 138 kV 

line would be consistent with the VRM Management Class III objectives. 

Construction

Viewpoint 1 (U.S. 89 Scenic Byway). From this viewpoint, Segment A-3 of the transmission line would be 

clearly in view as it approaches U.S. 89 from the east and comes across the foothills and plain, and then 

crosses the roadway. Short-term, visually intrusive color, line, and form contrasts would be created by the 

presence of construction vehicles and equipment, and from exposed soil surface disturbances in the 

middle and foreground around poles and along the centerline access route. Long-term color and line 

contrast-related visual impacts would be produced by the 100-foot long-term right-of-way: the edge effect 

created by removal of vegetation over 4 feet tall within the right-of-way would be mitigated by clearing 

additional vegetation outside of the right-of way to create irregular edges and adjacent open spaces to 

mimic existing vegetative patterns. Right-of-way clearing would create minor to moderate visual impacts, 

particularly noticeable from the U.S. 89 byway on vegetation-cleared west-facing foreground and 

middleground slopes where color contrasts would be created between brightly colored soil and green 

vegetation. 

Short-term, adverse impacts to scenic quality would also be created by fugitive dust (PM10, PM2.5) raised 

during line construction in surface-disturbed areas of the right-of-way. While the impacts would be shortterm, long-distance viewing of scenery and landscapes would likely be diminished by obscuring fugitive 

dust. It should be noted that under all of the Action Alternatives, surface disturbances during transmission 

line construction and existing line removal would likely create fugitive dust impacts, as described above. 

The transmission line structures would create moderate form and texture contrasts with the surrounding 

landscape by superimposing tall power poles on a relatively flat and smooth-textured landscape. 

Transmission line structures would have strong form contrasts when viewed to the west of the roadway 

because of the power poles’ and transmission lines’ silhouettes against the background sky. Under the 

KFO RMP, the viewshed is designated as VRM Class III, which allows a moderate impact to scenic 

quality. 

 25 
The impacts described above would likely not meet the VRM Class III objectives near the roadway 

because as the line approaches the scenic byway and attracts viewer attention, the visual disturbances 

would dominate the view of the casual observer (i.e., southbound motorists) approaching this viewpoint, 

and would likely exceed the objectives of VRM Class III. A Plan amendment may be required. As 

described in the Affected Environment, there is very little surface disturbance or land development from 

this south-viewing perspective, so the impact of the transmission line on the landscape would not be 

reduced by existing structures or surface disturbances. It is recommended that a visual simulation be 

produced for this viewpoint to show the degree of visual impacts. 

The construction of this line would indirectly cause the existing transmission line (approximately 4 miles 

to the north) to be removed, and the right-of-way reclaimed. This would have minor adverse impacts on 

scenic quality from this viewpoint because of the long viewing distance that would only be observable for 

northbound motorists. 

Viewpoint 2 (SR 12-U.S. 89 Junction). This area is designated as VRM Class III under the KFO RMP. 

The Proposed Action route would have minor impacts on visual resources from this perspective because 

of the long viewing distance. The line (in Segment A-3) would be constructed approximately 4 miles to 

the south, which would reduce any visual contrasts created by surface disturbances and transmission line 

structures in the short-term and long-term. As described in the Affected Environment, the area in the 

foreground and middleground of the intersection has been disturbed by road and building construction, 

and by road signs and light posts that reduce scenic quality. Therefore, long-distance (approximately 4 

miles) transmission line construction disturbances would likely not attract the casual viewer attention of 

motorists entering the intersection from the north or passing through the intersection. Therefore, this level 

of impact would meet the KFO RMP designated VRM Class III objectives. 

Under this alternative, the existing transmission line south of SR 12 would be removed, and the right-ofway reclaimed. The impacts to scenic quality would be beneficial, but minor, in the long-term as the 

existing line is not highly visible from this viewpoint and the existing surface disturbances and 

development at the junction would continue to detract from scenic quality. 

Viewpoint 3 (Red Canyon Eastbound). Alternative A would have minor impacts on scenic quality from 

this perspective as Segment A-3 would be constructed at least 3.5 miles to the south of this viewpoint. 

The viewing distance would likely reduce any visual contrasts to the casual viewer (who would likely be 

looking to the east toward the highly scenic Red Canyon geologic formations). This level of impact would 

meet the VRM Class III objectives in the KFO RMP. 

There would be minor, long-term beneficial impacts to scenic quality from removal of the existing 

transmission line south of SR 12 and reclamation of the right-of-way. There would be short-term, minor, 

adverse impacts from visually intrusive line removal equipment and vehicles. 

Viewpoint 4 (Red Canyon Westbound). Segment A-3 would have minor impacts on scenic quality from 

this perspective because, as discussed under Viewpoint 3, the proposed transmission line would be 

constructed at least 3.5 miles to the south. The viewing distance between the line and SR 12 would reduce 

any visual contrasts to a degree not obvious to the casual viewer. This level of impact would meet the 

VRM Class III and IV objectives in the KFO RMP. 

There would be minor, beneficial impacts from the removal of the existing 69 kV transmission line south 

of SR 12 and reclamation of the existing right-of-way on forested slopes west of U.S. 89. In the longterm, the existing line and color contrasts within the forest-cleared areas of the existing right-of-way 

would diminish, and the viewscape would be beneficially restored to a more natural and undisturbed 

setting. 

Viewpoint 5 (Golden Wall Trail). Under Alternative A, the transmission line would be constructed 

between approximately 2.5 to 4 miles to the south of the Red Canyon area (in Segments A-2), so there 

would be no impacts in the short term and long term on existing scenic quality along the trail. 

 26 
The long-term, indirect impacts of construction along this route would be beneficial to scenic quality 

because the existing 69 kV transmission line along the Golden Wall trail would be removed, the right-ofway would be reclaimed, and all existing surface-disturbance visual impacts from the existing line would 

gradually diminish. 

Viewpoint 6 (USFS Boundary along SR 12). The viewscape from this observation point along SR 12 lies 

within an area designated as High for foreground scenic integrity management and is also classified as a 

Concern Level 1 Travelway (an area where people have a high concern for scenic resources). There are 

few disturbances and structures within view on this topographically flat landscape, except for the roadway 

and highway right-of-way fencing. Construction of Alternative A (in Segments A-1 and A-2) to the north 

of the roadway and then across SR 12 near this viewpoint would have adverse short-term and long-term 

form, texture, and line contrasts on the existing landscape. The large, tall vertical and horizontal members 

of the transmission line support structures and transmission lines would create strong and adverse 

contrasts in texture and form with the predominantly flat grassland in the foreground and middleground; 

the exposed soil and darker colors of the transmission line structures would create strong color contrasts 

within an essentially light green landscape. Non-specular conductor would be used within the High SIO 

area on DNF land. This would reduce visual impact of the transmission line, especially when seen from a 

distance. As motorists approach the transmission line right-of-way from either direction, the structures 

would visually dominate the view because (1) the line would lie directly in front of them as it crosses the 

roadway, and (2) there are no areas of high scenic quality in the foreground or middleground to distract or 

capture the attention of the viewer. Also, under this alignment the transmission line would extend 

perpendicular to and on either side of the roadway for approximately 0.25 mile to the north and over 0.5 

mile south of the road (all within the High scenic integrity area). Views to the north of SR 12 would be 

visually dominant as the transmission line crosses wooded areas and then spans the road. Views to the 

south would be partially obscured by topography. As described above, the USFS SMS levels of visual 

resource management under the current High integrity level requires that "the landscape appear natural to 

the majority of viewers, the landscape character appears intact, and while deviations may be present, they 

are not evident." Therefore, it is likely that the construction of Alternative A in this area would exceed the 

designated High scenic integrity management level in the short-term and long-term. A Plan amendment 

may be required. A visual simulation is recommended for this viewpoint to graphically show the potential 

contrasts created by line construction. 

A beneficial impact on scenic quality would be that the existing transmission line would be removed after 

the Proposed Action line was constructed and operational. However, the beneficial impacts would be 

minor because the existing line is not immediately or obviously visible to the casual viewer nor does it 

capture the attention of the viewer traveling in either direction along SR 12. 

Viewpoint 7 (USFS Scenic Backway [East Fork of the Sevier River Road]). Under Alternative A, there 

would be no impacts to scenic quality from the perspective of the backway because the transmission line 

would be constructed along a right-of-way to the north and west of the byway (in Segment A-1); the 

proposed line would not likely be visible to travelers on the backway. 

Removal of the existing transmission line (between Hatch Mountain and Bryce Canyon) and reclamation 

of the right-of-way would have long-term, minor, and beneficial impacts on scenic quality because the 

line and form contrasts created by this line would be removed from the viewscape. There would be minor 

impacts created during removal and reclamation of the existing line from visually intrusive line-removal 

vehicles and equipment and during reclamation and re-vegetation activities, but these would be shortterm. 

Viewpoint 8 (Bryce Airport Wayside). Alternative A would be constructed to the north of UT 12, across a 

relatively flat landscape administered to the northeast by the State of Utah and to the north and northwest 

by the DNF. The USFS has designated the area for a Moderate level of scenic management. From the 

perspective of motorists stopping at the wayside to view the interpretive signs and study the landscape, 

the impacts of the Proposed Action Route would be visible in the distance as it crosses Johns Valley in 

 27 
the middleground from approximately the boundary of the Escalante Ranger District (to the eastnortheast) to an approximate point where the line enters the Powell Ranger District and becomes 

topographically hidden behind the Pine Hills (to the northwest). The line would create short-term line, 

form, and color contrasts within the existing landscape because of the unobstructed views of line 

construction, right-of-way surface disturbances, vegetation clearing in west-sloping forested areas 

adjacent to the Escalante Ranger District, transmission line structures, vehicles, and transmission lines 

that would attract the attention of the casual viewer. 

In the long-term, the power poles and transmission lines would have minor line, form, and color impacts 

on scenic quality, as the transmission line would attract the attention of the wayside viewer because of the 

length of time that the structures would be in view and because of the length of the transmission line that 

would be visible to wayside viewers studying the landscape. 

To ensure aviation safety, the FAA may require orange balls be mounted on the transmission lines and 

high-intensity lights mounted on the power poles for that segment of the line that lies within the airport’s 

flight approach. The impact on daytime viewing of the landscape from the wayside would be moderately 

adverse because the flashing strobe lights on the power poles would likely attract viewer attention. There 

would likely be minor impacts to night sky viewing to the north because of the increased potential for 

skyglow and light pollution from the upward-directed, unshielded power pole lights; however, it should 

be noted that this viewpoint is not likely to be visited by casual viewers at night, that the existing airport 

parking and structure lighting already impacts night sky viewing, and that the viewpoint is approximately 

1 mile from the well-lit SR 12-SR 63 junction and the Bryce Canyon City development. 

The transmission line would likely meet the designated Moderate scenic management objectives for the 

area to the north and northwest of the viewpoint because the transmission line would remain subordinate 

to the existing landscape even though it would attract casual viewer attention. 

