Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G 

VRM Amendment Analysis 

 Appendix G-1: BLM 

 Appendix G-2: Forest Service 
Appendix G-1 

Bureau of Land Management 

Visual Resource Management Amendments Analysis 

Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Prepared by Tetra Tech Inc. 

Submitted To:

Bureau of Land Management 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-iii

Plan Amendments Analysis

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. G.1-1

2 PROJECT FEATURES AFFECTING VISUAL ENVIRONMENT..................... G.1-3

2.1 Facility Components ...........................................................................................G.1-3

2.2 Project-wide Visual Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Proponents...............G.1-4

3 STUDY ASSUMPTIONS.................................................................................. G.1-4

4 PROJECT-WIDE ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT ..................................... G.1-5

5 AREAS OF INCONSISTENCY ........................................................................ G.1-7

5.1 Casper RMP.....................................................................................................G.1-10

5.1.1 AOI C-1 Deer Creek (Segment 1E and 1W[c] Proposed and Alternative 

Route 1E-C) ...........................................................................................G.1-10

5.1.2 AOI C-2 Dugway Rim (Segment 1 Proposed Route 1E) .........................G.1-12

5.1.3 AOIs C-3.1 through C.3-4 (Segment 1 Proposed and Alternative Routes 

1E-C, 1W(a) and 1W(c) ..........................................................................G.1-13

5.2 Rawlins RMP....................................................................................................G.1-28

5.2.1 AOI R-1 Laramie North (Proposed Route – Segment 1E and Alternative 

1E-B)......................................................................................................G.1-29

5.2.2 AOI R-2 Laramie South (Alternative 1E-B)..............................................G.1-30

5.2.3 AOI R-3 North Platte AOI (Segment 2 Proposed Route).........................G.1-32

5.3 Green River RMP .............................................................................................G.1-41

5.3.1 AOI GR-1 Green River (Segment 4 Proposed Route).............................G.1-42

5.4 Kemmerer RMP................................................................................................G.1-47

5.4.1 AOI K-1 Sublette Cutoff (Proposed Route – Segment 4) ........................G.1-47

5.4.2 AOI K-2 Commissary Ridge (Proposed Route – Segment 4)..................G.1-49

5.4.3 AOI K-3 Sublette Range (Proposed Route – Segment 4, Alternative 4F)G.1-51

5.4.4 AOI K-4 Tunp Range (Alternative 4A).....................................................G.1-52

5.4.5 AOI K-5 Hams Fork (Alternative 4F) .......................................................G.1-54

5.4.6 AOI K-6 A and B, Fossil Butte (Alternatives 4B/4C and 4D/4E) ..............G.1-56

5.4.7 AOI K-7 Sillem Ridge AOI (Alternatives 4C/4E)......................................G.1-59

5.4.8 AOI K-8 Boulder Ridge (Alternatives 4C and 4E)....................................G.1-60

5.4.9 Designated Viewsheds and Trail Segments............................................G.1-61

5.5 Malad MFP .......................................................................................................G.1-87

5.5.1 AOI M-1 Deep Creek (Segment 5 and Segment 7 Proposed Routes).....G.1-88

5.5.2 AOI M-2 Snake River (Proposed Route – Segment 5)............................G.1-89

5.5.3 AOI M-3 Deep Creek East (Segment 5 and Segment 7 Proposed 

Routes)...................................................................................................G.1-89

5.6 Cassia RMP......................................................................................................G.1-99

5.6.1 AOI CA-1 Jim Sage (Alternative 7H).....................................................G.1-100

5.6.2 AOI CA-2 Cottonwood Creek AOI (Alternative 7H) ...............................G.1-101

5.6.3 AOI CA-3 Spring Canyon (Alternative 7E) ............................................G.1-102
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-iv

Plan Amendments Analysis

5.6.4 AOI CA-4 Goose Creek Travel Zone (Alternative 7I and Alternative 7J)G.1-103

5.6.5 AOI CA-5 Goose Creek Travel Zone (Alternative 7I and Alternative 7J)G.1-104

5.7 Twin Falls MFP...............................................................................................G.1-118

5.7.1 AOI J-1/TF-1 Salmon Falls Creek (Proposed Route – Segment 9).......G.1-119

5.7.2 AOI TF-2 Rock Creek (Alternative 7I and Alternative 7J)......................G.1-121

5.8 Jarbidge RMP................................................................................................. G.1-128

5.8.1 AOI J-1/TF-1 Salmon Falls Creek (Proposed Route – Segment 9).......G.1-129

5.8.2 AOI J-2 Saylor Creek (Proposed Route – Segment 9)..........................G.1-131

5.8.3 AOI BOP-1/J-3 South Oregon Trail (Alternative 9D/9G)........................G.1-132

5.8.4 AOI J-4 Oregon Trail (Alternative 8A, Alternative 9B) ...........................G.1-134

5.8.5 AOI J-5 North Oregon Trail (Proposed Route – Segment 8).................G.1-136

5.9 SRBOP RMP..................................................................................................G.1-152

5.9.1 AOI BOP-1/J-3 South Oregon Trail (Segment 9 Alternative 9D/9G)......G.1-153

5.9.2 AOI BOP-2 Sinker Butte (Segment 9 Alternative 9D/9F and Segment 8 

Alternative 8E; Segment 9G/9H)...........................................................G.1-155

5.9.3 AOI BOP-3 Guffey Butte (Segment 8 Proposed Route, Alternative 8E, 

Alternative 9D/9F, and Alternative 9G/9H)............................................G.1-157

5.10 Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP ...............................................................G.1-170

5.10.1AOI BH-1 Burnt Ridge (Proposed Route – Segment 8).........................G.1-171

5.11 Wells RMP......................................................................................................G.1-176

5.11.1Segment Alternatives............................................................................G.1-176

5.11.2AOI W-1 Goose Creek (Alternative 7I/7J) .............................................G.1-177

5.12 Bruneau MFP ................................................................................................. G.1-182

5.12.1Segment Alternatives............................................................................G.1-182

5.12.2AOI B-1 Castle Creek (Segment 9 Proposed Route) ............................G.1-183

5.12.3Plan Amendment..................................................................................G.1-184

Attachment A. Existing Conditions and Photographic Simulations
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-v 

Plan Amendments Analysis

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 2.1-1. Primary Transmission Structures – Visual Description..............................G.1-4

Table 5-1. BLM RMP and MFP Areas of Inconsistency .............................................G.1-7

Table 5.4-1. Historic Trail Segments...........................................................................G.1-63

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Project Overview ......................................................................................G.1-2

Figure 5-1. AOI Overview Map ...................................................................................G.1-9

Figure 5.1-1. Casper RMP Boundary Map...................................................................G.1-15

Figure 5.1-2. AOI C-1 Deer Creek AOI Visual Analysis................................................G.1-16

Figure 5.1-3. AOI C-1 Deer Creek AOI Detailed Map ..................................................G.1-17

Figure 5.1-4. AOI C-2 Dugway Rim Visual Analysis.....................................................G.1-18

Figure 5.1-5. AOI C-2 Dugway Rim .............................................................................G.1-19

Figure 5.1-6. AOI 3.1 Spruce Creek Visual Analysis....................................................G.1-20

Figure 5.1-7. AOI C.31 Spruce Creek Detailed Map ....................................................G.1-21

Figure 5.1-8. AOI 3.2 Bates Creek Visual Analysis ......................................................G.1-22

Figure 5.1-9. AOI 3.2 Bates Creek Detailed Map.........................................................G.1-23

Figure 5.1-10. AOI Bates Creek Visual Analysis............................................................G.1-24

Figure 5.1-11. AOI 3.3 Bates Creek Detailed Map.........................................................G.1-25

Figure 5.1-12. AOI 3.4 Bates Creek Visual Analysis ......................................................G.1-26

Figure 5.1-13. AOI 3.4 Bates Creek Detailed Map.........................................................G.1-27

Figure 5.2-1. Rawlins RMP Boundary Map..................................................................G.1-34

Figure 5.2-2. AOI R-1 Laramie North Visual Analysis ..................................................G.1-35

Figure 5.2-3. AOI R-1 Laramie North Detailed Map .....................................................G.1-36

Figure 5.2-4. AOI R-2 Laramie South Visual Analysis..................................................G.1-37

Figure 5.2-5. AOI R-2 Laramie South Detailed Map.....................................................G.1-38

Figure 5.2-6. AOI R-3 North Platte Visual Analysis ......................................................G.1-39

Figure 5.2-7. AOI R-3 North Platte Detailed Map.........................................................G.1-40

Figure 5.3-1. Green River RMP Boundary Map ...........................................................G.1-44

Figure 5.3-2. AOI GR-1 Green River AOI Visual Analysis............................................G.1-45

Figure 5.3-3. AOI GR-1 Green River AOI Detailed Map...............................................G.1-46

Figure 5.4-1. Kemmerer RMP Boundary Map..............................................................G.1-64

Figure 5.4-2. AOI K-1 Sublette Cutoff AOI Visual Analysis ..........................................G.1-65

Figure 5.4-3. AOI K1 Sublette Cutoff AOI Detailed Map...............................................G.1-66

Figure 5.4-4. AOI K-2 Commissary Ridge AOI Visual Analysis ....................................G.1-67

Figure 5.4-5. AOI K-2 Commissary Ridge AOI Detailed Map .......................................G.1-68

Figure 5.4-6. AOI K-3 Sublette Range AOI Visual Analysis (Alternative 4F) ................G.1-69

Figure 5.4-7. AOI K-3 Sublette Range AOI Detailed Map (Alternative 4F) ...................G.1-70

Figure 5.4-8. AOI K-3 Sublette Range AOI Visual Analysis (Proposed Route).............G.1-71

Figure 5.4-9. AOI K-3 Sublette Range AOI Detailed Map (Proposed Route)................G.1-72

Figure 5.4-10. AOI K-4Tunp Range AOI Visual Analysis (Alternative 4A)......................G.1-73

Figure 5.4-11 AOI K-4Tunp Range AOI Detailed Map (Alternative 4F) .........................G.1-74

Figure 5.4-12. AOI K-5 Hams Fork AOI Visual Analysis ................................................G.1-75

Figure 5.4-13. AOI K-5 Hams Fork AOI Detailed Map ...................................................G.1-76

Figure 5.4-14. AOI K-6 Fossil Butte AOI Visual Analysis (Alternatives 4B/4C)...............G.1-77

Figure 5.4-15. AOI K-6 Fossil Butte AOI Detailed Map (Alternatives 4B/4C)..................G.1-78

Figure 5.4-16. AOI K-6 Fossil Butte AOI Visual Analysis (Alternatives 4D/4E)...............G.1-79

Figure 5.4-17. AOI K-6 Fossil Butte AOI Detailed Map (Alternative 4D/4E) ...................G.1-80
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-vi

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.4-18. AOI K-7 Sillem Ridge Visual Analysis (Alternative 4C/4E) ......................G.1-81

Figure 5.4-19. AOI K-7 Sillem Ridge Detailed Map (Alternative 4C/4E) .........................G.1-82

Figure 5.4-20. AOI K-8 Boulder Ridge AOI Visual Analysis (Alternative 4D/4E).............G.1-83

Figure 5.4-21. AOI K-8 Boulder Ridge AOI Detailed Map (Alternative 4D/4E)................G.1-84

Figure 5.4-22. Designated Viewsheds ...........................................................................G.1-85

Figure 5.4-23. Historic Trail Segments...........................................................................G.1-86

Figure 5.5-1. Malad MFP Boundary Map .....................................................................G.1-92

Figure 5.5-2. AOI M-1 Malad AOI Visual Analysis (Segment 5) ...................................G.1-93