Viewpoint 9 (Junction of SR 12/SR 63). Under Alternative A, the transmission line (in Segment A-1) 

would be constructed no less than 1.5 miles to the north of the intersection. There would be minor, 

adverse, long-term impacts to scenic quality, as the transmission line would be visible, but the viewing 

distance to the transmission line from SR 12 would reduce all visual contrasts and impacts to meet the 

USFS-designated Moderate scenic management objectives to the north and northwest of the viewpoint. 

Under this scenic integrity objective level, the impacts of transmission line construction may be visible, 

but be subordinate to the landscape character. To ensure aviation safety, the FAA may require orange 

balls be mounted on the transmission lines and high-intensity lights mounted on the power poles for that 

segment of the line that lies within the airport’s flight approach. From this perspective, the proposed 

transmission line would potentially be visible in the middle ground to the casual viewer and present minor 

line contrasts with the existing landscape, but would not attract the attention of the casual viewer because 

of the long viewing distance from the roadway. If strobe lights are required on the spans just north of the 

airport, then these would cause minor adverse impacts at night, when taken in conjunction with all of the 

other visual intrusions of human-made structures, transmission lines, etc. in the foreground at the 

intersection. 

An impact would be the removal of the existing 69 kV transmission line. This would have minor, 

beneficial, long-term impacts on the existing scenic quality because the transmission line is not presently 

a substantial visual intrusion within the existing viewscape, and because the loss of this feature would not 

likely reduce the degree of existing surface disturbances and land development in this area.

Viewpoint 10 (Park Boundary along SR 12). Similar to the discussion under Viewpoint 6, Alternative A 

would follow an alignment no less than approximately 2.25 miles to the north of this viewpoint (in 

Segment A-1), with minor, long-term impacts on scenic quality because of the viewing distance and 

obscuring topography. From this perspective, the transmission line would likely be visible to viewers 

traveling west out of Tropic Canyon and approaching the SR 12-SR 63 junction, but the viewing distance 

would reduce visual impacts to a low level. Similarly, for motorists traveling east along SR 12, the visual 

 28 
impacts would be minor, because of the viewing distance from the roadway to the proposed line and 

because of topographic shielding. 

The construction of this transmission line would indirectly cause the removal of the existing transmission 

line that lies south of this viewpoint near Bryce Canyon City, but as discussed above under Viewpoint 6, 

the beneficial long-term impacts to scenic quality caused by removing the line would be minor because of 

the existing level of other surface disturbances and visually intrusive structures present in and around the 

intersection.

Viewpoint 11 (SR 12 Wayside). From the wayside viewpoint, Alternative A (in Segment A-1) would have 

no impact on scenic quality within the Park because the proposed transmission line would follow a route 

well beyond the Park boundary to the northwest, through East Valley and portions of the GSENM and the 

Escalante Ranger District. Under this alternative, the existing 69 kV line would remain operational within 

the existing right-of-way and continue to have a very low (minor) impact on visual quality. 

Viewpoint 12 (Fairyland Overlook). Alternative A would lie no less than 4.5 miles to the north of the 

Park boundary. There would be no impacts to scenic quality from this viewpoint, as the viewing distance 

to the proposed transmission line would obscure from casual view all contrasts with the surrounding 

landscape. 

Under this alternative, the existing 69 kV line would not be removed from the right-of-way that lies 

within the Park boundary. However, there would be no impacts on scenic quality from maintaining this 

line because of the long viewing distance to that line and because, from this perspective, most of the 

existing line is and would remain topographically hidden behind foreground and middleground ridges and 

canyons. Therefore, it is unlikely that scenic quality within the Park from this viewpoint would be 

degraded and/or impaired, either in the short-term or long-term.

Viewpoint 13 (Mossy Cave Trail). There would be no impacts on scenic quality along the Mossy Cave 

Trail from Alternative A (in Segment A-1). All short-term and long-term landscape contrasts created by 

line construction would not be visible within this area because the high, steep canyon walls would block 

all contrasts from view. 

Under this alternative, the existing 69 kV transmission line in this area would not be removed. However, 

the existing line is not obviously visible to the casual trail hiker, so there would be no impacts on visual 

quality from either the existing line or Alternative A. 

Viewpoint 14 (North of Tropic along SR 12). From this viewpoint, Alternative A (in Segment A-1) would 

have minor, adverse, long-term impacts on existing scenic quality. The proposed transmission line would 

be constructed in an area topographically hidden from viewers traveling north and south along SR 12 

between Tropic Canyon and the town of Tropic. Prominent landscape features in this viewshed are the 

Backbone ridge and cliffs, and adjacent cliffs and canyons. The proposed line would lie behind these tall, 

view-obscuring formations in the middleground. Those portions of the Segment A-1 that lie south of 

these cliffs and ranges, within the GSENM, in East Valley, would potentially be visible from SR 12. 

However, the line is no less than approximately 3.5 miles from the roadway, which would reduce 

potential line and form contrasts to a minor degree because the viewing distance would substantially 

diminish these contrasts for the casual viewer traveling along SR 12. 

Under this alternative, the existing 69 kV transmission line that presently crosses East Valley, converges 

on and crosses SR 12, and proceeds northwest into BRCA would remain operational. The line presently 

creates a moderately strong, adverse visual impact on scenic quality because it becomes increasingly 

visible and is directly in view of northbound motorists as it converges on and then crosses SR 12. 

Viewpoint 15 (GSENM Primitive Road). Under this alternative, Alternative A would be constructed 

adjacent to the existing transmission line and primitive access road. The impacts on scenic quality would 

be adverse, but minor, because scenic quality from this perspective is already adversely impacted by the 

existing transmission line and an additional, adjacent transmission line would not substantially change the 

view. The GSENM Management Plan requires the use of non-specular conductor and this would reduce 

 29 
visibility of transmission line within this area of the Monument. Also, surface disturbances would be 

minimized by creating spur roads to the new line from the existing primitive access road, and it is 

unlikely that right-of-way vegetation clearing would be conducted within the viewscape because the lowlying shrubs and grasses in this locale would not constitute a danger tree or hazard tree clearing zone. 

This level of impact would not likely meet VRM Class II objectives to retain the existing character of the 

landscape and not attract the attention of the casual observer. However, Alternative A would likely meet 

VRM Class III objectives as it would not dominate the view of the casual observer, given the existence of 

the Rocky Mountain Power/PacifiCorp 230 kV transmission line right-of-way that it would follow. 

Alternative B: Parallel Line Route Alternative 

Simulations for selected viewpoints are included in Appendix A. 

Construction

Viewpoint 1 (U.S. 89 Scenic Byway). From this viewpoint, Alternative B would have minor impacts on 

visual resources because of the long viewing distance. The transmission line may attract the attention of 

the casual viewer because of its additional height and size (when compared to the existing line), but it 

would not dominate the view because the proposed line would be constructed approximately 4 miles to 

the north. This viewing distance would reduce the construction and structural visual contrasts to a degree 

that would likely meet the designated VRM Class III objectives in the KFO RMP. 

The removal of the 69 kV line would have negligible impacts on scenic quality when seen from this 

viewpoint, as Alternative B would follow the existing right-of-way, with the same impacts to scenic 

quality as discussed above under Alternative A. 

Viewpoint 2 (SR 12/U.S. 89 Junction). Under this alternative, the transmission line would follow the 

existing transmission line route right-of-way that lies to the south of SR 12. From this perspective, there 

would be increased moderately adverse line and color contrasts in the short-term from increased surface 

disturbance activities that would expose more soil, remove more vegetation, and create stronger line 

contrasts from more visible soil-vegetation edge effects from an expanded right-of-way. Short-term form 

contrasts would be created by visually intrusive construction vehicles and equipment within a naturally 

flat and uniformly vegetated landscape. Long-term form and texture contrasts would be created by the 

erection of the transmission line towers and lines that would project above the generally flat landscape. 

However, the visual impacts would be consistent with the viewscape in and around the junction because 

of the existing surface disturbances and landscape development to the south and east. 

The long-term impacts would be moderately adverse, but would likely meet existing and proposed VRM 

class objectives because of the presence of existing road signs, tall light posts, and commercial 

development that lie between the viewer traveling south or east and the proposed transmission line. 

Viewpoint 3 (Red Canyon Eastbound). The Alternative B route would be constructed along the existing 

69 kV transmission line route, within the area designated as VRM Class III. From this perspective, the 

right-of-way clearing would be visible on lands within the KFO on the west-facing slopes at the entrance 

to Red Canyon, but would likely not be visible within the Powell Ranger District because of topographic 

shielding behind the foreground ridges. Construction of this line would adversely widen and intensify the 

color and line contrasts that already exist along the transmission line clearing in the wooded slopes 

approaching Red Canyon to a moderate degree. This would be somewhat mitigated by the proposed 

vegetation removal along the edge of the right-of-way to create ragged, more natural-appearing patterns. 

Stronger line, form, and texture contrasts in the long-term would be created on the sagebrush flats below 

the slopes from the increased height and larger structural supports than are presently visible. Short-term, 

adverse color and form contrasts would be created by construction equipment, vehicles, and structures in 

the right-of-way during removal of the existing line. Short-term, adverse, disturbance-related impacts 

would also be caused by construction of the new line adjacent to the existing transmission line, effectively 

doubling the right-of-way disturbance width that would be visible from this viewpoint. 

 30 
In the long term, the visual disturbances would be as described above because the existing line would be 

removed and the existing right-of-way reclaimed; however, the removal of dangerous and hazardous trees 

within the new, expanded right-of-way would adversely increase the visual contrasts and impacts to 

scenic quality to a moderate degree from this viewpoint. The increased long-term visual impacts from 

construction of the larger Alternative B line (and reclamation of the existing line) would likely meet VRM 

Class III objectives because (1) the line would be located approximately 0.5 mile south of SR 12 so there 

would be a loss of visual contrasts caused by the viewing distance, and (2) the increased visual contrasts 

would likely attract casual viewer attention but not dominate the view because of the more visually 

interesting and scenically attractive views at the entrance to Red Canyon directly in front of viewers 

traveling east along SR 12. So, the long-term impacts of replacing the existing line with the Alternative B 

line would likely meet VRM Class III objectives when viewed from this viewpoint along SR 12.

Viewpoint 4 (Red Canyon Westbound). Alternative B would be constructed along the existing line rightof-way. From this viewpoint perspective, looking south and west into the KFO-designated VRM Class III 

areas, the impacts on scenic quality would be moderately adverse. The larger, taller line support structures 

and expanded right-of-way would heighten the existing line and color contrasts in the forested slope 

clearing; the proposed line construction would also heighten line and form contrasts along the right-ofway parallel to SR 12. There would be heightened line and color contrasts along the cleared areas to the 

west of U.S. 89 in the middleground from the expanded right-of-way where vegetation clearing would be 

required to remove hazardous and dangerous trees within the right-of-way. However, the increased visual 

contrasts would meet VRM class objectives because (1) the area has existing surface disturbances and 

visual intrusions from an existing transmission line, and (2) the viewing distances to the existing and 

proposed line would tend to reduce visual contrasts to a degree that, while potentially attracting the 

attention of the casual viewer, would not dominate the view.

Viewpoint 5 (Golden Wall Trail). Alternative B would be constructed along the existing 69 kV line route, 

which passes directly overhead and along stretches of the trail. Short-term impacts from construction of 

the line would create increased color and form contrasts from exposed soil, disturbed vegetation, and 

power pole construction equipment during erection of the new line and removal of the older, existing line. 

The proposed line would be constructed adjacent to the existing line, doubling the right-of-way width and 

creating color and form contrasts that would be clearly visible in the short-term until the existing line was 

removed and the right-of-way was successfully reclaimed. The trail lies within an area designated for 

High SIO; however, the long-term impacts to existing scenic quality from construction of larger, taller 

transmission line structures within the canyon, a maintained 100-foot-wide right-of-way across the 

canyon floor and slopes, and visual intrusions from periodic maintenance and/or repair would likely 

exceed the designated High objectives for this area. The larger structure and greater right-of-way surface 

disturbance would introduce long-term texture impacts from increased power pole height; greater form 

contrasts would be produced by larger support structures; and color and line contrasts would be 

intensified by a wider, obviously maintained right-of-way. Non-specular conductor would be used in this 

area and would help reduce visual impacts in the middleground and background. These introduced visual 

contrasts would likely exceed High scenic integrity management objectives that allow deviations from the 

natural landscape, but also require that these deviations should not be evident. 

Viewpoint 6 (USFS Boundary along SR 12). Construction of Alternative B along the existing transmission 

line right-of-way would have minor to moderate, adverse impacts on scenic quality from this viewpoint 

perspective. The proposed transmission line would run generally parallel to the roadway, approximately 

0.50 to 0.75 mile to the south of SR 12 in an area designated as Moderate SIO. The amended LRMP 

designates the SR 12 Travelway as Concern Level 1 (with High SIO) up to 0.5 mile from the highway, 

meaning that a small portion of the line would traverse the High SIO Travelway Zone and require the use 

of non-specular conductor. At that distance, this would reduce the visual impact of the transmission line. 

There would be short-term, minor form contrasts from visually intrusive construction equipment and 

vehicles in the foreground; minor to moderate form, line, and texture contrasts would be created by the 

larger transmission line structures in the long-term. However, the densely wooded, conifer slopes in the 

 31 
middleground would tend to absorb these contrasts and reduce the impacts, causing the structures and 

lines to remain visually subordinate to the existing landscape and meet the Moderate scenic integrity level 

of the area. It should also be noted that as this proposed transmission line route approaches the area of 

High scenic integrity to the west of the viewpoint, the line becomes hidden behind conifers and then 

topographically hidden behind a ridge, thus having no impacts in this area. 

Viewpoint 7 (USFS Scenic Backway [East Fork of the Sevier River Road]). The Alternative B route 

would be constructed along the existing transmission line route, south of SR 12. The proposed line would 

be constructed along and adjacent to the existing right-of-way, with moderate short- and long-term 

impacts to scenic quality from this perspective because the viewing distance to this larger transmission 

line (a distance of approximately 1 mile) would likely reduce the line and form contrasts to a level that 

could attract casual viewer attention, but not dominate the view. 

Viewpoint 8 (Bryce Airport Wayside). The Alternative B route would be constructed to the south of SR 

12, adjacent to the existing transmission line, and beyond the wayside viewscape. It should be noted that 

the wayside information/interpretive signs direct the viewer’s attention toward the historic Bryce Airport 

and geologic features to the north. There would be no impacts to viewpoint scenic quality because (1) the 

line would not be constructed within the viewpoint’s area of scenic interest and focus, and (2) the 

proposed line would be constructed approximately 1 mile to the south of the viewpoint and along an 

existing transmission line route. 

Viewpoint 9 (Junction of SR 12/SR 63). The Alternative B route would follow an existing transmission 

line right-of-way that lies to the southeast of the junction. This line would have no impacts on scenic 

quality at this viewpoint because the short-term and long-term line and form contrasts created by 

construction would not be obviously visible to the casual viewer: the viewscape to the south of the 

junction is of low scenic quality caused by visually intrusive commercial development near Ruby’s Inn. 

Viewpoint 10 (Park Boundary along SR 12). The construction of Alternative B along the existing 

transmission line right-of-way would have no impacts on scenic quality from this viewpoint as the line 

would not be visible. 

Viewpoint 11 (SR 12 Wayside). Alternative B would be constructed adjacent to the existing 69 kV line 

through Tropic Canyon. The short-term impacts to scenic quality would be adverse and moderate because 

helicopter activity and line structures and lines would be visible to and attract the attention of wayside 

viewers during the period of line construction. The long-term impacts of line construction on scenic 

quality would also be moderately adverse because the larger power poles would be more clearly visible 

(and visually intrusive) as the line rises out of the canyon to the west and onto the Pink Cliffs rim and the 

Paunsaugunt Plateau, which would likely attract the attention of the casual viewer studying the landscape 

at this wayside. Right-of-way clearing for the proposed line would likely have adverse, but minor, 

impacts on scenic quality because of the opportunities for topographically hiding the zone of vegetation 

clearing within the canyon. 

An indirect impact of this alternative would be the removal of the existing line and reclamation of the 

existing right-of-way. There would be short-term, minor, adverse impacts from visually intrusive line 

removal equipment and vehicles within the wayside viewscape. There would be minor, long-term 

beneficial impacts to scenic quality from removal of the existing transmission line and the visible power 

pole at the canyon rim, and reclamation of the right-of-way. 

Viewpoint 12 (Fairyland Overlook). Under this alternative, Alternative B would follow the existing 

transmission line route. There would be minor impacts to scenic quality from construction of the 

proposed transmission line because (1) the viewing distance to the proposed line is approximately 1.75 

miles to the north, so form and line contrasts would be substantially reduced, with the dark, wooden 

support structures tending to blend in with the middleground conifers, and (2) from this perspective, most 

of the proposed line would be topographically hidden behind foreground and middleground ridges and 

canyons. Therefore, it is unlikely that the surface disturbances and visual intrusions caused by 

construction would attract the attention of the unaided casual viewer. Overlook visitors using binoculars 

 32 
would likely be able to see segments of the proposed line; however, it is unlikely that scenic quality 

within the Park from this viewpoint would be noticeably degraded and impaired for the casual viewer and 

Park visitor because topographic shielding, the viewing distance, and the angle of view would diminish 

transmission line contrasts with the existing landscape. 

Viewpoint 13 (Mossy Cave Trail). The impacts of constructing the larger, taller Alternative B support 

structures adjacent to the existing 69 kV transmission line right-of-way would have no impacts in the 

long-term because the proposed right-of-way and transmission line would lie to the south of the trail, and 

be topographically hidden from the view of trail hikers and other Park visitors. Short-term adverse 

impacts would likely be created by visually intrusive helicopter activity and line-stretching activities near 

and overhead of the Mossy Cave hiking destination and along the lower portions of the trail where the 

power pole and lines are also visible. There would also be short-term, adverse impacts to visual quality 

from removal of the existing 69 kV line, caused by vehicles, helicopters, and personnel during this phase 

of the project. There would be a beneficial and minor impact from the removal of the existing 69 kV line 

as some of the existing structures are visible from the trail and near the mouth of the cave. 

Viewpoint 14 (North of Tropic along SR 12). The impacts to scenic quality and visual resources from 

construction of Alternative B along the existing 69 kV transmission line right-of-way would have longterm, moderate, adverse impacts on the existing viewscape because of the heightened line and form 

contrasts created by the larger, taller transmission support structures. Short-term visually intrusive form 

and color impacts would be produced by construction equipment and vehicles. 

Viewpoint 15 (GSENM Primitive Road). Under Alternative B, the transmission line would be constructed 

outside of the GSENM boundary. The proposed line would originate at a substation on private land within 

the East Valley and proceed westward across the valley and thence into BRCA. Therefore, there would be 

no impacts to scenic quality within the Monument. 

Alternative C: Cedar Fork Southern Route Alternative

Simulations for selected viewpoints are included in Appendix A. 

Impacts as a Result of Amending the GSENM Management Plan

Alternative C would require the amendment of the GSENM Management Plan (2000) by designating a 

300-foot-wide Passage Zone through a designated Primitive Zone, and changing the existing VRM 

Management Class designation from Class II to Class III within the Passage Zone. The existing Rocky 

Mountain Power/PacifiCorp 230 kV transmission line right-of-way would be consistent with VRM 

Management Class III objectives. By extension, the proposed 138 kV line would be consistent with the 

Class III objectives as well. 

Construction

Viewpoint 1 (U.S. 89 Scenic Byway). The impacts would be the same as discussed for Alternative A 

because the transmission line alignment, location, and dimensions would be the same along Segment C-3. 

Viewpoint 2 (SR 12/U.S.89 Junction). The impacts would be the same as discussed for Alternative A 

because the transmission line alignment, location, and dimensions would be the same (along Segment C3). 

Viewpoint 3 (Red Canyon Eastbound). The impacts would be the same as discussed for Alternative A 

because the transmission line alignment and dimensions would be similar, with some portions of Segment 

C-3 further away from this viewpoint than Alternative A. 

Viewpoint 4 (Red Canyon Westbound). The impacts on visual quality would be the same as discussed 

above for Alternative A because the alignments, dimensions, and construction activities would be the 

same. 

 33 
Viewpoint 5 (Golden Wall Trail). The impacts would be the same as discussed for Alternative A because 

the transmission line alignment and dimensions would be the same, with most portions of this alignment 

(in Segments C-2 and C-3) further away from this viewpoint than the Proposed Action route. 

Viewpoint 6 (USFS Boundary along SR 12). The impacts would be similar to those discussed above for 

Alternative B because the size, right-of-way width, and construction activities (in Segment C-2) would 

also be similar. 

Viewpoint 7 (USFS Scenic Backway [East Fork of the Sevier River Road]). The landscape surrounding 

this viewpoint has been designated as and is managed for High scenic integrity. The existing transmission 

line that lies across the backway (and runs from east of Bryce Canyon City to Wilson Peak) meets the 

objectives of this scenic integrity level because, while evident to the majority of backway travelers, it is 

subordinate to the natural landscape: the power poles are low in comparison to the surrounding forest and 

both lines and poles blend in with the dense middleground and background conifer stands. Segment C-2 

would have short-term and long-term, adverse impacts on scenic quality and would likely not meet the 

High scenic integrity level of the surrounding landscape which requires that it appear "natural to the 

majority of viewers; the landscape character appears intact, and while deviations may be present, they are 

not evident." This is because the higher, larger support structures would present moderate to major form 

and line contrasts that would be evident in the foreground to travelers along the backway, and would be 

particularly visible where the line crosses the backway. Non-specular conductor would be used in the 

High SIO area, which would reduce visibility of the transmission line in the middleground and 

background. 