Figure 5.5-3. AOI M-1 Malad AOI Visual Analysis (Segment 7) ...................................G.1-94

Figure 5.5-4. AOI M-1 Malad AOI Detailed Map (Segments 5 and 7)...........................G.1-95

Figure 5.5-5. AOI M-3 Deep Creek East AOI Visual Analysis (Segment 5)..................G.1-96

Figure 5.5-6. AOI M-3 Deep Creek East AOI Visual Analysis (Segment 7)..................G.1-97

Figure 5.5-7. AOI M-3 Deep Creek East AOI Detailed Map (Segments 5 and 7) .........G.1-98

Figure 5.6-1. Cassia RMP Boundary Map..................................................................G.1-106

Figure 5.6-2. AOI CA-1 Jim Sage Visual Analysis......................................................G.1-107

Figure 5.6-3. AOI CA-1 Jim Sage Detailed Map ........................................................G.1-108

Figure 5.6-4. AOI CA-2 Cottonwood Creek Visual Analysis .......................................G.1-109

Figure 5.6-5. AOI CA-2 Cottonwood Creek Detailed Map ..........................................G.1-110

Figure 5.6-6. AOI CA-3 Spring Canyon Visual Analysis .............................................G.1-111

Figure 5.6-7. AOI CA-3 Spring Canyon Detailed Map................................................G.1-112

Figure 5.6-8. Spring Canyon AOI Looking South from KOP 311 and KOP 306..........G.1-113

Figure 5.6-9. AOI CA-4 Goose Creek Visual Analysis ...............................................G.1-114

Figure 5.6-10. AOI CA-4 Goose Creek Detailed Map ..................................................G.1-115

Figure 5.6-11. AOI CA-5 Goose Creek Visual Analysis ...............................................G.1-116

Figure 5.6-12. AOI CA-5 Goose Creek Detailed Map ..................................................G.1-117

Figure 5.7-1. Twin Falls MFP Boundary Map.............................................................G.1-123

Figure 5.7-2. AOI J-1/TF-1 Salmon Falls Creek Visual Analysis ................................G.1-124

Figure 5.7-3. AOI J-1/TF-1 Salmon Falls Creek Detailed Map ...................................G.1-125

Figure 5.7-4. AOI TF-2 Rock Creek Visual Analysis ..................................................G.1-126

Figure 5.7-5. AOI TF-2 Rock Creek Detailed Map .....................................................G.1-127

Figure 5.8-1. Jarbidge RMP Boundary Map...............................................................G.1-138

Figure 5.8-2. AOI J-1/TF-2 Salmon Falls Creek AOI Visual Analysis .........................G.1-139

Figure 5.8-3. AOI J-1/TF-1 Salmon Falls Creek AOI Detailed Map ............................G.1-140

Figure 5.8-4. AOI J-2 Saylor Creek AOI Visual Analysis ............................................G.1-141

Figure 5.8-5. View from KOP 816 (AOI J-2)...............................................................G.1-142

Figure 5.8-6. AOI J-2 Saylor Creek AOI Detailed Map...............................................G.1-143

Figure 5.8-7. AOI BOP-1/J-3 South Oregon Trail AOI Visual Analysis .......................G.1-144

Figure 5.8-8. AOI BOP-1/J-3 South Oregon Trail AOI Detailed Map..........................G.1-145

Figure 5.8-9. AOI J-4 Oregon Trail AOI Visual Analysis (Alternative 8A) ...................G.1-146

Figure 5.8-10. AOI J-4 Oregon Trail AOI Detailed Map (Alternative 8A) ......................G.1-147

Figure 5.8-11. AOI J-4 Oregon Trail AOI Visual Analysis (Alternative 9B) ...................G.1-148

Figure 5.8-12. AOI J-4 Oregon Trail AOI Detailed Map (Alternative 9B) ......................G.1-149

Figure 5.8-13. AOI J-5 North Oregon Trail AOI Visual Analysis ...................................G.1-150

Figure 5.8-14. AOI J-5 North Oregon Trail AOI Detailed Map ......................................G.1-151

Figure 5.9-1. SRBOP RMP Boundary Map................................................................G.1-159

Figure 5.9-2. AOI BOP-1/J-3 South Oregon Trail AOI Visual Analysis .......................G.1-160

Figure 5.9-3. AOI BOP-1/J-3 South Oregon Trail AOI Detailed Map..........................G.1-161

Figure 5.9-4. AOI BOP-2 Sinker Butte AOI Visual Analysis (Alternatives 9D/9F/8E)..G.1-162

Figure 5.9-5. AOI BOP-2 Sinker Butte AOI Visual Analysis (Alternative 9G/9H) ........G.1-163

Figure 5.9-6. AOI BOP-3 Guffey Butte AOI Detailed Map ..........................................G.1-164

Figure 5.9-7. AOI BOP-3 Guffey Butte AOI Visual Analysis – Segment 8 ..................G.1-165
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-vii

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.9-8. AOI BOP-3 Guffey Butte AOI Visual Analysis – Alternative 8E .............G.1-166

Figure 5.9-9. AOI BOP-3 Guffey Butte AOI Visual Analysis – Alternative 9D/9F........G.1-167

Figure 5.9-10. AOI BOP-3 Guffey Butte AOI Visual Analysis – Alternative 9G/9H .......G.1-168

Figure 5.9-11. AOI BOP-3 Guffey Butte AOI Detailed Map ..........................................G.1-169

Figure 5.10-1. Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills RMP Boundary Map .............................G.1-173

Figure 5.10-2. AOI BH-1 Burnt Ridge Visual Analysis..................................................G.1-174

Figure 5.10-3. AOI BH-1 Burnt Ridge Detailed Map.....................................................G.1-175

Figure 5.11-1. Wells Field Office and Resource Management Plan Area.....................G.1-179

Figure 5.11-2. AOI Viewshed.......................................................................................G.1-180

Figure 5.11-3. Area of Inconsistency ...........................................................................G.1-181

Figure 5.12-1. Bruneau Field Office and Resource Management Plan Area................G.1-185

Figure 5.12-2. AOI B-1 Castle Creek Visual Analysis ..................................................G.1-186

Figure 5.12-3. AOI B-1 Castle Creek Detailed Map .....................................................G.1-187

Figure 5.12-4. View of Lands Adjacent to AOI B-1 from KOP 581 ...............................G.1-188
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-viii

Plan Amendments Analysis

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

AOI areas of inconsistency

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CR County Route

EIS environmental impact statement

FO Field Office

Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

Gateway West Gateway West Transmission Line Project

GIS geographic information system

IDANG Idaho Army National Guard

IDT Interdisciplinary Team

KOP key observation point

kV kilovolt

LRT Linear Routing Tool

MFP management framework plans

NF National Forest

NHT National Historic Trail

NM National Monument

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

PMA Prescriptive Management Area

Project Gateway West Transmission Line Project

R Range

RMP resource management plan

RMPPA Rawlins Management Plan Planning Area

ROD Record of Decision

ROW right-of-way

SMA Special Management Area

SR State Route

SRBOP Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation 

Area

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area

T Township
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-ix

Plan Amendments Analysis

VRM Visual Resource Management

WMA Wildlife Management Area

WSA Wilderness Study Area

WSR Wild and Scenic River

WWE West-Wide Energy
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-1 

Plan Amendments Analysis

1 INTRODUCTION 

This document provides an analysis of locations where visual resource management 

driven amendments to Bureau of Land Management (BLM) resource management 

plans (RMPs) and/or management framework plans (MFPs) may be necessary for the 

Gateway West Transmission Line Project (Gateway West or Project). Gateway West 

consists of 10 segments between the Windstar Substation at Glenrock, Wyoming, and 

the Hemingway Substation approximately 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho, a total 

distance of approximately 1,103 miles (see Figure 1-1). 

The transmission line would cross numerous BLM district and field offices. Activities on 

BLM-managed land are governed by direction found in individual RMPs and MFPs. 

These lands are subject to visual resource management objectives as developed using 

the BLM Visual Resource Management (VRM) System (BLM 1984) and are presented 

in the RMP or MFP. The BLM system identifies four VRM Classes (I through IV) with 

specific management prescriptions for each class. The system is based on an inventory 

of the existing scenic quality, viewer sensitivity, and viewing distance zones. The 

management class for a given area is typically arrived at by comparing the scenic 

quality, visual sensitivity, and distance zone with the overall goals set forth for the area. 

The objectives of each VRM classification from the VRM Visual Resource Inventory 

Manual are stated below:

• VRM Class I. The objective 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 must not attract attention.

• VRM Class II. The objective 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.

• VRM Class III. The objective is to partially retain the existing character of the 

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

moderate or lower. Management activities may attract attention but should not 

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

elements found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic 

landscape.

• VRM Class IV. The objective 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. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-2 

Plan Amendments Analysis

1 Figure 1-1. Project Overview 

2 

FIGURE 1-1
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-3 

Plan Amendments Analysis

The presence of a transmission line in VRM Classes I and II and, in some special 

circumstances, Class III areas usually conform with visual management objectives. 

Areas where this occurs are identified as areas of inconsistency (AOIs).

Best Management Practices for tower design and location were applied to reduce plan 

inconsistency as much as possible. This report describes each of the AOIs and 

explains why the VRM Class I, II or, in some cases, III would be crossed and what 

consideration was given to avoiding the area. The type of amendment required should 

the proposed or an alternative route be selected is then proposed. Two types of land 

use plan amendments were considered: 1) changing the VRM classification, or 2)

allowing the proposed use to occur without changing the VRM classification. Maps 

showing the distribution of VRM classes within RMP and MFP boundaries are shown in 

Section 5.

2 PROJECT FEATURES AFFECTING VISUAL ENVIRONMENT 

2.1 Facility Components 

The Project facility components that affect the visual environment include:

• Approximately 1,103 miles of transmission lines and associated support 

structures and conductors.

− Approximately 258 miles (1,905 structures) would be single-circuit 230-kilovolt 

(kV) or 345-kV steel H-frame structures between 60 and 90 feet tall with a 

700-foot average distance between structures.

− Approximately 501 miles (2,228 structures) would be single-circuit 500-kV 

lattice steel structures between 145 and 180 feet tall with a 1,200- to 1,300-

foot average distance between structures. 

− Approximately 346 miles (1,506 towers) would be double-circuit 500-kV lattice 

structures between 160 and 190 feet tall for the Proposed Action. 

− For the Design Variation approximately 3,012 single-circuit structures would 

be used instead of 1,506 double-circuit structures.

• The Project would have 12 substations, including 3 proposed new Projectspecific substations; one substation that is planned for construction for other 

projects and that will be expanded for this Project; and 8 existing substations that 

would be expanded for this Project; 

• Ancillary facilities such as construction roads (up to 16-feet wide) and 8-foot-wide 

service roads, temporary construction staging areas, regeneration stations, 

power supply to new substations, and other similar facilities would also be visible 

in the construction and operations phases of the Project. 

Table 2.1-1 describes aspects of the primary proposed structures that would affect the 

visual environment. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-4 

Plan Amendments Analysis

Table 2.1-1. Primary Transmission Structures – Visual Description

Project Facility Description

Transmission Line Segments

Transmission Line Features 

Common to All Proposed 

500-kV Segments

 

Example -single and doublecircuit structures 

• Conductors: Bundled with three subconductors per phase. 

Non-specular (dull) finish rather than a shiny finish.

• Estimated subconductor diameter: 1.504 inches.

• Bundle spacing: Distance between subconductors is 18 inches 

and 25 inches.

• Typical ground clearance: 35 feet.

• Structure types: lattice steel single and double circuit 

structures. Dulled galvanized steel finish.