Viewpoint 8 (Bryce Airport Wayside). Under this alternative, the transmission line would be constructed 

to the east of the wayside viewpoint, from the USFS Escalante Ranger District to CR 22 and then south 

along the BRCA boundary. The impacts would be the same as discussed for Alternative A because the 

transmission line would be clearly in view from the waypoint as it crosses Johns Valley, follows the CR 

22 roadway south, and crosses SR 12 as it follows the Park boundary. 

Viewpoint 9 (Junction of SR 12 and SR 63). From this perspective, Alternative C would be visible along 

the Park boundary to motorists traveling east along SR 12 and traveling north along SR 63 to the 

intersection. The short- and long-term impacts to scenic quality would be moderately adverse, but 

consistent with the level of existing surface disturbances, structures, and landscape modifications. Shortterm impacts would be caused by construction vehicles, heavy equipment, and the potential production of 

fugitive dust; long-term impacts would be caused by right-of-way clearing and the presence of the power 

poles and lines. The impacts would likely attract casual viewer attention, but the proposed line would not 

dominate the view nor would it substantially detract from existing scenic quality because of the existing 

surface disturbances and structures. 

Viewpoint 10 (Park Boundary along SR 12). Construction of Alternative C would have short- and longterm, moderate line and form contrast-related impacts on scenic quality. When viewed from the west 

toward the east along SR 12, strong line and form contrasts and their landscape impacts, created by the 

highly visible poles and transmission lines, would be visible to motorists traveling along SR 12 as they 

approach the head of Tropic Canyon. Similarly strong line and form contrasts would also be visible to 

motorists traveling west on SR 12 as they exit Tropic Canyon and travel toward the SR 12/SR 63 junction 

and the Park entrance. 

Short-term impacts would be caused by right-of-way surface disturbances and power pole construction 

activities visible in the foreground. Long-term impacts (and potential impairments to Park scenic quality) 

would be produced by (1) the highly visible transmission lines and poles on either side of the roadway as 

motorists emerge from Tropic Canyon, and (2) by the abrupt change from a relatively undisturbed 

viewscape with high scenic quality visible within Tropic Canyon to visually intrusive structures and 

surface disturbances within the viewscape as motorists emerge from the canyon. A visual simulation is 

recommended for this viewpoint because of visual sensitivity within the Park. 

 34 
It should be noted, however, that most travelers westbound along this roadway would pass the area of 

disturbance quickly, so the effect on viewers would be brief: the transmission line would not likely be 

visible to westbound motorists until vehicles exit Tropic Canyon at the top of the road slope. Also, it 

should be noted that scenic quality approaching the SR 12/SR 63 junction is of low quality, caused by 

road infrastructure near the junction and by commercial structures related to Bryce Canyon City 

development south of the junction. These conditions would tend to reduce the likelihood of Park resource 

impairment, when viewed from the west. 

Viewpoint 11 (SR 12 Wayside). The impacts of the proposed Cedar Fork Southern Route (in Segment C1) on scenic quality at this viewpoint would be similar to the impacts described for Alternative A because 

the alternatives would follow similar right-of-way alignments, with a portion of Segment C-1 being 

approximately 1 mile closer to the viewpoint. It is assumed that the same FAA requirements for runway 

approach safety would be applicable to this alignment, with the same impacts to night sky viewing and 

light pollution as discussed under Alternative A. 

Viewpoint 12 (Fairyland Overlook). The impacts for Alternative C would be the same as Alternative A 

for the same reasons: the viewing distance and topography between this line and the Fairyland viewpoint 

would obscure or reduce visual contrasts to a level that would not be noticeable by the casual viewer. 

There would be no impacts to scenic quality from this perspective. 

Viewpoint 13 (Mossy Cave Trail). Alternative C would have no impacts on scenic quality along the trail 

for the same reasons as discussed for Alternative A: all impacts to the viewscape and to scenic quality 

would be topographically hidden from view by the high canyon walls that border the trail. 

Viewpoint 14 (North of Tropic along SR 12). The impacts would be the same as those discussed above 

under Alternative A because the alignments, transmission line dimensions, and construction activities 

would be the same within this easternmost portion of the Project Area. 

Viewpoint 15 (GSENM Primitive Road). The impacts to the primitive road area within the GSENM would 

be the same as discussed under Alternative A because the proposed transmission line route alignments 

would be the same. 

Interconnect Options

The interconnect areas were determined to have low visibility to the casual viewer, based on the GIS 

viewshed analysis and on the relative remoteness of Segments A-2 and C-2. Therefore, it is likely that 

there would be no impacts to scenic quality within the interconnect portions of the Project Area. 

Alternative D: No Action 

Viewpoint 1 (U.S. 89 Scenic Byway)

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no impacts to visual resources, and the viewscape would 

remain, subject to existing trends and conditions, as no existing transmission line is present within the 

viewscape. 

Viewpoint 2 (SR 12-89 Junction)

The impacts would be the same as Viewpoint 1, as the existing line is not obviously in view. 

Viewpoint 3 (Red Canyon Eastbound)

The existing right-of-way line clearing would continue to be visible on the westward-facing lower slopes 

leading into Red Canyon, and would attract viewer attention with moderately adverse impacts on scenic 

quality, but would meet designated VRM Class III objectives. 

 35 
Viewpoint 4 (Red Canyon Westbound)

The existing transmission line is visible to westbound motorists on SR 12, and would continue to have 

moderately adverse impacts on scenic quality because of the obvious visibility of the right-of-way 

clearing on the landscape. The impacts, however, do not dominate the view. 

Viewpoint 5 (Golden Wall Trail)

The impacts of the existing transmission line would continue to have moderately adverse impacts on 

scenic quality because of its high visibility from the trail in an area designated for High scenic quality. 

Viewpoint 6 (USFS Boundary along SR 12)

The existing transmission line would remain along its present route south of SR 12 and continue to have 

no impacts on scenic quality for motorists traveling along this roadway. There would be no impacts 

because the line does not attract viewer attention. 

Viewpoint 7 (USFS Scenic Backway [East Fork of the Sevier River Road])

The existing transmission line, crossing the backway and running to Wilson Peak, would remain along its 

present route south of SR 12 and continue to have minor adverse impacts on scenic quality for motorists 

traveling along this backway designated for High scenic quality. The impacts would be minor because the 

line is visible to the casual viewer, but is generally well screened by background vegetation. 

Viewpoint 8 (Bryce Airport Wayside)

Under this alternative, there would be no change from existing conditions and trends, and no impacts to 

day time scenic quality. Views to the north of historic Bryce Canyon Airport and the highly scenic 

geologic formations would be unaffected. Night sky and lighting conditions would remain under current 

conditions, adversely affected by existing lighting conditions at the airport, the SR 12-Route 63 

intersection, and Bryce Canyon City development. 

Viewpoint 9 (Junction of SR 12 and Route 63)

The existing transmission line would remain along its present alignment within the Park, and continue to 

have no impacts on scenic quality for motorists traveling along this roadway. There would be no impacts 

to scenic quality from transmission line because it blends in with the existing roadway structures, surface 

disturbances, advertising billboards, and existing commercial development north of Bryce Canyon City 

and along the approach to the Park. 

Viewpoint 10 (Park Boundary along SR 12)

The impacts would be the same as for Viewpoint 1. 

Viewpoint 11 (SR 12 Wayside)

Under this alternative, the existing line would remain in its current conditions and continue to have 

minimal (minor) adverse impacts on scenic quality. As described under the Affected Environment 

section, the existing line is only visible at the point where the line rises out of the canyon onto the Pink 

Cliffs rim. The visibility of the line at this point is indistinct and not likely to be obvious to most casual 

viewers. 

Viewpoint 12 (Fairyland Overlook)

The existing transmission line would remain along its present alignment to the south of Tropic Canyon, 

and continue to have no impacts on scenic quality for viewers experiencing the high scenic quality along 

the Pink Cliffs because the existing transmission line cannot be seen by the casual viewer. 

 36 
Viewpoint 13 (Mossy Cave Trail)

The impacts would be the same as for Viewpoint 1. A small portion of the existing transmission line and 

a single power pole is visible, but not likely to be visible to the casual viewer hiking along the trail. 

Viewpoint 14 (North of Tropic along SR 12)

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no change from existing conditions and trends. The 

existing transmission line would remain along its present alignment, crossing East and Tropic Valley, and 

SR 12 before proceeding into BRCA. The existing line and structures would continue to have minor to 

moderately adverse visual impacts on scenic quality for motorists traveling north from Tropic into Tropic 

Canyon. 

Viewpoint 15 (GSENM Primitive Road)

The existing transmission line within the Monument would continue to have no impacts on scenic quality 

because the line is in a remote location, and not visible to the casual viewer, and along an undesignated 

roadway that is not open for general public use. 

1.3.1.3. Summary 

The following table summarizes the impacts discussed above. Analyses of impacts to the interconnect 

options, the far eastern portion of the Project Area, and the southernmost portions of Segments A-3 and 

C-3 were not done because the results of the viewshed analysis showed that these areas would not be 

visible from the major thoroughfares within the Project Area. 

Table 1.3-3. Visual Resources Summary of Impacts 

VIEWPOINTS ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C ALTERNATIVE D 

1 – U.S. 89 

Scenic Byway 

Short-term adverse 

impacts from 

construction; longterm, adverse 

impacts that would 

likely exceed VRM 

Class objectives at 

and near the U.S. 

89 Byway crossing. 

Minor, short-term, 

adverse impacts 

from removal of 

existing line. 

Minor, long-term, 

adverse impacts. 

Minor, indirect, 

beneficial longterm impacts from 

existing line 

removal. 

Same as 

Proposed Action. No impact. 

2 - SR 

12/U.S. 89 

Junction 

Minor, adverse 

short-term and 

long-term impacts 

that would meet 

VRM Class III 

objectives. 

Minor, beneficial 

impacts from 

removal of existing 

line. 

Short-term and 

long-term, 

moderately 

adverse impacts, 

but consistent with 

VRM objectives 

because of 

existing 

disturbances in 

the area. 

Same as 

Proposed Action. No impact. 

3 – Red 

Canyon 

Eastbound 

No impacts 

because of viewing 

distance. 

Short-term, minor 

Short-term and 

long-term, 

moderate impacts, 

but would meet 

Same as 

Proposed Action. 

Moderately 

adverse impacts 

from existing line 

visibility. 

 37 
VIEWPOINTS ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C ALTERNATIVE D 

adverse impacts 

from existing line 

removal; long-term, 

minor beneficial 

impact to scenic 

quality. 

VRM Class III 

objectives. 

4 – Red 

Canyon 

Westbound 

No impacts from 

line construction 

west of Red 

Canyon. 

Minor, beneficial 

long-term impacts 

from existing line 

removal. 

Moderate, 

adverse, long-term 

impacts from line 

construction along 

existing route. 

Same as 

Proposed Action. 

Moderately 

adverse impacts 

from line visibility.