• Structure heights: Single-circuit structure varies between 145 

and 180 feet. Average height of 156 feet.

• Structure heights: Double-circuit structure varies between 160 

and 190 feet. Average height of 170 feet.

• Approximate distance between structures: 1,200 to 1,300 feet.

• ROW width for double-circuit: 300 feet, ROW width for singlecircuit: 250 feet.

Transmission Line Features 

Common to All Proposed 

230-kV Segments

Example -single circuit 

structure

• Conductors: Bundled with two subconductors per phase. Nonspecular finish.

• Estimated subconductor diameter: 1.196 inches.

• Bundle spacing: 18 inches vertical.

• Typical ground clearance: 28 feet.

• Structure types: steel H-frame structures.

• Above-ground structure heights: varies between 60 and 90 feet.

• Approximate distance between structures: 700 feet.

• ROW width: 125 feet.

2.2 Project-wide Visual Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Proponents 

The Proponents have incorporated three mitigation measures into the Project to reduce 

visual impacts: 

1. Transmission towers would be constructed of dulled galvanized steel to minimize 

visual impacts. 

2. Non-specular (dull appearance) transmission line conductors would be used. 

3. Self-weathering steel pole H-frame structures would be used in Segment 1 and in 

certain visually sensitive areas.

3 STUDY ASSUMPTIONS

The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) assumed that BLM land use plan amendments would 

be required for AOIs. The IDT also assumed that design elements and/or other 

mitigation measures that reduce impacts would not always reduce the visual contrast to 

a level that conformed with an area’s VRM class.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-5 

Plan Amendments Analysis

For the purpose of this study, the following approaches were used:

• The location of the Proposed Route or Route Alternatives across VRM Class III is 

consistent with the class objectives if consideration was given to alternative 

alignments that would avoid the area and feasible mitigation was applied. 

However, in special circumstances, crossing VRM Class III would not be 

consistent with the visual characteristics of the management class. Those areas 

received visual analysis, as described in Section 5. 

• Direction for considering visual resource values stated in RMPs and MFPs were 

taken into consideration. Where absent or general in nature, the management 

direction provide in BLM Handbook H-1601-1, Land Use Planning, was 

considered (BLM 2005a). 

• The AOI analysis area consisted of up to 15 miles from either side of the 

centerline of the Proposed Route and Route Alternatives. 

4 PROJECT-WIDE ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT 

During transmission line siting, VRM Class I and Class II lands were avoided where 

possible. The routes were also sited to avoid historic trails (where possible) and 

monuments, wildlife refuges, state or federal parks or monuments, prominent peaks, 

and populated areas and a variety of natural resources including raptor nests, sagegrouse leks, and core areas. The objective was to have the least overall impact.

Constraint analyses have been used for the Project to assist in siting the transmission 

line routes and alternatives. In the initial phase, the Proponents attempted to locate the 

routes between required interconnection points (substations) using a comprehensive set 

of avoidance and opportunity criteria. Using this information, the Proponents initially 

identified, evaluated, and compared alternative corridors for each of the 10 segments. 

A Proposed Route was selected and alternative corridors were also evaluated for each 

segment. 

Two general approaches were used to identify and evaluate alternative routes and 

select the Proposed Route and Route Alternatives carried forward for detailed study for 

each segment.

1. In proposed and established utility corridors1 such as the Section 368 Energy Act 

West-wide Energy (WWE) Corridor (DOE and BLM 2009) or BLM and U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) designated utility 

corridors, and/or where existing transmission lines exist, analyses were 

completed to characterize the resources present in the areas crossed by the 

corridors and to determine if use of such corridors would result in significant 

 

1 In order to achieve the capacity rating needed to serve present and future loads within the Proponents’ service area, 

the Western Electricity Coordinating Council requires a minimum separation from existing transmission lines that 

serve substantially the same load as that served by each of the new Gateway West transmission segments. As 

described in Chapter 1 of the environmental impact statement, that minimum separation depends on the purpose of 

the existing line, the load it now serves, and the remaining capacity of the rest of the grid to absorb the load if the 

several co-located lines fail at once. For the purposes of the initial siting study, the longest span was assumed to be 

1,500 feet, thereby dictating the minimum distance between existing and proposed transmission lines serving the 

same load.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-6 

Plan Amendments Analysis

environmental effects. A combination of constraint mapping, stakeholder input, 

and field reconnaissance was used to confirm the use of existing or planned 

corridors. In several cases, new routes deviating from the existing or planned 

corridors were proposed because of adjacent environmental constraints such as 

sage-grouse leks, historic features, raptor nests, and oil and gas wells.

2. Where no existing or planned corridors existed, a “Greenfield” siting approach 

was followed.2 In those cases, a geographic information system (GIS) computer 

analysis (Linear Routing Tool [LRT]) was used to identify initial corridors for 

further evaluation. Using data from numerous public sources, the LRT was used 

to develop alternative transmission line corridors by considering both routing 

constraints and opportunities. Constraints are defined as resources or conditions 

that may be negatively affected by transmission line routing. Opportunities are 

defined as resources or conditions that are favorable to facility construction or 

operation because of their characteristics.

Opportunities included, but were not limited to, WWE corridors, BLM or Forest Service 

designated utility corridors, and existing transmission lines energized to at least 230 kV. 

Many constraints were considered. These included railroads, pipelines, highways, state 

and national parks, wildlife refuges, BLM Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

(ACECs), Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), Department of Defense land, Bureau of 

Indian Affairs land and reservations, prime farmland, irrigated agriculture, confined 

animal feeding operations, dairies, airports, residences, cities and towns, oil and gas 

wells, oil and gas leases, surface and underground mining, erodible soils, geologic 

hazards, steep slopes, paleontological and historical resources, wetlands and 

floodplains. A wide variety of plant and animal concerns were also considered, 

including plant and animal species of concern, sage-grouse leks and core areas, raptor 

nests, crucial big game winter and parturition ranges, wild horse and burro management 

areas, and sensitive fisheries. Visual considerations included BLM VRM Class I, II, and 

III areas; scenic overlooks; scenic highways; federally designated scenic areas; and 

state and local scenic by-ways. Following selection of proposed and alternative routes 

via the LRT process, the alternatives were further refined by reviewing aerial 

photography and topographic maps or on the basis of important input received from 

stakeholders, field reconnaissance, and other sources. 

In subsequent phases that have extended over one year, BLM evaluated initial routes, 

made adjustments and added additional routes to minimize impacts. Later cooperators 

and other stakeholders identified routes, often to accomplish a dominant objective 

based on a single resource such as agriculture or historic sites over other resources 

including VRM classes. Taking all of the various constraints and opportunities into 

consideration, crossing of VRM sensitive lands could not be avoided throughout the 

Project. Section 5 describes each AOI and identified proposed land use plan 

amendments for the Project to conform to the applicable land use plan.

 

2 “Greenfield route” is a route that would be located away from linear corridors, thereby creating a new land use.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-7 

Plan Amendments Analysis 

5 AREAS OF INCONSISTENCY 

This section of the report summarizes the conditions for each AOI. It is organized by 

RMP or MFP from east to west by route segment and by individual AOI. The 

description for each AOI includes a summary of the applicable BLM land use plan and 

any visual considerations described in the plan. The route segments and alternatives 

are then described by location and the rationale provided for why routes could not avoid 

VRM Class I, II and, in some cases, III areas. Site maps are included that show VRM 

classes and a visual analysis conducted for an area within a 15-mile radius of the AOI. 

The general discussion is followed by a summary of the existing landscape conditions 

within the study area. The last section of each AOI discussion is a consistency analysis 

describing the results of the analysis, and the degree to which the AOI conforms or 

differs from the VRM class objective. The analysis also describes proposed plan 

amendments for the AOIs that do not conform to existing land use plans. 

The proposed and alternative routes for the Gateway Project would require BLM actions 

to account for visual impacts in areas within 12 different BLM land use plans. 

Transmission line Segments 1E, 1W, 2, 3, and part of 4 are located in Wyoming (Figure 

1-1). The Casper, Rawlins, Green River, and Kemmerer RMPs apply to actions in 

these segments. Segments 1E, 1W, 2, and the eastern portion of Segment 4 contain a 

total of 37 AOIs. Segment 3 does not contain any AOIs. 

The remainder of Segment 4 and Segments 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are located in Idaho and 

northern Nevada. Affected land use plans include the Malad MFP, Cassia RMP, Twin 

Falls MFP, Jarbidge RMP, Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National 

Conservation Area (SRBOP) RMP, Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP, Bruneau MFP 

and Wells RMP. Segments 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 contain a total of 37 AOIs. Segment 6 

involves energizing an existing transmission to 500 kV and does not contain any AOIs, 

nor does Segment 10. Table 5-1 lists AOIs by RMP/MFP and VRM class. Figure 5-1 is 

an overview map showing AOIs Project-wide. 

Table 5-1. BLM RMP and MFP Areas of Inconsistency 

Land Use 

Plan 

AOI 

Designation/ 

Figure Number Area Name 

Route Designation 

(Tower Height) 

VRM 

Class 

Crossed

Casper RMP C-1 Deer Creek Prop 1E, Prop 1W(a), 1W9c) (90 

ft) 

II 

C-2 Dugway Rim Prop 1E (90 ft) II 

C-3.1 Spruce Creek Alt 1E-C (90 ft) II 

C-3.2 Bates Creek Alt 1E-C, Prop 1W(a), 1W(c) (90 ft) II 

C-3.3 Bates Creek Prop 1W(a) (90 ft) II 

C-3.4 Bates Creek Alt 1E-C (90 ft) II 

Rawlins RMP R-1 Laramie North Prop 1E Magpie (90 ft) II 

R-2 Laramie South Alt 1E-B Smith (90 ft) II 

R-3 North Platte Prop 2 (190 ft) III 

Green River 

RMP 

GR-1 Green River Prop 4 (190 ft) II 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-8 

Plan Amendments Analysis

Table 5-1. BLM RMP and MFP Areas of Inconsistency (continued)

Land Use 

Plan 

AOI 

Designation/

Figure Number Area Name

Route Designation 

(Tower Height)

VRM 

Class 

Crossed

Kemmerer 

RMP

K-1 Sublette Cutoff Prop 4 (190 ft) II

K-2 Commissary Ridge Prop 4 (190 ft) II

K-3 Sublette Range Prop 4 (190 ft)

Alt 4F (190 ft)

II

K-4 Tunp Range Alt 4A (190 ft) II

K-5 Hams Fork Alt 4F (190 ft) II

K-6 Fossil Butte Alt 4B,C, (190 ft)

Alt 4D,E (190 ft)

II

K-7 Sillem Ridge Alt 4C,E (190 ft) II

K-8 Boulder Ridge Alt 4C,E (190 ft) II

Malad MFP M-1 Deep Creek Prop 5 (180 ft)

Prop 7 (180 ft)

II

M-2 Snake River Prop 5 (180 ft) II

M-3 Deep Creek East Prop 5 (180 ft)

Prop 7 (180 ft)

III

Cassia RMP CA-1 Jim Sage Alt 7H (180 ft) II

CA-2 Cottonwood Creek Alt 7H (180 ft) III

CA-3 Spring Canyon Alt 7E (180 ft) II

CA-4 Goose Creek A Alt 7I/7J (180 ft) II

CA-5 Goose Creek B Alt 7I/7J (180 ft) III

Twin Falls 

MFP

TF-2 Rock Creek Alt 7I (180 ft) II

Jarbidge 

RMP/Twin 

Falls MFP

TF-1/J-1 Salmon Falls Creek Prop 9 (180 ft) I, II

Jarbidge RMP J-2 Saylor Creek Prop 9 (180 ft) II

J-4 Oregon Trail Alt 8A (180 ft)