5 – Golden 

Wall Trail 

No impacts to 

scenic quality 

within Red 

Canyon. 

Long-term, 

beneficial impacts 

from existing line 

removal. 

Short-term and 

long-term, 

adverse, 

substantial 

impacts from line 

construction, 

which would likely 

exceed High SIO 

level. 

Same as 

Proposed Action. 

Moderately 

adverse impacts 

from existing line 

visibility. 

6 – USFS 

Boundary at 

SR 12 

Short-term and 

long-term, adverse 

impacts to High 

SIO along SR 12. 

This would likely 

exceed USFS 

management 

objectives. 

Beneficial, minor 

impacts from 

existing line 

removal. 

Minor to 

moderate, adverse 

impacts on scenic 

quality. 

Same as 

Alternative B No impact. 

7 – USFS 

Scenic 

Backway 

No impacts. 

Long-term, minor, 

beneficial impacts 

from existing line 

removal. 

Moderate shortterm and longterm, adverse 

impacts from line 

construction. 

Short-term and 

long-term, 

moderate, 

adverse impacts 

from construction 

in High SIO area 

along scenic 

backway. 

Minor, adverse 

impacts on 

scenic quality 

along existing 

line near scenic 

backway in High 

SIO area. 

8 – Bryce 

Airport 

Wayside 

Moderate, adverse, 

long-term scenic 

quality impacts. 

Minor, adverse 

long-term impacts 

to night sky from 

FAA safety 

devices. 

No impacts. Same as 

Proposed Action. 

No scenic quality 

impacts. 

Continued 

adverse impacts 

to night sky 

impacts from 

Airport, Bryce 

Canyon City, and 

SR 12-Route 63 

 38 
VIEWPOINTS ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C ALTERNATIVE D 

intersection 

development. 

9 – SR 12/SR 

63 Junction 

Minor, adverse 

long-term impacts. 

Minor, beneficial 

long-term, indirect 

impacts from 

existing line 

removal. 

No impacts. 

Moderately 

adverse impacts, 

but consistent 

with existing level 

of scenic quality. 

No impact. 

10 – Park 

Boundary at 

SR 12 

Minor, long-term, 

adverse impacts. 

Minor, long-term, 

beneficial indirect 

impacts from 

existing line 

removal. 

No impacts. 

Moderate, 

adverse shortterm and longterm impacts 

from line 

construction. 

No impact. 

11 – SR 12 

Wayside 

No impacts. 

Long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts 

from maintained 

existing line. 

Moderate, adverse 

short-term and 

long-term impacts. 

Same as 

Proposed Action. 

Minor impacts 

from maintained 

existing line. 

12 – Fairyland 

Overlook 

No impacts to 

scenic quality from 

Park overlook. 

Minor, adverse 

impacts on scenic 

quality. 

Same as 

Proposed Action. No impact. 

13 – Mossy 

Cave Trail 

No impacts along 

Mossy Cave Trail. 

Short-term, 

adverse impacts 

from line 

construction and 

removal across 

trail. 

No impacts in the 

long-term. 

Same as 

Proposed Action. No impact. 

14 – North of 

Tropic 

Minor, adverse 

long-term impacts 

on scenic quality. 

Moderate, adverse, 

impacts from 

maintenance of 

existing line. 

Long-term, 

moderate, adverse 

impacts from 

increased visual 

contrasts within 

the viewscape. 

Same as 

Proposed Action. 

Minor to 

moderate, 

adverse impacts 

from existing line 

impacts on the 

viewscape. 

15 – GSENM 

Primitive Road 

Minor, long-term, 

adverse impacts. No impacts. Same as Proposed Action. No impact. 

1.3.2. Cumulative Effects 

This section addresses potential cumulative effects that would result from the effects of the Proposed 

Action or Action Alternatives when combined with the effects of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects. Cumulative effects are incremental in nature. They can result from 

individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taken over a period of time. 

 39 
1.3.2.1. Cumulative Effects Area 

The general cumulative effects area (Figure 1.3-1) for the project for all resources except wildlife, special 

status species, and socioeconomics includes all HUC 12 (6th level) watersheds that come within 0.5 mile 

of the project components. The cumulative effects area encompasses 237,010 acres (Table 1.3-4). Land 

management agencies responsible for managing a range of uses on 204,559 acres of public land are the 

DNF Powell and Escalante Ranger Districts, the KFO and GSENM, BRCA, and SITLA. Private land 

ownership accounts for 13.7 percent (32,451 acres) of land within the cumulative effects area. 

Table 1.3-4. Cumulative Effects Area – Acreage by Land Ownership/Management 

LAND OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT ACRES

U. S. Forest Service - DNF 121,852.4

Bureau of Land Management – KFO 35,133.9

Bureau of Land Management – GSENM 11,981.5

National Park Service – BRCA 17,067.3

SITLA 18,524.1

Private 32,450.9

Total 237,010.1

1.3.2.2. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 

National Forest lands and BLM lands administered by KFO are managed for multiple resource values and 

uses. In the cumulative effects area, past and present uses include timber and woodland product harvest; 

livestock grazing; and recreation uses including hunting, fishing, camping, picnicking, hiking, back 

country driving, and mountain biking. Lands are also available for mining, oil and gas development, and 

production of mineral materials (building stone and sand and gravel). Roads, transmission lines, pipelines, 

and communication sites are located on National Forest and other public lands. While these types of uses 

have resulted in an unknown amount of surface or subsurface disturbance and placement of human-made 

structures on the landscape, the National Forest and public lands still retain a largely undeveloped 

appearance. These lands are not characterized by urban or commercial development that is typical of 

cities and towns. 

The GSENM is managed for a variety of resource values and uses, with a mandate from the Presidential 

Proclamation that established the Monument to protect myriad historic and scientific resources. To meet 

this objective, BLM manages the Monument to protect its primitive frontier state and safeguard its remote 

and undeveloped character. Further, BLM manages the Monument to provide opportunities for study of 

scientific and historic resources. Within this management focus, past and present uses of public lands in 

the Monument include livestock grazing, recreation, and realty actions. While the Monument is closed to 

mining and oil and gas development, roads, transmission lines, pipelines, and communication sites are 

located on these public lands. These uses have resulted in an undetermined amount of surface and 

subsurface disturbance and placement of human-made structures on the landscape, but public lands in the 

Monument still retain a largely undeveloped appearance. 

 40 
Figure 1.3-1. General Cumulative Effects Area 

 41 
BRCA, on the other hand, is managed with an emphasis on protection and enhancement of its unusual 

scenic beauty and its value for science and education, and for the benefit and enjoyment of the public. 

Even with this focus on protection and preservation, some past and present development has occurred in 

the Park for management of visitor use and the protection of Park resources. A paved access road runs the 

length of the Park, providing access to many sites and facilities, including administrative offices and 

buildings, Bryce Canyon Lodge, campgrounds, trails, interpretive sites, and others. Other infrastructure, 

including transmission lines, is also present. Garkane’s existing 69 kV transmission line crosses the 

northern end of the park, as does SR 12. However, even with this development, the vast majority of the 

Park in the cumulative effects area is undeveloped, and presents a natural landscape. 

State lands in the cumulative effects area are managed by SITLA to produce revenue for the State school 

system. State lands are managed for a variety of uses that produce revenue, and past and present uses 

include livestock grazing, recreation uses, roads, highways, utility lines, and other commercial uses. 

Lands are occasionally sold for private development. As with federal lands, these uses result in surface 

disturbances, but generally, State lands retain an undeveloped appearance. The current amount of surface 

and subsurface disturbance is unknown. 

Private lands in the cumulative effects area are used and developed for a variety of purposes, including 

residential, commercial, and industrial development in and adjacent to cities and towns. Many acres of 

private land are in farmland production, including irrigated pastures, range pastures, and hay, grain, and 

alfalfa. 

Reasonably foreseeable future actions within the cumulative effects area that are currently planned or 

under review include activities that fall into several broad categories: 

• Energy and communications 

• Transportation 

• Vegetation and fire fuels management 

• Habitat improvement 

• Land use and management 

• Recreation 

• Mining 

• Miscellaneous 

Table 1.3-5 shows activities currently planned, under review, or in permitting in Garfield County that 

may be pertinent to cumulative effects for one or more resource areas. Projects within Garfield County 

but outside the cumulative effects area for all resources (except socioeconomics) are labeled “socio only.” 

The table is organized generally by project type (energy, transportation, forest fuels management, etc.), 

but many of the entries could easily fit into more than one classification. 

 42 
Table 1.3-5. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions in the Cumulative Effects Areas 

PROJECT (LEAD 

AGENCY) LOCATION DESCRIPTION

ESTIMATED

DISTURBANCE

(IF AVAILABLE) 

Energy & Communications 

Designation of 

Energy Corridors 

(USFS) 

Forest-wide 

Would designate energy corridors on the 

DNF and other federal land in 11 western 

states. Corridor 116-206 would be west of 

U.S. 89 in the cumulative effects area. 

Geothermal 

Leasing 

Programmatic 

EIS (USFS) 

Forest-wide 

USFS and BLM are preparing a joint 

programmatic EIS to analyze leasing of 

federal lands with moderate to high 

potential for geothermal resources in 11 

western states 

Oil and Gas 

Leasing Analysis 

(USFS) 

Forest-wide EIS to evaluate all BLM and USFS 

administered lands for oil and gas leasing 

Panguitch Lake 

Power Line 

Realignment 

(DNF) 

Cedar City RD 

(Socio only) 

Authorization to PacifiCorp for the 

relocation of 1.2 miles of 12.5 kV power 

line. Work would involve construction of a 

new overhead power line and removal of 

the old line. Area is approximately 17 

miles southwest of Panguitch. 

South Central 

Utah Telephone 

Association 

(SCSRA) I-15 to 

U.S. 89 Fiber 

Optic Line (BLM) 

(Socio only) 

Fiber optic line from I-15 in Iron County to 

U.S. 89 in Garfield County 7.5 miles north 

of Panguitch requiring BLM right-of-way 

Oil and Gas 

Lease Sales 

(BLM) 

BLM 

Ongoing BLM program to lease lands 

suitable for oil and gas development, 

including lands in Garfield County 

classified as having high potential for oil & 

gas development 

Transportation 

DNF Motorized 

Travel Plan 

(DNF) 

Forest-wide 

To identify changes to the motorized 

travel system (roads) to meet 

administrative, fire, recreational, and 

resource needs; will generally prohibit 

cross-country (off-road) motorized travel 

on the Forest, but would remain open to 

hiking, horseback riding, cross-country 

skiing, and snowmobile use. 

Mammoth 

Highway 

Easement (DNF) 

Cedar City 

RD 

(Socio only) 

Issuance of a right-of-way easement to 

Garfield and Kane Counties for Mammoth 

Highway (Forest Road 068), northeast of 

Duck Creek Village, between State 

Highways 14 and 143. 