Alt 9B (180 ft)

I 

J-5 North Oregon Trail Prop 8 (180 ft) I 

SRBOP 

RMP/Jarbidge 

RMP

BOP-1/J-3 South Oregon Trail Alt 9D, 9G (180 ft) II

SRBOP RMP BOP-2 Sinker Butte Alt 9D, 9F, 8E (180 ft)

Alt 9G. 9H (180 ft)

II

BOP-3 Guffey Butte Prop 8 (180 ft)

Alt 9D, 9F, 8E (180 ft)

Alt 9G, 9H (180 ft)

II

Bennett Hills/

Timmerman 

Hills MFP

BH-1 Burnt Ridge Prop 8 (180 ft) II

Wells RMP W-1 Goose Creek Alt 7I (180 ft) II

Bruneau MFP B-1 Castle Creek Prop 9 II
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-9 

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5-1. AOI Overview Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-10

Plan Amendments Analysis

5.1 Casper RMP

The Casper RMP (BLM 2007a) provides direction for managing public lands under the 

jurisdiction of the Casper Field Office (FO) in east-central Wyoming. The Casper RMP 

planning area encompasses approximately 8,500,000 acres in Natrona, Converse, 

Platte, and Goshen Counties (see Figure 5.1-1). The Casper RMP discusses VRM 

visual resource values in Decision 5019 as “being managed under the VRM classes 

defined as mapped in the Casper FO GIS database. Changes in the number of acres 

within each VRM class depict a balance between development activities and protection 

of visual resources. These decisions included managing the foreground/middle ground 

of National Historic Trails (NHTs) as Class II until inventories are completed. If trail 

segments contribute to the overall eligibility that has integrity of setting they will be 

managed as VRM Class II. Where integrity of setting is lacking, the foreground/middle 

ground of NHTs will be managed as Class III.” While the routes do cross NHTs, they do 

not do so on BLM-managed land in the Casper FO; however, some trail crossings 

would be close to BLM VRM Class II managed areas.

The northern portions of Segments 1E and 1W are located within the Casper FO. 

Segment 1 routes consist of single-circuit 230-kV transmission lines between the 

existing Windstar Substation near the Dave Johnston Power Plant at Glenrock, 

Wyoming, and the planned Aeolus Substation near Hanna, Wyoming. The distance 

between the substations is approximately 75 to 80 miles. Certain factors, such as 

following the existing WWE corridor, minimizing the length of the lines, avoidance of 

large population centers, and location within favorable topography, were considerations 

for all segments. Specific constraints within Segment 1 that affected the route location 

included big game crucial winter range, NHTs, raptor nest sites, avoidance of VRM 

Class I and II, sage-grouse leks and sage-grouse core areas, oil and gas wells, large 

private landholders who placed high values on the natural scenery, and threatened or 

endangered plants and animals. There is a mosaic of public and private land along the 

Proposed and Alternative Routes and, as a result, the lines pass through scattered 

parcels of VRM Class II land, a few miles or less in length. 

Visual classifications in the Casper RMP would be affected by this Project. Six VRM 

Class II management areas are crossed by the Proposed and Alternative Routes 

(Figure 5.1-1). AOI C-1 was identified as an AOI because it is managed as VRM Class 

II and is located adjacent to Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests (NF) land managed 

for an SIO moderate objective. The level of change to the characteristic landscapes in 

VRM II would typically not allow for presence of a transmission line. BLM action would 

be necessary to modify the visual classification to be consistent with the RMP. The 

remaining five AOIs are isolated parcels and are discussed in Sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.3.

5.1.1 AOI C-1 Deer Creek (Segment 1E and 1W[c] Proposed and Alternative 

Route 1E-C)

The Deer Creek AOI consists of two VRM Class II parcels: a large parcel of 

approximately 630 acres, located approximately 30 miles south of Aeolus Substation, 

and a smaller 72-acre parcel, located approximately 0.3 mile north of the larger parcel. 

Segments 1E, 1W(a), 1W(c) and Alternative 1E-C cross this parcel and are located 

within a common corridor, each separated by approximately 1,500 feet, a distance 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-11

Plan Amendments Analysis

selected to ensure reliability. For this portion of its length, Proposed Route 1W(a) is an 

existing 230-kV transmission line that would be rebuilt similar in appearance to the 

existing line and in the same right-of-way (ROW) and therefore is consistent with the 

RMP. Proposed Route 1E crosses 0.8 mile of VRM Class II and Proposed Route 1W(c) 

crosses 1.2 miles. Alternative 1E-C crosses approximately 0.2 mile of the VRM Class II 

parcel. Figure 5.1-2 shows the viewshed of the Deer Creek AOI, proposed and 

alternative routes, and the VRM management classification. Figure 5.1-3 shows the 

detailed location and amendment management recommendation. 

Alternatives Considered – Several routes between Windstar and Aeolus were 

considered, including three proposed routes, four alternative routes studied in detail in 

the environmental impact statement (EIS), and five alternative routes that were not 

carried forward for detailed analysis due to a variety of constraints (see Sections 2.4.1 

and 2.4.2 of the Draft EIS for descriptions of Segments 1E and 1W and their 

Alternatives). Routes to the east of the Laramie Mountains and near the Thunder Basin 

National Grassland were considered and eliminated by the Proponents. A considerable 

amount of public comment was received during siting of the Segment 1E and 1W routes 

concerning cultural and natural resource features. These included landowners 

opposing the establishment of multiple transmission lines across their properties, as 

well as comments on new Greenfield routes, and the establishment of sage-grouse core 

areas. The Proponents reported that they selected the locations for adjacent Segments 

1E and 1W(c) within the same transmission line corridor to minimize the effects to 

natural resources-including visual resources, and to avoid constructing additional 

Greenfield routes. The Proponents also reported a need for Segment 1E to be located 

east of the existing corridor to be more accessible to present and future wind power 

generators. In selecting a route for the southern portion of 1E they sought to avoid the 

higher and more visible terrain to the north and east as well as the sage-grouse core 

area to the south and west. In making a balanced routing decision that led to the 

proposed and alternative routes VRM Class II areas were unavoidable without causing 

greater overall effects. 

Current BLM policy suggests that WWE corridor routes are often preferred utility routes, 

although other constraints may take precedence over the WWE corridor. Siting routes 

within common corridors of existing transmission lines can also be preferred locations, 

although the environmental consequences from the reliability separation sometimes 

result in greater effects than would occur if a new route is selected. During the siting 

process, the Proponents attempted to follow the WWE corridor unless other obvious 

constraints resulted in fewer impacts by choosing an alternative route.

Because the VRM Class II land in question is already crossed by an existing 230-kV 

line, the Proponents assumed that the effects of locating the other lines in the common 

corridor would be less than creating Greenfield corridors just to avoid VRM Class II land 

that already contains a transmission line.

Existing Landscape Conditions – Much of the 15-mile-radius study area surrounding 

AOI C-1 is mountainous, including portions of the Casper and Laramie Mountains. 

However, the southern slopes are less severe, especially in the area surrounding Bates 

Creek Reservoir. In addition to this reservoir, there are a number of other small 

waterbodies and drainages. There are extensive forest lands in the Medicine Bow-
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-12

Plan Amendments Analysis

Routt NF and other mountainous areas. Very little of the area has been developed and 

there are no major roads through the area. Attachment A, Figure C-1a shows existing 

landscape conditions in the immediate vicinity of AOI C-1 as viewed from key 

observation point (KOP) 105. The landscape is flat to rolling and to a large extent sage 

brush covered with no apparent water elements. The only visible manmade feature is 

an existing wood-pole H-frame 230-kV transmission line. 

Conformance Analysis – Figure 5.1-2 shows the viewshed, KOPs, and other features 

within the 15-mile radius study area used to establish the degree of consistency with the 

existing VRM class. Attachment A, Figure C-1b simulates the proposed transmission 

facilities on the existing landscape conditions showing the Proposed Route 1W(a) and 

Alternative 1E-C transmission line routes as viewed from KOP 105. 

The views of the undulating to rugged terrain and simple geometric forms exhibit little 

diversity in form, line, color, and texture with few man-made features. There would be 

few sensitive viewers south of Reno Hill in the Medicine Bow-Routt NF due to the 

remote nature of this VRM managed land. Possible sensitive viewers may be traveling 

on Highway 487, over 15 miles away; however, at this distance the line may not be 

visible and no KOP was identified to represent these possible sensitive viewers. The 

only visible man-made feature is the H-frame transmission line located within this VRM 

Class II managed area. The simulation and details gathered from pictures taken in the 

surrounding area confirm that Segments 1E and 1W(a) would be moderately to highly 

visible paralleling the existing line. The undulating terrain with simple but uniform 

vegetation would be contrasted by new structures, cleared ROW, and access roads, 

which would draw the attention of the casual observer and deviate from the natural 

form, line, color, and texture. It was also determined that vegetative and topographic 

screening and other mitigation would not reduce the level of contrast. 

Because this VRM Class II area would be occupied by multiple transmission lines, it is 

recommended that the Project be allowed as a visually altering action resulting in 

reclassifying 630 acres of AOI C-1 from VRM Class II to VRM Class III if any of the 

proposed or alternatives routes are selected (see Figure 5.1-3). During final design, 

consideration should be given to matching structure placement for 1W(a), where 

feasible, as an additional mitigation measure. 

5.1.2 AOI C-2 Dugway Rim (Segment 1 Proposed Route 1E)

The Dugway Rim AOI comprises three isolated parcels ranging in size from 

approximately 45 acres to 475 acres spread across approximately 4 miles with a total of 

1.1 miles of Segment 1E of the Proposed Route crossing VRM II areas. Proposed 

Route 1E is sited to balance crossing the higher terrain of the Laramie Range as well as 

avoiding the Natrona Sage-Grouse Core Area. Figure 5.1-4 shows the viewshed of the 

Dugway Rim AOI, the Proposed Route, and the VRM management classification. Figure 

5.1-5 shows the detailed location and amendment management recommendation.

Alternatives Considered

Alternative considered for this route are described in Section 5.1.1. Alternative 1E-C 

would avoid crossing this AOI, but would cross VRM Class II areas as described in 

Section 5.1.3. Alternative routes not studied in detail were eliminated due to crossing 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-13

Plan Amendments Analysis

core sage-grouse areas, creating more Greenfield routes, and impacting scenic and 

historical views.

Existing Landscape Conditions

Much of the 15-mile-radius study area surrounding AOI C-2 is mountainous, including 

portions of the Casper and Laramie Mountains. Little Medicine Bow Creek runs through 

the area and a tourist destination includes Little Medicine Bow Falls adjacent to KOPs 

1039, 1040, and 1041. There are extensive forest lands in the Medicine Bow-Routt NF 

and other mountainous areas north of these KOPs. Very little of the area has been 

developed and there are no major roads through the area besides Baish Road along the 

Medicine Bow-Routt NF boundary. Attachment A, Figure C-2a shows existing 

landscape conditions in the immediate vicinity of AOI C2 as viewed from KOP 1039. 

The landscape is rolling to rugged and to a large extent sagebrush-covered. 

Conformance Analysis

Figure 5.1-4 shows the viewshed, KOPs, and other features within the 15-mile radius 

study area used to establish the degree of consistency with the existing VRM class. 

Attachment A, Figure C-2a shows the existing landscape conditions adjacent to KOP 

1039; there are no views of the proposed transmission line from this viewpoint, only 

adjacent landscapes.

The views of the undulating to rugged terrain and simple geometric forms and rocky 

outcrops exhibit diversity in form, line, color, and texture with few man-made features. 

There would be few sensitive viewers due to the remote nature of this VRM managed 

land. Possible sensitive viewers may be traveling on Little Medicine Road or adjacent 

two track roads; however, most would be at a distance that the line may not be visible 

and no KOP was identified to represent these possible sensitive viewers on the VRM 

managed lands. The undulating terrain with simple but uniform vegetation would be 

contrasted by new structures, cleared ROW, and access roads, which would draw the 

attention of the casual observer and deviate from the natural form, line, color, and 

texture. It was also determined that vegetative and topographic screening and other 

mitigation would not reduce the level of contrast. 

If this route is selected, micrositing may reduce the length across VRM Class II areas 

but would not feasibly avoid all parcels. It is recommended that the Project be allowed 

as a visually altering action without changing the VRM classification in AOI C-2. 

Proposed Route 1E is sited to balance crossing the higher terrain of the Laramie Range 

as well as avoiding the Natrona Sage-Grouse Core Area (see Figure 5.1-5). If this route 

is selected, micrositing may reduce the length across VRM Class II areas but would not 

feasibly avoid all parcels. It is recommended that the Gateway Project be allowed as a 

visually altering action without changing the VRM classification in AOI C-2. 

5.1.3 AOIs C-3.1 through C.3-4 (Segment 1 Proposed and Alternative Routes 

1E-C, 1W(a) and 1W(c)

These AOIs comprise isolated parcels ranging in size from less than 1 acre to 

approximately 6 acres spread across approximately 5 miles with a total VRM Class II 

area crossed of 0.32 miles that would be crossed by either the proposed or alternative 

routes. Proposed Route 1W(a), 1W(c) and Alternative 1E-C would be within or adjacent 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-14

Plan Amendments Analysis

to the WWE corridor and the proposed rebuild of the existing transmission line for much 

of this AOI. Propose Route 1W(a) is a rebuild of an existing powerline from MP 30 to 

MP 39, while 1W(c) is a rebuild from the Dave Johnston Power Plant to MP 25 and 

again from MP 34 to the end of the route. Portions of both 1W(a) and 1W(b) are new 

construction and rebuild within this AOI. 

Alternatives Considered

Alternatives considered for this route are described in 5.1.1. Proposed Route 1E would 

avoid crossing the AOIs crossed by 1E-C; however, additional AOIs would be crossed. 

There are no alternative routes studied in detail for 1W(a) and 1W(b) through this area. 

See Chapter 2 for more detailed descriptions of Proposed and Alternative routes. 

Existing Landscape Conditions

The existing landscape conditions vary by parcel locations. AOI 3.1 is in the Foothills 

Shrubland and Low Mountains ecoregion, with rocky outcrops creating some diversity in 

terrain. While AOI 3.2 is in a transitional area between this and the Wyoming Basin, 

AOIs 3.3 and 3.4 are in the Wyoming Basin; the surrounding landscape is undulating 

with few distinguishing features, and covered in dense, low-lying sagebrush. KOP 86 is 

located southwest of AOI C-3.4 and demonstrates the undulating, and remote 

characteristics of the landscape, while KOP 305, just north of 3.1 shows the rolling hills 

and rugged terrain of the foothills area. AOI 3.2 is fairly close to Ice Cave Mountain 

which has cultural importance related to early settlers. AOIs 3.2 through 3.4 are near 

Bates Creek Reservoir. The Fort Fetterman to Medicine Bow historic trail crosses north 

to south/southwest through the eastern part of the 15-mile radius study area for all of 

the viewsheds. The northern portion of the viewsheds is mountainous while the 

southern half is consists of undulating, sagebrush-dominated Wyoming Basin terrain. 

Bates Creek flows from the northwest into Bates Creek Reservoir, in the center of the 

viewsheds, while the N. Fork Medicine Bow River flow through the southern part of the 

study area and Stinking Creek flows along the western side, paralleling Highway 487.

Conformance Analysis

Figures 5.1-9, -11,-13, and -15 show the locations of the AOIs, the Proposed Routes 

and Route Alternatives, and the VRM management classification. The existing line is 

also visible within these figures as well as the viewshed analysis figures (Figures 5.1-

10, -12, -14, and -16). The area is remote with very little access to many of the isolated 

parcels. VRM Class II designation is likely a result of proximity to Bates Creek Reservoir 

and Ice Cave Mountain for AOIs 3.2 through 3.4. AOI 3.1 VRM Class II designation is 

likely due to proximity to the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests. The presence of the 

high-voltage transmission lines would contrast with the surrounding landscape and 

represent a break in form, line, and texture.

Proposed Route 1W(a), 1W(c) and Alternative 1E-C would be within or adjacent to the 

WWE corridor and the proposed rebuild of the existing transmission line (south to MP 

39 of 1W[a] and south from MP 34 of 1W[c]). Crossing these isolated parcels would be 

preferred over creating a new Greenfield route. It is recommended that the Gateway 

Project be allowed as a visually altering action without changing the VRM classification 

in AOIs C-3.1 through C-3.4. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-15

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.1-1. Casper RMP Boundary Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-16

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.1-2. AOI C-1 Deer Creek AOI Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-17

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.1-3. AOI C-1 Deer Creek AOI Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-18

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.1-4. AOI C-2 Dugway Rim Visual Analysis 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-19

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.1-5. AOI C-2 Dugway Rim
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-20

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.1-6. AOI 3.1 Spruce Creek Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-21

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.1-7. AOI C.31 Spruce Creek Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-22

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.1-8. AOI 3.2 Bates Creek Visual Analysis 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-23

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.1-9. AOI 3.2 Bates Creek Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-24

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.1-10. AOI Bates Creek Visual Analysis 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-25

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.1-11. AOI 3.3 Bates Creek Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-26

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.1-12. AOI 3.4 Bates Creek Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-27

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.1-13. AOI 3.4 Bates Creek Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-28

Plan Amendments Analysis

5.2 Rawlins RMP

The Rawlins RMP (BLM 2008a) provides direction for managing public lands under the 

jurisdiction of the Rawlins FO in southeastern Wyoming. The Rawlins RMP planning 

area covers approximately 11,200,000 acres in Sweetwater, Carbon, Albany, and 

Laramie Counties, Wyoming (see Figure 5.2-1). The current objective of visual 

resource management within the Rawlins Management Plan Planning Area (RMPPA) is 

to minimize adverse effects on visual resources while maintaining the effectiveness of 

other land use allocations. Visual resources in the RMPPA are managed according to 

the VRM classes to which they are assigned. The Rawlins RMP also states that visual 

resources should be managed to meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy 

Rangelands. The RMP states, “VRM classes are designated as shown on Map 2-50 

(Table 2-9 and Appendix 25).” 

The southern portion of Segments 1E and 1W, Segment 2, and the eastern portion of 

Segment 3 cross the RMPPA. Single-circuit 230-kV lines would enter Aeolus 

Substation in Segment 1 from the north and east. A double-circuit 500-kV line is 

proposed from Aeolus west to Creston Substation, and continuing west to Anticline 

Substation. There is also a Design Variation that would replace the double-circuit 500-

kV line with two adjacent 500-kV single-circuit lines. Constraints and opportunities 

within the RMPPA are very similar to those found along the northern Segment 1 routes. 

A high priority was placed on following the WWE corridor, minimizing the length of the 

lines, and locating within favorable topography. Specific constraints within the RMPPA 

that affected route location included big game crucial winter range, national historic 

trails, raptor nest sites, VRM Class I and II areas, sage-grouse leks and sage-grouse

core areas, mining claims, oil and gas wells, landowner concerns, and threatened or 

endangered plants and animals. The number of oil and gas wells to be avoided was 

also an important routing concern. Additional considerations specific to Segment 2 

included the Fort Fred Steele State Historic site and nearby residences, the existing 

Seven Mile Hill Wind Energy Project, the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail 

Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA), the North Platte SRMA, and historic 

trails. Use of the WWE corridor was not always feasible due to existing energy 

developments, thus attempts were also made to locate the routes within the Interstate 

80 corridor, where other constraints did not preclude this location. There is a mosaic of 

public and private land within the northern part of the RMPPA and a very distinct 

checkerboard pattern in the western part. The land use pattern and consideration cited 

above resulted in proposed and alternative routes that cross scattered VRM Class II 

parcels and one area of VRM III where the Project would not be consistent with the 

RMP objectives and thus would require plan amendments if selected. 

Three AOIs were identified where the Project would be inconsistent with current VRM 

objectives. Laramie North (AOI-R1) and Laramie South (AOI-R2) contain land 

managed as VRM Class II. The North Platte AOI (AOI-R3) is located where the 

Proposed Route crosses an area managed as VRM Class III, but the transmission line 

would dominate the view of the casual observer. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-29

Plan Amendments Analysis

5.2.1 AOI R-1 Laramie North (Proposed Route – Segment 1E and Alternative 

1E-B)

The combined Proposed 1E and Alternative 1E-B route leaves the WWE corridor and 

the Segment 1W routes and turns to southeast for about 16 miles before crossing the 

northernmost parcel of VRM II in AOI R-1. This AOI includes four parcels classified as 

VRM Class II, ranging in size from 123 acres to 5,747 acres. These parcels extend 

over 8 miles. These routes cross a total of 2.8 miles of VRM Class II area. Figure 5.2-2 

shows the viewshed analysis and location within the landscape. Figure 5.2-3 shows the 

detail of the location of the Laramie North AOI, Proposed and Alternative Routes, VRM 

management classifications, and proposed amendment actions.

Alternatives Considered – The Proponents reported a need for Segment 1E to be 

located east of the existing transmission line and WWE corridor to be more accessible 

to present and future wind power generators. Based on this objective, they sited the 

Proposed Route 1E and Alternative 1E-B to avoid the higher and more visible terrain to 

the north and east as well as the sage-grouse core area to the south and west. 

The Proponents reported that when they selected the route for Segment 1E, they 

attempted to minimize VRM Class II or cross smaller parcels where possible. They 

contend that a direct route that avoided all of the VRM Class II could not be found 

without multiple turns adding considerable length and cost. 

Alternative 1E-C would avoid this area and would parallel an existing powerline to the 

west. This alternative does not accommodate the need reported by the proponents for 

an accessible line for present and future wind power generators east of the existing line. 

Additional alternate routes not studied in detail were removed from consideration due to 

increased environmental and cultural impacts.

Existing Landscape Conditions – The majority of the 15-mile-radius area surrounding 

AOI R-1 is undeveloped. Access is provided by county and local roads such as County 

Routes (CRs) 24 and 62 in the northwest and CRs 61 and 91 farther to the east. The 

northeast half of this area is occupied by the Laramie Mountains and Medicine BowRoutt NFs, consisting of rugged topography and extensive forest lands. The southwest 

half has flat to rolling topography, especially in the Shirley Basin, and is vegetated with 

mostly sagebrush. There are numerous drainages, including the North Fork of the Little 

Medicine Bow River, Deer Creek, and Three Mile Creek. Historic trails run north to 

south through the east and west sides of the study area. Attachment A, Figure R-1a 

shows existing landscape conditions in the immediate vicinity of AOI R-1 as viewed 

from KOP 860. As shown in this figure the landscape is gently sloping to flat rangeland 

bordered by rolling hills with fences and other minor developments.