 43 
ESTIMATED

PROJECT (LEAD DISTURBANCE

AGENCY) LOCATION DESCRIPTION (IF AVAILABLE) 

Tropic Canyon 

Highway 

Stabilization 

Project (BRCA) 

BRCA 

Repair and stabilize SR 12 and introduce 

water diversion into Tropic Wash, west of 

Tropic 

210 linear feet 

of road 

shoulder; 5 

stream barbs in 

Tropic Wash 

SR-12 

Environmental 

Study 

(UDOT, FHWA, 

GSENM) 

Escalante to 

Boulder (Socio 

only) 

EA for project to obtain over 14 miles of 

right-of-way from BLM and generally 

upgrade SR 12 

SR-12 Scenic 

Byway 

Improvements 

(UDOT, GSENM) 

SR 12 

throughout 

Garfield County 

Improve overlooks, interpretive sites, and 

gateway features 

SR-12 Corridor 

Management 

Plan 

Implementation 

(UDOT, GSENM) 

SR 12 

throughout 

Garfield County 

Corridor Management Plan 

Implementation 

US-89 from SR14 to Hatch 

(UDOT) 

SR-14 to Hatch Bituminous pavement, reconstruction, 

widen shoulders 

Notom Road 

(UDOT) (Socio only) 

Engineering and environmental study, 

preparatory to road improvements 

Vegetation and Fire Fuels Management 

Aerial application 

of fire retardant 

(DNF, KFO, 

GSENM) 

Forest-wide 

The USFS proposes to continue the aerial 

application of fire retardant to fight fires on 

National Forest System lands, including 

the DNF. 

Right-of-way 

Lakes Timber 

Management 

(DNF) 

Freemont River 

RD 

(Socio only) 

Fuels Management Reduction on 

approximately 600 acres of forested land 

to reduce the impacts of insects and 

disease 

600 acres 

Stump Springs 

Fire Treatments 

(DNF) 

Escalante RD 

(Socio only) 

Project uses prescribed fire treatments to 

disturb vegetation, slowly moving 

heterogeneous patches towards a finegrained landscape that is more resistant 

and resilient to fire and other disturbance. 

Approximately 

5,400 acres 

over 9 years 

Clayton Salvage 

(DNF) 

Escalante RD 

(Socio only) 

Timber salvage of 248 acres of dead and 

dying spruce on the Griffin Top Plateau. 

248 acres 

(2008) 

 44 
ESTIMATED

PROJECT (LEAD DISTURBANCE

AGENCY) LOCATION DESCRIPTION (IF AVAILABLE) 

Pockets 

Vegetation 

Management 

(DNF) 

Escalante RD 

(Socio only) 

The Project is designed to reduce bark 

beetle risk and improve habitat for 

northern goshawk. It would include 

commercial timber harvest, precommercial stand treatment, fencing, and 

travel management. The Project covers 

an area of 8,564 acres and would include 

commercial timber harvest on 4,721 acres 

of conifers and 2,647 acres of aspen, 

including 82 acres along the Antimony 

Creek drainage. Smaller areas would 

receive additional treatments. In addition, 

9 miles of new roads would be required, 

7.0 miles of unauthorized roads would be 

designated NFS roads, and 13.4 miles of 

existing NFS roads would be improved. 

8,564 acres 

9 miles of new 

roads 

7.0 miles 

added to 

system roads 

Toad Salvage 

(DNF) 

Escalante RD 

(Socio only) 

Salvage of dead and dying ponderosa 

pine within the perimeter of a Wildland 

Fire Use burn area. September 2007, 

1400 acres burned. 

230 acres 

Boulder Town 

Fire Protection 

(DNF) 

Escalante RD 

(Socio only) 

Boulder was identified as a community at 

risk and a Community Wildland Fire 

Protection Plan was developed. 65 acres 

of prescribed burns and 186 acres of 

vegetative treatments are planned to 

provide community protection. 

251 acres 

Bug Lake 

Salvage Project 

(DNF) 

Escalante RD 

(Socio only) 

Timber Salvage of dead and dying spruce 

on the Aquarius plateau will use existing 

Forest roads with approximately 1 mile of 

road reconstruction. 

228 acres 

(2007) 

Dugout/Tarantula 

Mesa Veg. 

Project (BLM) 

Richfield FO 

(Socio only) 

Utilize mechanical (chainsaw, handsaws, 

etc.) to cut, lop, and scatter the pinyon 

and juniper trees that have encroached 

into the existing chainings that were 

established in the 1960s 

North Wash 

Tamarisk Control 

Project (BLM) 

Richfield FO 

(Socio only) 

Removal and chemical control of 20 acres 

of tamarisk (salt cedar) approximately 30 

miles southeast of Hanksville in the 

Fiddler Butte Wilderness Study Area 

Bear Creek Fire 

Salvage and 

Reforestation, 

DNF, CE 

Garfield County 

(Socio 

cumulative 

effects area 

only) 

Salvage fire killed and damaged trees 

within the 1400-acre Bear Creek burn 

area 

Corn Creek 

Salvage and 

Reforestation, 

DNF, EA 

Garfield County 

(Socio 

cumulative 

effects area 

only) 

Salvage dead and dying timber and 

reforest areas within burn with inadequate 

stocking in a 2270-acre burn 

 45 
ESTIMATED

PROJECT (LEAD DISTURBANCE

AGENCY) LOCATION DESCRIPTION (IF AVAILABLE) 

Paunsaugunt 

Aspen Vegetation 

Management, 

DNF, EA 

Powell Ranger 

District 

Manage aspen stands to increase aspen 

regeneration, reduce conifer 

encroachment, and develop multi-aged 

aspen stands 

GSENM Plan 

Amendment & 

Rangeland Health 

EIS 

GSENM 

The GSENM Management Plan 

Amendment and Rangeland Health EIS 

describes and analyzes alternatives for 

management of livestock grazing on 

public lands administered by the BLM. 

2,168,726 

acres 

(GSENM, Glen 

Canyon NRA, 

& KFO) 

Habitat Improvement 

Cooperative 

Fisheries 

Enhancement 

Projects (DNF) 

Powell RD 

In cooperation with UDWR, re-establish 

native trout populations in 2 streams on 

the DNF (also 8 streams on the Fishlake 

National Forest) 

Marshall Canyon 

Pinyon-Juniper 

Removal (DNF) 

Powell RD 

(Socio only) 

The Proposed Action is to treat up to 900 

acres within an existing chained area to 

improve wildlife habitat on the western 

portion of the Sevier Plateau (Mt. Dutton). 

The Proposed Action consists of the 

following actions: Remove pinyon pine 

and juniper mechanically on 

approximately 900 acres using a skid 

steer (bobcat) or other tractor type device, 

or through hand thinning with chainsaws. 

Broadcast seed into seedbed using forbs 

and grass mixture. Where needed, native 

seed will be part of this mixture. 

900 acres 

Antelope Springs 

Draw Sagebrush 

Steppe Habitat 

Enhancement 

(DNF) 

Escalante RD1 

(Socio only) 

Mow or brushbeat 500 acres of dense 

even-aged sagebrush and interseed a 

native grass and forb mixture. 

500 acres 

Dipping Vat 

Habitat 

Improvement 

Project (DNF) 

Escalante RD 

Project would include the thinning of pine 

forests and the mechanical treatment of 

sagebrush for habitat improvement and 

fuels reduction in Johns Valley, 

approximately 7 miles north of Tropic. The 

Project would affect approximately 1,132 

acres. 

1,132 acres 

(2010) 

Boulder Creek 

Wildlife Habitat 

Improvement 

(DNF) 

Escalante RD 

(Socio only) 

Removing encroaching conifers to restore 

Aspen Grove wildlife habitat 

Aquatic 

Monitoring 

Amendment, DNF 

Forest-wide 

Proposal to amend the Aquatic 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) in 

the DNF LRMP 

 46 
ESTIMATED

PROJECT (LEAD DISTURBANCE

AGENCY) LOCATION DESCRIPTION (IF AVAILABLE) 

East Fork Boulder 

Creek Fish 

Passage 

Improvement 

DNF, CE 

Garfield County 

(Socio 

cumulative 

effects area 

only) 

Replace a culvert that is inhibiting fish 

passage on Road 166 with a new span 

designed for high and low flow 

maintenance of all aquatic species 

Land Use and Management 

Resources 

Management 

Plan (BLM) 

Richfield Field 

Office BLM 

(Socio only) 

Comprehensive Resource Management 

Plan for public lands and resources 

managed by the BLM Richfield Field 

Office 

Resources 

Management 

Plan (KFO) 

KFO 

FEIS and Resource Management Plan for 

public lands and resources managed by 

the KFO 

First Annual 

Centennial 

Strategy for Bryce 

Canyon National 

Park (BRCA) 

BRCA 

Reduce private vehicle use by providing 

public transportation for park visitors; 

planning addition of a bicycle 

transportation system in park; restore 

historic buildings; treat 193 acres of exotic 

weed infestation; inventory and assess 

condition of 224 identified archaeological 

sites 

Panguitch Lake 

Resort 

Panguitch Lake 

(Socio only) 

RV timeshare resort around Panguitch 

Lake that is under development 

Incorporation of 

Ruby’s Inn Ruby’s Inn 

Ruby’s Inn was incorporated as Bryce 

Canyon City. Ruby’s Inn has a single land 

owner. The intention of incorporating is to 

prepare for subdivision and growth. 

Recreation 

Red Canyon bike 

trail extension 

(DNF) 

Powell RD 

Extend existing bike trail along SR 12 3.1 

miles east to the East Fork of the Sevier 

River Road. 

Canaan Mountain 

Reroute (DNF) 

Escalante RD 

(Socio only) 

The Canaan Mountain Loop Trail 

approximately 14.5 miles southwest of 

Escalante would be rerouted to move it off 

a waterline, reduce its grade, and provide 

for improved maintenance. 

Mossy Cave Trail 

Rehabilitation and 

Resource 

Protection 

(BRCA) 

BRCA 

Large boulders from Water Canyon 

adjacent to the trail will be moved to 

stabilize areas where the trail has eroded 

and footbridge abutments 

Grandview Trail 

Re-route (DNF) 

Powell Ranger 

District 

Construct several sections of nonmotorized trail to eliminate dual use by 

motorized and non-motorized 

recreationists 

 47 
ESTIMATED

PROJECT (LEAD DISTURBANCE

AGENCY) LOCATION DESCRIPTION (IF AVAILABLE) 

King Creek 

Campground 

Non-commercial 

Thinning DNF, 

CE 

Powell Ranger 

District 

Thin heavily stocked ponderosa pine to 

improve vigor and forest health in a 

developed recreation area 

Mining 

Boulder Gravel 

Pit (DNF) 

Escalante RD 

(Socio only) 

A gravel pit will be developed and 

managed to provide gravel for county and 

Forest needs. 

< 5 acres 

Troy M Mine 

Phase Two (BLM) 

Richfield FO, 

near Ticaboo 

(Socio only) 

Extend existing underground workings; 

construct mine shaft and waste rock 

storage area; construct ventilation shafts 

and expand existing evaporation pond for 

mine dewatering 

Phase II, 

Abandoned Mine 

Reclamation, 

(GSENM) 

GSENM 

EA to address potential environmental 

impacts associated with the Phase II 

Abandoned Mine Reclamation Project, 

which includes the Henrieville Prospect 

Site east of Tropic 

Reopening of 

Ticaboo uranium 

mill and mine 

Ticaboo/Bullfrog 

(Socio only) 

Garkane has been contacted regarding 

service to the Ticaboo/Bullfrog area for 

planned re-opening of the uranium mill; 

the mine has been re-opened and is 

supplying its own power with diesel 

generators 

Miscellaneous 

Wild and Scenic 

River Suitability 

Study – Utah 

(USFS) 

Pine Valley, 

Cedar City, and 

Escalante RDs 

A draft EIS has been prepared analyzing 

the suitability of 86 Utah river segments, 

including 8 on the DNF in Garfield 

County, for inclusion in the National Wild 

and Scenic River System 

West Dixie Water 

Improvement 

(DNF) 

Powell RD No Information 

3,000 acres 

(2007) 

2,000 acres 

(2008) 

2,000 acres 

(2009) 

2,000 acres 

(2010) 

West Deer Creek 

Grazing Allotment 

(DNF) 

Escalante RD 

(Socio only) 

Proposal to re-authorize livestock grazing 

on the West Deer Creek Allotment north 

of Boulder, Utah east of SR 12 

 48 
ESTIMATED

PROJECT (LEAD DISTURBANCE

AGENCY) LOCATION DESCRIPTION (IF AVAILABLE) 

Ohio University 

Dinosaur 

Collection 

(GSENM) 

GSENM 

Proposal to excavate and remove 

remains of a horned dinosaur from 

GSENM. 

McGath Lake 

Dam (DNF) 

Escalante RD 

(Socio only) 

The McGath Lake Dam is deteriorating 

and in need of repair. Without action the 

dam is likely to fail and destroy an 

important fishery. McGath Lake is located 

approximately 16 miles north of 

Escalante. 

Dinosaur 

Documentary 

Film (BLM) 

GSENM & BLM 

Various locations within the GSENM, 

Wolverine Petrified Forest, The Blues 

Area, Red Canyon, Cocks Comb Road, 

etc, 

1.3.2.3. Cumulative Effects on Visual Resources 

 Cumulative visual effects would be similar for all alternatives within the viewsheds of the cumulative 

effects area. Under the Proposed Action and Action Alternatives, there would likely be adverse impacts to 

viewsheds if visually intrusive transmission lines were constructed and vegetation was cleared in the 

rights-of-way in addition to the proposed Garkane transmission line. The addition of another cleared 

right-of-way would have a cumulative impact on the visual landscape within the cumulative effect area. 

Proposed UDOT scenic byway improvements would have beneficial impacts if improvements were made 

to scenic overlooks and roadside interpretive sites. Prohibitions placed on cross-country travel within the 

Forest would also be beneficial to scenic resources because surface disturbances from motorized OHV 

travel would be reduced. Proposed vegetation and fire fuels management projects would potentially have 

short-term, adverse impacts on scenic quality from color and line contrasts between unburned and burned 

areas on visibly exposed slopes. However, there would be no long-term impacts because of vegetation regrowth within the disturbed areas. Abandoned mining reclamation would have short-term, adverse 

impacts in areas visible from travelways and/or recreation areas because of vehicles, equipment, and 

activities required for mine reclamation. However, the long-term impacts would be negligible because 

slope re-contouring, re-vegetation, and visual mitigation would reduce visual impacts and contrasts to a 

very low level. These past, present, and reasonably foreseeable effects would be minimal when combined 

with visual impacts from any of the Action Alternatives. 

Under the No Action Alternative, the potential cumulative impacts to scenic quality would be beneficially 

reduced when compared to the Action Alternatives because the existing 69 kV transmission line would be 

overhauled in the existing right-of-way. Alternative D would not be anticipated to contribute long-term 

visual impacts as the existing transmission line components (such as poles) would be replaced in kind. 

1.4. PLAN CONSISTENCY 

Impacts from constructing a new, larger transmission line in Red Canyon along an existing line right-ofway, to replace an existing line that was constructed before the area was designated Retention under the 

current 1986 Forest Plan (and currently managed for High scenic integrity objectives under the amended 

2000 Forest Plan), would be inconsistent with the current scenic integrity level within Red Canyon. 

 49 
Constructing a new transmission line that approaches and then crosses the Highway 89 Scenic Byway 

(within a proposed VRM Class III area) would likely not be consistent with the proposed Kanab FO RMP 

VRM objectives in this area. 

Constructing a new transmission line across a DNF scenic backway (in an area designated for High scenic 

integrity management) would likely not be consistent with the revised Forest Plan. 

Constructing the Proposed Action transmission line across the Highway 12 Scenic Byway in a designated 

High scenic integrity level area of the DNF would likely be inconsistent with the amended Dixie Forest 

Plan. 

Constructing the proposed Parallel Line Route across Bryce National Park would be inconsistent with the 

Park’s land use management. The Park’s “natural environmental subzone” land management, consisting 

of undeveloped land that is not classified as wilderness (most of which is above the escarpment rim) is 

based on preservation (NPS 1987). 

1.5. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS 

1.5.1. Federal Laws 

NEPA requires that measures be taken to "...assure for all Americans...aesthetically pleasing 

surroundings." The Garkane EIS process (of which this document is a part) ensures that the project is in 

compliance with this law. 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Program (regulated under the Clean Air Act) – BRCA is 

classified as a PSD I area for air quality and visibility, including long-distance-viewing scenic quality. 

Mitigation applied under the Proposed Action and alternatives would ensure that project-related impacts 

to air quality would not impair scenic viewing. 

BLM Manual 8400 (VRM) – dictates policy and procedures for the VRM system, establishes a 

framework for visual mitigation, describes the steps for characterizing the visual landscape, and the 

requirement to determine whether a project can meet acceptable limits of impacts on visual resources. 

This visual resource specialist report maintains project compliance with those guidelines and stipulations. 

BLM Information Bulletin 98-135 – Restates the BLM policy on the use of VRM in decision-making and 

environmental documents: that "visual design considerations shall be incorporated into all surfacedisturbing projects occurring on public lands regardless of the size or potential visual impacts of the 

projects." This document assists project compliance with established BLM policy on visual resources. 

1.5.2. State Laws 

Utah Smoke Management Plan – the goal of this state plan is to "minimize or prevent smoke impacts to 

such a degree as possible to protect visibility in mandatory PSD Class I areas." As discussed above for the 

PSD Program, mitigation by project proponents, as stipulated in the EIS, would ensure compliance with 

state air pollution goals. 

1.6. LITERATURE CITED 

BLM, 1980. Visual Resource Management Program. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

BLM, 1986. Visual Resource Contrast Rating. BLM Manual Handbook 8431-1. 

BLM, 2000. Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Approved Management Plan Record of 

Decision. Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah. November. 

 50 
 51 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008. Kanab Field Office Record of Decision and Approved 

Resource Management Plan. 

NPS, 1987. General Management Plan, Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah. National Park Service. 

August. 

NPS, 2003. Going-to-the-Sun Road, Rehabilitation Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement. Glacier 

National Park. April. 

NPS, 2006a. Management Policies 2006. National Park Service. 

NPS, 2006b. Bryce Canyon Management. Internet Website: [accessed November 2008]: 

http://www.nps.gov/brca/parkmgmt/index.htm 

USFS, 1986. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Dixie National Forest. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 

USFS, 2000. Scenery Management System. Amendment to the Dixie National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan. Dixie National Forest, Utah. Environmental Assessment. April. 
Appendix A 

Visual Simulations 

 
Viewpoint 1 – Alternatives A-3 and C-3 

This viewpoint along U.S. 89 is located north of Hatch approximately 0.25 mile north of the highway crossing of Segment A-3 of the Proposed Action or Segment C-3 of the Cedar Fork Southern Route Alternative. This photo panorama looks to the east of the highway toward KFO land and the DNF in the distance. The simulation (under the base image) shows the implementation of Alternative Segments A-3 or C-3 in the middleground and background (distant poles are circled). 
Viewpoint 2 

This viewpoint lies at the intersection of U.S. 89 and SR 12, where visitors to Red Canyon, BRCA, and the GSENM would turn onto the SR 12 Scenic Byway and leave the U.S. 89 State Scenic Byway. No simulation was completed for this viewpoint. 
Viewpoint 3 – Alternative B 

The viewpoint is located on Eastbound UT 12 as it approaches Red Canyon. The view is looking to the Southeast. The existing 69 kV transmission line can be faintly seen traveling up the forested hill to the left of the photo. The simulation shows the implementation of Alternative B, including the eventual removal of the existing 69 kV transmission line. The red circled portion of the simulation shows the location of the transmission lines before it reaches the hillside and the widened right-ofway clearing. 
Viewpoint 4 – Alternative B 

The viewpoint (above) is located on Westbound UT 12 as it leaves Red Canyon. The view is looking to the West across U.S. 89. The right-of-way for the existing 69 kV transmission line can be seen in the distance. The simulation (right) shows the implementation of Alternative B to the left of the road, including the eventual removal of the existing 69 kV transmission line. The red circled area shows the location of the transmission line as it travels to the west, across U.S. 89. 
Viewpoint 5 – Alternative B 

The viewpoint (above) is located along the Golden Wall Trail in Red Canyon. The view is looking from the trail. The simulation (right) shows the implementation of Alternative B, including the eventual removal of the existing 69 kV transmission line. 
Viewpoint 5 – Alternatives A and C 

The viewpoint (above) is located along the Golden Wall Trail in Red Canyon. The view is looking from the trail. The simulation (right) shows the implementation of either Alternative A or C. Both of these alternative alignments would be located to the south of Red Canyon and not be visible from this viewpoint. The existing 69 kV transmission line would be removed. 
Viewpoint 6 – Alternative A 

This viewpoint is located near the eastern boundary of the DNF along SR 12. The DNF has designated this area as having a High scenic integrity objective in the foreground along the highway corridor. Segment A-2 woulcross SR 12 just to the west of this viewpoint. The simulation shows the implementation of Alternative Segment A-2. 

d 
Viewpoint 7 – Alternative C 

The viewpoint lies between the DNF boundary to the north andthe proposed Cedar Fork Southern Route Alternative (in Segment C-2) to the south, along a USFS Scenic Backway (East Fork of the Sevier River Road, Forest Road 30087). The simulation (right) shows the implementation of AlternativeSegment C-2.
Viewpoint 8 – Alternative A 

This viewpoint is located along SR 12 at an interpretive wayside, southwest of the Bryce Canyon Airport. The panorama in the photo is to the north, ranging from the north to the northeast. The simulation shows the implementation of Alternative A. The red circled areas show where the proposed transmission line would be located beyond the airport. 
Viewpoint 9 