Conformance Analysis – Figure 5.2-2 shows the viewshed, KOPs, and other features 

within the 15-mile radius study area used to establish the degree of consistency with the 

existing VRM classes. The location selected is considered representative of all the 

parcels. Attachment A, Figure R-1b simulates the proposed transmission line for the 

combined Proposed 1E and Alternative 1E-B routes on the landscape as viewed from 

KOP 860. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-30

Plan Amendments Analysis

Scenic views between Forty-mile Peak and Smith Mountain are important to sensitive 

viewers such as local residents. These sensitive viewers are represented by KOP 860 

(see Section 3.2 of the Draft EIS). The viewed landscape ranges from undulating to 

almost flat terrain and more dramatic dendritic terrain adjacent to the KOP as shown on 

Figures R-1a and R-1b. Figure 5.2-2 shows the KOP and adjacent locations with views 

that exhibit diversity in form, line, and texture with few developments. From KOP 860 

and the other viewpoints shown on Figure 5.2-2, it is apparent that the Segment 1E 

Proposed Route and Alternative 1E-B would be highly visible and that screening and 

other mitigation efforts would only slightly lower impacts to scenic resources in the 

surrounding area. With little or no development, the structures would result in moderate 

to high contrast. However, there are few viewers or sensitive viewing points from which 

a transmission line along this route would be seen. 

While not stated in the RMP, it appears that the intent of the VRM Class II classification 

was to protect the interface between the flatter land to the south and the mountains to 

the north. The Final EIS also states that; “Class II lands are primarily associated with 

areas around the Pathfinder and Seminoe Reservoirs and with the close range 

viewsheds of the Medicine Bow National Forest” (Rawlins RMP, p.3-121). Because this 

VRM Class II parcel would be seldom seen, it is recommended that if this route is 

approved, the Project be allowed as a single use visually altering action without 

changing the VRM classification in AOI R-1. Should either the proposed or alternative 

route be selected, it is recommended that the Proponents microsite the alignment to 

minimize the amount of VRM Class II areas crossed. 

5.2.2 AOI R-2 Laramie South (Alternative 1E-B)

The Laramie South AOI would be crossed by Alternative 1E-B beginning approximately 

2.4 miles southeast of the point where Segment 1E turns south heading into the 

Natrona Sage-Grouse Core Area. This AOI includes six parcels classified as VRM 

Class II ranging in size from 121 acres to 745 acres, and extending approximately 12 

miles with a total VRM Class II area crossed of 2.6 miles. Figure 5.2-4 shows the 

viewshed for AOI R-2 and the location within the landscape. Figure 5.2-5 shows the 

detailed location of the Laramie South AOI, alternative route, and VRM management 

classification.

Alternatives Considered – Similar to the alignment through AOI R-1, the Proponents 

sited this alternative to be more accessible to current and future wind power generators. 

The other major factor reported by the Proponents was to avoid the Natrona SageGrouse Core Area. Based on this objective, they sited Alternative 1E-B to avoid the 

higher and more visible terrain to the north and east as well as the sage-grouse core 

area to the south and west. Taking these two factors into account, a direct route that 

avoids all of the VRM Class II could not be found without adding turns and considerable 

added length and cost. However, the Proponents reported that they attempted to 

minimize VRM Class II crossings or cross smaller parcels where possible. 

Existing Landscape Conditions – Within the 15-mile-radius study area surrounding 

AOI R-2 there is very little development, with access provided by state and local roads 

such as State Route (SR) 91. Attachment A, Figure R-2a shows existing landscape 

conditions as viewed from KOP 991. The northeast half of this area is occupied by the 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-31

Plan Amendments Analysis

Laramie Mountains and Medicine Bow-Routt NFs with very rugged topography and 

extensive forest lands. The southwest half has flat to rolling topography, especially in 

the Shirley Basin, and is vegetated with mostly sage brush. In the western half of the 

study area there are areas of surface mining. Numerous drainages, such as the North 

Fork of the Little Medicine Bow River, Davidson Creek, and Three Mile Creek, are found 

throughout the area. Sensitive viewing areas include local roads, residences, and 

historic trails running north to south through the east and west sides of the study area.

Attachment A, Figure R-2a shows existing landscape conditions as viewed from KOP 

991. The foreground comprises generally flat rangeland bordered by hills with a local 

dirt road being the only visible manmade modification.

Conformance Analysis – Figure 5.2-4 shows the viewshed, KOPs, and other features 

within the 15-mile radius study area used to establish the degree of consistency with the 

existing VRM classes. Attachment A, Figure R-2b simulates landscape conditions 

showing for Alternative 1E-B as viewed from KOP 991. 

Scenic views west of Sugarloaf Mountain are important to sensitive viewers such as the 

residential and recreational viewers. These sensitive viewers are represented by KOP 

991, a residence on Hay Creek Road and KOP 993, recreational viewers at the 

reservoir adjacent to Fetterman Road (see Section 3.2 of the Draft EIS). The views 

range from the undulating valley to more dramatic rocky terrain with numerous mountain 

silhouettes adjacent to the two viewpoints. The views from these KOPs exhibit diversity 

in form, line, color, and texture with few man-made features. From these two low 

elevation vantage points, it is apparent that Alternative 1E-B would be highly visible and 

that screening and other mitigation efforts would not lower impacts to scenic resources 

in the surrounding area, especially along CR 91. The Project structures would have 

moderate to high contrast with the existing landscape due to the variation in 

backdropping effects offered by the high-relief terrain. Many of the views from the 

surrounding area exhibit a high level of variety in form line, color, and texture; these 

would be contrasted by the addition of new man-made structures and access roads, 

which would draw the attention of the casual observer and thus not conform to VRM 

Class II objectives. 

While not stated in the RMP, it appears that the intent of the VRM Class II designation is 

to protect the interface between the flatter land to the south and the mountains to the 

north, as well as scenic resources for viewers along historic Fetterman Road. The Final 

EIS also states: “Class II lands are primarily associated with areas around the 

Pathfinder and Seminoe Reservoirs and with the close range viewsheds of the Medicine 

Bow National Forest” (Rawlins RMP, p.3-121). Some parcels in this AOI would be 

seldom seen while others would be visible from CR 91. Because of the mixed viewing 

conditions, it is recommended that if Alternative 1E-B is approved, three parcels totaling 

177 acres be reclassified from VRM Class II to VRM Class III and a single use visually 

altering action for the three other parcels be allowed (see Figure 5.2-5). If the Proposed 

Route is selected, it is recommended that the Proponents microsite the alignment to 

minimize the amount of VRM Class II land crossed.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-32 

Plan Amendments Analysis 

5.2.3 AOI R-3 North Platte AOI (Segment 2 Proposed Route) 

The North Platte AOI is located approximately 2 miles southeast of Fort Steele, 

Wyoming, and the Fort Fred Steele State Historic Site in Segment 2. This portion of the 

Project would comprise a double-circuit 500-kV line or a Design Variation with two 

single-circuit lines. The Proposed Route leaves the WWE corridor and turns southwest 

for approximately 1.5 miles before crossing Interstate 80, and angling more to the west 

and crossing the North Platte River and associated North Platte SRMA beginning 0.25 

mile east of the river to west edge of the AOI. The AOI is a single BLM parcel of 

approximately 951 acres. The route would cross 1.2 miles of land classified as VRM 

Class III. Figure 5.2-6 is the viewshed analysis for this AOI and its location within the 

landscape. Figure 5.2-7 shows the detailed location of the North Platte AOI, Proposed 

Route, and VRM management classification. 

Alternatives Considered – The Proponents report that the prime reason that led them 

identify the Proposed Route in this area was to respond to residents and stakeholders 

including the Governor’s Office and State Department of Parks and Recreation to avoid 

the area in the vicinity of Fort Fred Steele Historic Site. In doing so, the alignment was 

pushed south of Interstate 80 due to a combination of constraints including the 

community of Fort Steele, the Fort Fred Steele Historic Site, raptor nests, an SRMA, 

sage-grouse leks, and oil and gas wells and buffers. The original proposed route, now 

Alternative 2B, followed an existing transmission line closer to the historic fort. 

Existing Landscape Conditions – Within the 15-mile-radius study area surrounding 

AOI R-3, topography is highly irregular with many steep slopes such as the Fort Steele 

Breaks, Saint Mary’s Ridge, and Edson Ridge as well as larger areas of flat to rolling 

terrain such as Overland Flats and Severson Flats. The most significant waterbodies 

are the Seminoe Reservoir and the North Platte River; however, a number of ponds and 

drainages occur throughout the area. Attachment A, Figure R-3a shows existing 

landscape conditions in the immediate vicinity of AOI R-3 as viewed from KOP 822. 

There are agricultural lands along Pass Creek, Rattlesnake Creek, and the North Platte 

River and an area of strip mining in the northeast. Interstate 80 is the primary road 

crossing the center of the area from east to west. Around Interstate 80 a utility corridor 

has developed including railroads, pipelines, and transmission lines. Other roads in the 

area include U.S. Routes 30 and 287 and SR 130. Communities include Sinclair on the 

north side of Interstate 80 in the western portion of the study area and Rawlins on the 

western boundary of this area. Sensitive viewing areas include the towns and 

highways, historic sites like Fort Steele, historic trails, and recreation areas like Sinclair 

Recreation Park. 

Attachment A, Figure R-3a shows existing landscape conditions in the immediate 

vicinity of AOI R-3 as viewed from KOP 822. The landscape in this area is a mix of 

riparian vegetation and water bordered by steep hillsides in the foreground and 

mountains in the background. 

Conformance Analysis – Figure 5.2-6 shows the viewshed, KOPs, and other features 

within the 15-mile radius study area used to establish the degree of conformance with 

the existing VRM class. Attachment A, Figure R-3b simulates the proposed 

transmission line, consisting of a single double-circuit line, on the existing landscape 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-33 

Plan Amendments Analysis 

conditions for the Proposed Route as viewed from KOP 822. Attachment A, Figure R3c simulates the Design Variation of using two single-circuit lines in place of the 

proposed design. The two single-circuit lines would require more ground disturbance 

but would be designed and constructed to the same standards as the Proposed Action. 

The Design Variation would use towers of reduced structure height; however, it would 

introduce more towers to the landscape than the double-circuit option. Visual impacts 

between the two options would be similar, but higher in the Design Variation than for the 

Proposed Action, with a rating of High, instead of Medium to High. 

Scenic views of the North Platte River adjacent to the Hogback are important to the 

surrounding sensitive viewers such as recreational users of the Rochelle Public Access 

Area at KOP 822. The Fort Steele Breaks are visible and create a layered silhouette 

background. These riparian and mountain terrain views exhibit a diversity in form, line, 

color, and texture with few man-made features visible from this particular location. 

From low valley vantage points it is apparent that screening and other mitigation efforts 

would be only moderately successful at lowering impacts to scenic resources in the 

surrounding area when compared to other portions of this alignment. The various 

undulating forms and ridgelines, curvilinear water features, and strong horizon would be 

directly contrasted by the structures of Segment 2, which would be visible and 

dominant, thus not conforming to VRM Class III objectives. Although not stated in the 

RMP, it appears that VRM Class III objectives have been assigned to this particular 

area to protect the viewshed of this scenic riparian terrain which exhibits moderate to 

high scenic quality in proximity to the North Platte River. The Rawlins RMP states for 

the North Platte SRMA that “Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will be restricted 

to maintain the quality of the visual resource.” 

As this VRM Class III parcel is part of the SRMA, it is recommended that if this route is 

approved, an amendment would be needed to permit the Project as a visually altering 

action without changing the VRM classification in AOI R-3 (See Figure 5.2-7). 