The viewpoint is at the junction of SR 12 and SR 63 at the turnoff to BRCA. At this point, all eastbound motorists on SR 12 would have views of Alternative Segment C-1 as it runs northsouth along the Park boundary. No simulation was completed for this viewpoint. 
Viewpoint 10 – Alternative C 

The viewpoint (above) is located along SR 12 at the western Park boundary. The photo is looking toward the northwest from the highway. The simulation (right) shows the implementation of Alternative C as this segment would travel from the north to the south along the Park boundary. 
Viewpoint 10 – Alternative C 

This photo (above) is taken from the same location as the previous photo, but is looking west along SR 12. The simulation (right) shows the implementation of Alternative C as this segment would travel from the north to the south along the Park boundary and crosses SR 12. 
Viewpoint 11 

The viewpoint is located It provides unobstructed of-way between lower Trcompleted for this viewp

Viewpoint 12 This viewpoint is at the Fairyland Overlook within BRCA. The viewpoint lies at the edge of the Pink Cliffs, and the view extends from north to east along the existing transmission line route. No simulation was completed for this viewpoint. 
Viewpoint 13 – Alternatives A and C 

The viewpoint (above) is located at the Mossy Cave Trail within BRCA and near the cave and trail end, at a point where the existing transmission line passes directly overhead. The simulation (right) shows the implementation of Alternative B. Because Alternative B would be slightly offset from the existing line in this area, the new line would not be visible from this viewpoint and the existing line would be removed. 
Viewpoint 13 – Alternatives A and C 

This photo is taken from the Mossy Cave Trail in the same vicinity as the previous photo. The simulation (right) shows the implementation of Alternative B. Because Alternative B would be slightly offset from the existing line in this area, the new line would not be visible from this viewpoint and the existing line would be removed. 
Viewpoint 14 – Alternative B 

This viewpoint is on SR 12 north of Tropic. Thview in the photo looks north along the highwaand to the east. The simulation shows the implementation of Alternative B, where Alternative B would approach and cross SR 12. 

e 

y 
Viewpoint 15 

The viewpoint is located along the within the Primitive Zone of the GSENM. The transmission line in the photo is an existing Rocky Mountain Power/PacifiCorp 230 kV line that traverses the Primitive Zone. The proposed transmission line for Alternative A or C would parallel this one. 

No simulation was prepared for this viewpoint. 
 2 

Appendix B 

BLM Contrast Rating Sheets 












Addendum to 

Visual Resources Specialist Report 

dated December 2009 

Prepared For: 

US Forest Service – Dixie National Forest 

National Park Service – Bryce Canyon National Park 

Bureau of Land Management – Kanab Field Office 

Bureau of Land Management – Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument 

Prepared By: 

8160 South Highland Drive 

Sandy, Utah 84093 
This addendum updates the Visual Resources Specialist Report dated December 2009 by 

expanding the report to include the Agency Preferred Alternative and providing errata to expand 

on or correct data previously presented. 

Agency Preferred Alternative 

The Agency Preferred Alternative was developed through a joint effort of all agencies (USFS, 

BLM, and NPS) taking into consideration the impacts of all of the resources along the Action 

Alternatives. Alternative E is the Agency Preferred Alternative because it attains the project’s 

purpose and need while still being sensitive to other resource concerns within the Project Area, 

and the missions and management objectives of the various land management agencies 

responsible for the public lands that would be crossed by the Agency Preferred Alternative. 

The 100-foot-wide right-of-way for Alternative E, the Agency Preferred Alternative route 

(Figure 1) would begin with Segment C1 (17.36 miles), the East-West Interconnect option (3.70 

miles), and a combination of portions of Segments A-3 and C-3 (referred to as E-3). Alternative E 

contains the segment combining portions of Alternatives A and C called E-3. Segment E-3 begins 

where the East-West Interconnect joins the Alternative A route and terminates at the Hatch 

Substation. Segment E-3 would follow Segment A-3 for 1.6 miles to the point where it intersects 

Segment C-3 and would follow the remainder of Segment C-3, terminating at the Hatch 

Substation for 6.76 miles. The total length of the preferred route would be 29.41 miles. 

Approximately 16.23 miles of the existing 69 kV transmission line infrastructure from the Bryce 

Canyon Substation to the Hatch Mountain Substation would be removed. 

Alternative E, the Agency Preferred Alternative, would also require the amendment of the 

GSENM MP (BLM 2000) by changing the designation of a 300-foot-wide 3.68-mile stretch 

(133.74 acres) of the Primitive Zone to Passage Zone, and within this area, changing the existing 

VRM Management Class designation from Class II to Class III. 

1 
Figure 1. Alternative E, Agency Preferred Alternative Route 

2 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
 

3 
Resource Impacts 

Alternative E, the Agency Preferred Alternative route, is comprised of segments or portions of 

segments analyzed under Alternatives A and C, which are fully analyzed in the original Specialist 

Report dated December 2009. Resource specific disturbance acreages and other data specific to 

Alternative E, the Agency Preferred Alternative, are provided in the table below. 

VISUAL 

RESOURCES 

ALTERNATIVE E: PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE 

69 KV LINE REMOVAL, 

ALTERNATIVE E 

Viewpoint 1 

Short-term adverse impacts from 

construction; long-term, adverse 

impacts that would likely exceed 

VRM Class III objectives at and 

near the U.S. 89 Byway crossing. 

Minor, short-term, adverse impacts 

from removal of existing line.because 

of the long viewing distance. 

Viewpoint 2 

Minor, adverse short-term and 

long-term impacts that would meet 

VRM Class III objectives. 

Minor, beneficial impacts from 

removal of existing line. 

Viewpoint 3 No impacts because of viewing 

distance. 

Short-term, minor adverse impacts 

from existing line removal; long-term, 

minor beneficial impact to scenic 

quality. 

Viewpoint 4 No impacts from line construction 

west of Red Canyon. 

Minor, beneficial long-term impacts 

from existing line removal. 

Viewpoint 5 No impacts to scenic quality within 

Red Canyon. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts from 

existing line removal. 

Viewpoint 6 Minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts on scenic quality. 

Beneficial, minor impacts from 

existing line removal. 

Viewpoint 7 

Short-term and long-term, 

moderate, adverse impacts from 

construction in High SIO area 

along scenic backway. 

Long-term, minor, beneficial impacts 

from existing line removal. 

Viewpoint 8 

Moderate, adverse, long-term 

scenic quality impacts. Minor, 

adverse long-term impacts to night 

sky from FAA safety devices. 

Minor, beneficial long-term, indirect 

impacts from existing line removal. 

Viewpoint 9 

Moderately adverse impacts, but 

consistent with existing level of 

scenic quality. 

Minor, beneficial long-term, indirect 

impacts from existing line removal. 

4 
 

VISUAL 

RESOURCES 

ALTERNATIVE E: PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE 

69 KV LINE REMOVAL, 

ALTERNATIVE E 

Viewpoint 10 

Moderate, adverse short-term and 

long-term impacts from line 

construction. 

Minor, long-term, beneficial indirect 

impacts from existing line removal. 

Viewpoint 11 

No impacts. 

Long-term, minor, adverse impacts 

from maintained existing line. 

No effect 

Viewpoint 12 No impacts to scenic quality from 

Park overlook. 

Minor, long-term, beneficial indirect 

impacts from existing line removal. 

Viewpoint 13 No impacts along Mossy Cave 

Trail. 

Moderate, long-term, beneficial 

impacts from existing line removal. 

Viewpoint 14 

Minor, adverse long-term impacts 

on scenic quality. 

Moderate, adverse, impacts from 

maintenance of existing line. 

No effect 

Viewpoint 15 Minor, long-term, adverse impacts. No effect 

GSENM Plan 

Amendment 

Would amend GSENM 

Management Plan to designating a 

300-foot-wide Passage Zone 

corridor through a designated 

Primitive Zone, and to change the 

existing VRM Class designation 

from Class II to Class III within the 

Passage Zone. 

N/A 

General 

Clearing of right-of-way in forested 

areas would leave noticeable 

linear element in landscape. This 

would be somewhat mitigated by 

selected clearing of vegetation at 

periphery of right-of-way to mimic 

natural vegetative patterns. Twotrack access route would be 

noticeable outside of limited 

access areas along centerline of 

route. Consistency with agency 

visual resource management 

guidance is assumed, unless 

otherwise noted. 

Removal of a portion of the existing 

69 kV line would eliminate the visual 

intrusion of the line infrastructure. The 

cleared right-of-way would continue to 

be visible for many years, however 

after it fully revegetates there would 

be a long-term beneficial impact on 

visual resources. 

5 
Errata 

Some changes, clarification and updates to resource-specific data and analysis were made as a 

result of the comments received on the Draft Enviromuental Impact Statement. The elTata below 

update the original Specialist Report dated December 2009. 

Page 3 

The second paragraph under the heading 1.1.2.2 Alternative B: Parallel Existing 69 kV Route 

should read: 

The Alternative B Route would generally parallel the existing 69 kV line right-of-way, but must 

be separated from the existing 69 kV line right-of-way for constructability and safety reason, in 

order to safely build and energize the line prior to removal of the existing line. Alternative B 

would extend 29.11 miles. This alternative route would begin at the proposed East Valley 

Substation located east of Tropic and extend west through the Tropic Substation (the Tropic 

Substation would be decommissioned) and then cross SR 12 and continue across BRCA 

(deviating slightly from the existing right-of-way for approximately 1.5 miles) to a point near the 

ClUTent Bryce Canyon Substation near Bryce Canyon City. For this Alternative, the Bryce 

Canyon Substation would be decommissioned and a new replacement substation would be built at 

a new location approximately 1 mile to the west to allow for needed expansion. The route would 

extend approximately 0.5 mile to the north around Blyce Canyon City, west across SR 63 and 

then parallel Garkane's existing 69 kV line right-of-way predominately across private and SITLA 

lands. The alternative route would parallel the existing right-of-way just to the south across the 

plateau in a northwest direction to Red Canyon, where it would generally follow the existing 

right-of-way through Red Canyon into Long Valley where it would cross U.S. 89 and continue to 

the Hatch Mountain Substation. From there the route would follow the existing line south to the 

Hatch Substation. This route would cross 5.58 miles of DNF, 8.29 miles of KFO, 2.81 miles of 

BRCA, 3.63 miles of SITLA, and 8.80 miles of private lands. 

Consideration of Best Available Science 

The tecImiques and methodologies used in this analysis consider the best available science. The 

analysis includes a summalY of the credible scientific evidence that is relevant to evaluating 

reasonably foreseeable impacts. In addition, the analysis also identifies the methods used and 

references the scientific sources relied on. When appropriate, the conclusions are based on a 

scientific analysis that shows a thorough review of relevant scientific infOlmation, a consideration 

of responsible opposing views, and the acknowledgment of incomplete or unavailable 

information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. 

Soseoh {;, (GeCk+elvt~ I 

Name (Printed) 

r 7 

Date 

6