Mitigation and micrositing will be used to reduce the visual impact of the transmission 

line in this area. These actions will maintain the current level of VRM management and 

provide protection of the scenic resources important for the SRMA objectives. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-34

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.2-1. Rawlins RMP Boundary Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-35

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.2-2. AOI R-1 Laramie North Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-36

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.2-3. AOI R-1 Laramie North Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-37

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.2-4. AOI R-2 Laramie South Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-38

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.2-5. AOI R-2 Laramie South Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-39

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.2-6. AOI R-3 North Platte Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-40

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.2-7. AOI R-3 North Platte Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-41

Plan Amendments Analysis

5.3 Green River RMP

The Green River RMP (1997) provides management direction for approximately 3.6 

million acres of public land surface and 3.5 million acres of federal mineral estate 

administered by the BLM in the Green River Resource Area under the jurisdiction of the 

Rock Springs FO. The resource area administrative boundary includes parts of 

Sweetwater, Lincoln, Sublette, Fremont, and Uinta Counties, in southwestern Wyoming 

(see Figure 5.3-1). The objectives for management of visual resources are to: 1) 

maintain or improve scenic values and visual quality and 2) establish priorities for 

managing the visual resources in conjunction with other resource values. 

The Green River RMP contains several visual management action goals to protect 

visual resources, including the following:

• Visual resource classes will be retained or modified to enhance other resource 

objectives such as those for cultural resource and recreation management, wild 

horse viewing, and special management areas.

• Projects and facilities will be designed to meet the objectives of the established 

visual classifications and appropriate mitigation will be included.

• Management actions on public lands with a Class II visual resource management 

classification must be designed to blend into and retain the existing character of 

the natural landscape.

• Management actions on public lands with a Class III visual resource 

management classification must be designed to partially retain the existing 

character of the landscape.

• Management actions on public lands with a Class IV visual resource 

management classification could result in major modification of the character of 

the landscape.

• All surface-disturbing actions, regardless of the visual resource management 

class, are required to be mitigated to reduce visual impacts.

• All activities that could be viewed from the Fontenelle Reservoir will be designed 

to be subordinate to the landscape.

In all, the Green River RMP designates 681,560 acres as VRM Class II, 632,370 acres 

in VRM Class III, and 2,251,810 acres in VRM Class IV. None of the lands managed 

under the Green River RMP have been designated as VRM Class I.

The Proposed Route for Segment 4 is 203 miles long and generally follows existing 

transmission lines. It consists of a double 500-kV circuit between Anticline Substation in 

Sweetwater County, Wyoming, and Populus Substation in Power County, Idaho. The 

Proponents are also considering a design variation for Segment 4 that would replace 

the double circuit with two parallel and adjacent single-circuit 500-kV lines. Within the 

Green River RMP boundary, the WWE corridor extends in a southwest direction and 

does not provide a feasible option for an east-west connection between the Anticline 

and Populus Substations. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-42

Plan Amendments Analysis

Visual resources in the Green River RMP area would be affected by this Project. One 

VRM Class II management area is crossed by the Proposed Route. The presence of a 

transmission line in this landscape would not meet VRM Class II objectives. As a result, 

if the Proposed Route is approved, it would be necessary to amend the VRM 

management requirements to allow the Project to be consistent with the RMP. The AOI 

is described in Section 5.3.1 below.

5.3.1 AOI GR-1 Green River (Segment 4 Proposed Route)

Much of the eastern portion of Segment 4 of the Proposed Route follows existing 345-

kV transmission lines. However, about 4 miles east of the Green River, the Proposed 

Route leaves the existing transmission line corridor and turns southwest, then west to 

pass south of the Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). Routing in this area is 

further constrained by the OCI Wyoming LP Trona Mine, which is located just east of 

the river and south of the Proposed Route. Within this confined area, the route would 

pass through about 0.8 mile of VRM Class II as it crosses the Green River. Following 

the river crossing, the Segment 4 of the Proposed Route would proceed back to the 

northwest to re-join the 345-kV corridor just west of the NWR. Figure 5.3-2 shows the 

viewshed of the Green River AOI, the location of the Proposed Route, and the VRM 

Class II lands. Figure 5.3-3 shows the AOI and Proposed Route with the amendment 

management recommendation. This AOI includes one 410-acre parcel designated 

VRM II. 

Alternatives Considered – In this area the existing 345-kV transmission corridor 

offered the best routing opportunity for the proposed 500-kV transmission line; however, 

the existing transmission lines cross the Seedskadee NWR. As a result, the 

Proponents evaluated potential routes avoiding the NWR. Because the NWR extends 

for at least 15 miles to the north, no alternative routes were evaluated north of the WWE 

corridor. Options to the south are severely constrained due to the presence of the trona 

mine, BLM parcels designated as VRM Class II extending close to 20 miles to the 

south, and additional mines. The Proponents determined that the Proposed Route just 

to the south of the NWR boundary would have less impact to all resources but would 

cross one parcel of land managed for VRM Class II objectives (Figure 5.3-3).

Existing Landscape Conditions – The topography in the 15-mile-radius study area 

surrounding AOI GR-1 is mostly flat to rolling except for the steep slopes cut by the 

rivers and streams traversing the area. The Green River runs northwest to southeast 

across the central portion of the study area and Blacks Fork is located in the southwest 

quadrant. The area is without forests and is very sparsely developed except along the 

I-80/U.S. Route 30 corridor. The community of Granger is located along this corridor, 

just west of the 15-mile area and Jamestown and Riovista are located just outside the 

southeast portion of the area. Other development is sparse and scattered. There is a 

345-kV transmission corridor extending east to west across the center portion of the 

area and many lower-voltage lines in the southern half. Numerous historic trails cross 

the area mostly from northeast to southwest. The Seedskadee NWR is situated along 

the Green River in the northwest quadrant. Sensitive viewers include motorists on the 

interstate, local residents and visitors to the NWR, and historic resources in the area.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-43

Plan Amendments Analysis

Conformance Analysis – Figure 5.3-2 shows the viewshed, AOI, and other features 

within the 15-mile-radius study area used in evaluating the conformance of the 

proposed facilities with the existing landscape conditions and VRM Class II 

management requirements. Figure 5.3-3 shows the existing landscape in proximity to 

this AOI, the VRM classification. Scenic views of the Green River west of the Blue Rim 

in the Seedskadee NWR are important to recreational viewers on the Green River, 

motorists traveling on SR 372, approximately 2.0 miles to the west, and local viewers on 

minor arterial roads. These views are represented by KOP 1353. Attachment A, Figure 

GR-1a shows the existing landscape conditions as viewed from KOP 1353. The views 

of the undulating terrain and simple geometric forms show little diversity in form, line, 

color, and texture with numerous man-made features. The visible developments 

include transmission lines and the trona plant located adjacent to this VRM Class II 

managed area. Attachment A, Figure GR-1b presents a simulation of the proposed 

Project structures within the existing view of KOP 1353. It is apparent from KOP 1353 

that the Proposed Route would be highly visible in the surrounding landscape and that 

screening and other mitigation efforts would most likely not lower impacts to scenic 

resources in the surrounding area. The Proposed Route would be somewhat codominant with many of the man-made features, including the three high-voltage 

transmission lines in the middleground of the view, to the north. The proposed 

transmission line would contrast with the undulating terrain with simple vegetative 

patterns and draw the attention of the casual observer. There are high-contrasting 

industrial structures nearby, such as the trona plant; however, it has been present within 

the landscape for many years, thus additional new industrial structures are still likely to 

create a heightened sense of awareness among viewers for structural contrast. The 

Project would deviate from the natural form, line, color, and texture of the landscape 

and would thus not conform to VRM Class II objectives. For the transmission line to be 

allowed, the Green River RMP would need to be amended to permit the project as a 

one-time visually altering action without changing the VRM classification and continuing 

to protect the visual quality of the Green River corridor. 

Once the Project is allowed it may become difficult to manage this particular area to 

meet VRM Class II objectives because it will create a new linear element and lower 

scenic quality, making it an attractive location to site future linear projects. This situation 

will likely result in incremental visual impacts to the area over time and eventually the 

area may not meet the visual quality criteria required by managing the area to meet 

VRM Class II objectives. A visual resource inventory was recently conducted for the 

area prior to the proposal of the Project. This inventory found the area to still meet the 

criteria described for VRM Class II objectives; however, if the project is approved the 

next inventory may not find sufficient evidence for the continuation of management 

using VRM Class II objective.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-44

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.3-1. Green River RMP Boundary Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-45

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.3-2. AOI GR-1 Green River AOI Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-46

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.3-3. AOI GR-1 Green River AOI Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-47

Plan Amendments Analysis

5.4 Kemmerer RMP 

On June 1, 2010, the Record of Decision (ROD) was signed for the revised Kemmerer 

RMP (BLM 2010b), providing direction for managing public lands under the jurisdiction 

of the Kemmerer FO in west-central Wyoming. The RMP planning area encompasses 

approximately 1,630,000 acres in Lincoln, Sweetwater, and Uinta Counties (see Figure 

5.4-1). The Kemmerer RMP contains detailed descriptions of visually sensitive areas by 

VRM Class. In all, the Kemmerer RMP designates 32,807 acres as VRM Class I, 

392,719 acres as VRM Class II, 347,214 acres as VRM Class III, and 654,724 acres as 

VRM Class IV.

In addition, there are eight designated sites where viewsheds within 3 miles are 

designated to be preserved to retain the existing character of the landscape so 

developments do not dominate the visible area and detract from the feeling or sense of 

the historic time period of the site. The RMP also sets the goal to manage the 

viewsheds of NHT segments. Section 5.4.10 describes the conformance of the Project 

for these resources. 

The proposed Segment 4 is 203 miles long and generally follows existing transmission 

lines. It consists of a double-circuit 500-kV line between Anticline Substation in 

Sweetwater County, Wyoming, and Populus Substation in Power County, Idaho. The 

Proponents are also considering a design alternative for Segment 4 that would replace 

the double-circuit line with two parallel and adjacent single-circuit 500-kV lines.

Segment 4 within the RMP planning area contains the Proposed Route and six feasible 

alternatives. The northern Proposed Route is largely Greenfield within the Kemmerer 

RMP area. The two central alternatives (Alternatives 4A and 4F) follow existing 

transmission lines for much of their length, and the four southern alternatives 

(Alternatives 4B through 4E) avoid some of the major historic trails, portions of sagegrouse core areas, and crucial big game winter range but pass near the Fossil Butte 

National Monument (NM). Several alternatives are proposed to avoid specific 

constraints such as NWRs (Cokeville Meadows, Seedskadee, and Bear Lake), Fossil 

Butte NM, sage-grouse leks and core areas, historic trails, raptor nest buffers, crucial 

big game range, oil and gas wells, and coal and trona mining.

VRM management objectives could be affected by the proposed and alternative routes 

in nine separate areas; depending on the route selected. The presence of a 

transmission line in these landscapes would be inconsistent with VRM Class II 

objectives. As a result, BLM action would be necessary to modify visual classifications 

to conform with the RMP or to permit a one-time allowance. The AOIs are described in 

Sections 5.4.1 through 5.4.9 below.

5.4.1 AOI K-1 Sublette Cutoff (Proposed Route – Segment 4)

The Sublette Cutoff AOI is located on an east-west portion of the Proposed Route 

approximately 5 miles west of Fontenelle Reservoir in Lincoln County, Wyoming. The 

Proposed Route proceeds from southeast to west, crossing Highway 189, just 

southwest of Fontenelle Reservoir and then angling almost due west for the remainder 

of this segment. The Sublette Cutoff AOI crosses approximately 3.1 miles of VRM 

Class II management area on the south edge of Fontenelle Creek and includes a 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-48

Plan Amendments Analysis

portion of the Sublette Cutoff NHT. Figure 5.4-2 shows the viewshed of the Sublette 

Cutoff AOI, the location of the Proposed Route, and the VRM management 

classifications. Figure 5.4-3 shows the AOI and route with the amendment 

management recommendation. 

Alternatives Considered – The location of the Proposed Route was initially identified 

by BLM and the State of Wyoming and later adopted by the Proponents. This segment 

was routed to avoid areas with a higher density of historic trail crossings and to avoid 

crossing crucial big game range located further south. The nearest Segment 4 

alternatives (Alternatives 4A and 4F) are located about 10 miles south of the Sublette 

Cutoff AOI and also cross VRM Class II lands. The Sublette Cutoff AOI is located within 

a large area, roughly 20 miles by 40 miles (512,000 acres), of land predominantly

managed as VRM Class II. The only proposed alternatives that would avoid the VRM 

Class II lands would be portions of the southern alternatives (Alternatives 4B through 

4E). 

Existing Landscape Conditions – The topography in the area within 15 miles of AOI 

K-1 comprises a series of north-south ridges and valleys, including Oyster Ridge and 

Mammoth Hollow located in the western portion of the study area. The central portion of 

the area has a series of drainages and ridges running east to west while the area south 

and west of the Green River is flat to rolling. The northeast quadrant is comprised of 

rugged topography with severe slopes. The ridges in the far west portion of the area 

are forested. Gas and oil wells are found in the north. The Green River and the 

Fontenelle Reservoir are the two principal water bodies and are located on the east side 

of the study area but there are many other drainages throughout the area. Farms and 

farmland occur along La Barge Creek, Fontenelle Creek, and the Green River. La 

Barge, the largest community in the area, is located in the north of the Fontenelle 

Reservoir on the west side of the Green River. U.S. Route 189 crosses the area from 

northeast to southwest, and SR 235 is located in the northeast. Two transmission lines 

cross north to south through the area. Sensitive viewing areas include several historic 

trails, the Fontenelle Recreation area, U.S. Route 189, and residences in La Barge. The 

Sublett Cuttof NHT runs southwest through the center of the western two-thirds of the 

study area. 

Attachment A, Figure K-1a shows existing landscape conditions as viewed from KOP 

C56, looking northeast along the trail towards the Proposed Route. The landscape in 

the foreground is flat to gently sloping and covered with grasses and sage brush and 

rolling hills are seen in the background. There are no visible water elements and a 

subtle road is the only man-made modification in view. Attachment A, Figure K-1c 

shows the existing landscape conditions as viewed from KOP 1288 looking south from 

the county road crossing of the Sublette Cuttoff NHT crossing. The view shows a flat to 

rolling topography with the horizon silhouetted by mesas in the distance. Vegetation is 

uniform, consisting of low shrubs and sparse grasses, and undulating with the 

topography

Conformance Analysis – Figure 5.4-2 shows the viewshed, KOPs, and other features 

within the 15-mile-radius study area used to assess the consistency of the Project with 

existing landscape conditions. Scenic views of Sullivan Hollow and Fontenelle Creek 

are important to sensitive viewers visiting portions of the Oregon NHT. These sensitive 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-49

Plan Amendments Analysis

viewers are represented by KOP C56. KOP C56 is located on a segment of the 

California NHT – Dempsey-Hockaday Cutoff 0.5 mile south of Sullivan Hollow and 

located 0.4 miles south of Segment 4 of the Proposed Route on a broad east-to-west 

trending ridge. Attachment A, Figure K-1b simulates landscape conditions showing the 

Proposed Route as viewed from KOP C56. The views of the flat to undulating terrain 

and background mountain silhouettes with mottled vegetation exhibits diversity in form, 

line, color, and texture with few man-made features. The setting at this KOP is 

undisturbed in all directions, except for a roadway that is visible in the middleground of 

the view. From this KOP, the proposed Project would be partially backdropped by the 

mountainous terrain. The distance of the Project from KOP C56 results in high visual 

contrast. The Proposed Route would introduce new structural elements to this view to 

the north. It would draw the attention of the casual observer, and would deviate from the 

natural form, line, color, and texture; therefore it would not conform to VRM Class II 

objectives. Views of the Sublette Cutoff NHT setting looking south are represented by 

KOP 1288. High-sensitivity recreational viewers at KOP 1288 would have a high level 

of Project visibility, being 300 feet from the Proposed Route. The surrounding terrain is 

flat with mesa silhouettes on the horizon. Existing visible man-made features include 

the road and fencepost. The Project would introduce new structural elements to this 

view. Proximity (300 feet) to the project and lack of backdropping elements in the 

foreground would result in high visual contrast that would draw the attention of the 

casual observer; deviating from the natural form, line, color, and texture and would thus 

not conform to the VRM Class II objectives (see Attachment A, K-1d). It is assumed 

that VRM Class II objectives have been assigned to this particular area in order to 

protect the Oregon NHT corridor, particularly the Sublette Cutoff, as well as adjacent 

scenic resources. In order to locate the proposed alignment at this location it would be 

necessary for the Project to be allowed as a visually altering action without changing the 

VRM classification. This would provide the most protection for adjacent visual resource 

management goals. The following specific mitigation measure, VIS-9 , will be 

implemented: “In specific areas identified by the applicable federal land manager (such 

as VRM Class II, erosive soils, steep slopes, areas near NHT Trails) the access road 

used for construction will be restored and an alternative access route for operations will 

be designated” (see Table 2.7-1 in the Draft EIS). 

5.4.2 AOI K-2 Commissary Ridge (Proposed Route – Segment 4)

The Commissary Ridge AOI is located on Proposed Segment 4, approximately six miles 

west of the Sublette Cutoff AOI. Commissary Ridge runs north to south and would be 

crossed from east to west by the Proposed Segment 4. This would result in the Project 

crossing approximately 21 continuous miles of VRM Class II managed lands. Figure 

5.4-4 shows the viewshed of the Commissary Ridge AOI, the location of Segment 4, 

and the VRM classifications. Figure 5.4-5 shows the AOI, route, and amendment 

management recommendation.

Alternatives Considered – As stated earlier, the location of the Proposed Route was 

initially identified by BLM and Wyoming and later adopted by the Proponents. However, 

a route passing east to west through this area cannot avoid VRM II classified land. 

There are many constraints in this area including historic trails and scenic areas on 

Commissary Ridge, in the nearby Raymond Mountain WSA, and in the Rock 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-50

Plan Amendments Analysis 

Creek/Tunp Prescriptive Management Area (PMA) to the west. The area managed as 

VRM Class II extends about 24 miles to the south and 23 miles to the north of the 

Proposed Route. None of the proposed alternatives entirely avoid the VRM Class II 

lands. Alternatives 4B and 4E, however, are approximately 24 miles to the south and 

cross through VRM Class II managed lands for portions of their routes south of Fossil 

Butte National monument, thus avoiding the Commissary Ridge AOI and other areas 

managed to conform to VRM Class II objectives. 

Existing Landscape Conditions – The terrain in the 15-mile-radius area surrounding 

this AOI is very rugged with steep slopes. Numerous north-south oriented features 

such as the Sublette Range, Tunp Range, Rock Creek Ridge, Dempsey Ridge and 

Commissary Ridge and valleys following the Bear River, Hams Fork River, and other 

drainages. The Naughton and Kemmerer Reservoirs are located along the Hams Fork 

River. There is some agriculture along the valleys; however, the vast majority of the 

area is undeveloped. The small community of Cokeville is situated in the western part 

of the area along U.S. Route 30. There are three 345-kV transmission lines that pass 

southeast to northwest through the study area and several other lower voltage 

transmission lines in the southwest. Forest land increases to the north of the study area 

immediately, south of the Bridger NF. Potentially sensitive viewing areas include the 

highways, communities, historic trails, the Cokeville Meadows NWR, and other historic, 

recreational, and natural areas. 

Attachment A, Figure K-2a shows existing landscape conditions as viewed from KOP 

1359. The topography is mountainous with numerous peaks and silhouette lines. 

Figure K-2c shows existing landscape conditions as viewed from KOP 1363. The 

topography is rocky and rugged with a gradual transition from relatively smooth to 

rough. 

Conformance Analysis – Figure 5.4-4 shows the viewshed, KOPs, and other features 

within the 15-mile-radius study area used to assess the consistency of the proposed 

transmission line with the existing VRM II classification. Attachment A, Figure K-2b 

simulates landscape conditions showing the Proposed Route as viewed from KOP 1359 

and Figure K-2d simulates landscape conditions showing the Proposed Route as 

viewed from KOP 1363. 

Scenic views in the southern portion of the Sublette Range are important to sensitive 

viewers on Commissary Ridge, represented by KOP 1359. Scenic views adjacent to 

Commissary Ridge are important to sensitive viewers along Oyster Ridge as resented 

by KOP 1363 on Sublet-Pomeroy Road. The views of the undulating terrain and 

background mountain silhouettes and simple geometric forms create diversity in form, 

line, color, and texture with few man-made features. While trees in the foreground offer 

partial screening opportunities for KOP 1359, it is apparent from both KOP 1359 and 

KOP 1363 that the proposed Project would be highly visible and that screening and 

other mitigation efforts would not effectively lower impacts to scenic resources in the 

surrounding area. The new structures, cleared ROW, and access roads would be in 

contrast to the terrain with its simple geometric forms created by the mottled vegetation 

and clusters of trees. The contrast would draw the attention of the casual observer and 

would not conform to VRM Class II objectives. It is assumed that VRM Class II 

objectives have been assigned to this area to protect the Oregon NHT corridor and 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-51

Plan Amendments Analysis

adjacent scenic resources. It is recommended that if the Proposed Route 4 is selected, 

the Project be allowed as a visually altering action without changing the VRM 

classification. This would provide the most protection for adjacent visual resource 

management goals. 

Mitigation would include micrositing towers to lower visual impacts. Additionally the 

following specific mitigation measure, VIS-9 , will be implemented: “In specific areas 

identified by the applicable federal land manager (such as VRM Class II, erosive soils, 

steep slopes, areas near NHT Trails) the access road used for construction will be 

restored and an alternative access route for operations will be designated” (see Table 

2.7-1 in the Draft EIS).

5.4.3 AOI K-3 Sublette Range (Proposed Route – Segment 4, Alternative 4F)

The Sublette Range runs north to south and is located to the west of the Tunp Range 

and north of the community of Cokeville. The Sublette Range AOI is located at the 

southern end of the Sublette Range just north of Rocky Point at the junction of the 

Proposed Segment 4 and Alternative 4F. Both routes cross approximately 1 mile of 

VRM Class II lands. Figures 5.4-6 and 5.4-8 show the viewsheds of the Sublette Range 

AOI for the Alternative 4F and the Proposed Route, and the VRM classifications. 

Figures 5.4-7 and 5.4-9 show the AOI, routes and the amendment management 

recommendation. The Proposed Route crosses one 1,342-acre VRM II parcel for 0.7 

mile; Alternative 4F AOI crosses two segments of the same parcel for approximately the 

same distance.

Alternatives Considered – As described in the EIS, many alternatives have been 

evaluated to avoid constraints in and adjacent to the northern border of the Kemmerer 

FO. These include the Bear River Valley, the community of Cokeville, VRM Class II 

lands, and a Raymond Mountain WSA. The Proposed Route and Alternative 4F are 

described in Section 5.4.2. Alternative 4F follows an existing transmission corridor for 

much of its length and would require significantly less Greenfield ROW compared to the 

Proposed Route. However, this alternative crosses more high quality trails. Because of 

the extent of VRM Class II lands, they cannot be avoided. 

Existing Landscape Conditions – The terrain in the 15-mile area surrounding this AOI 

is very rugged with many steep slopes along north-south oriented topographic features, 

including the Sublette Range, Tunp Range, Rock Creek Ridge, Dempsey Ridge, and 

Commissary Ridge; and valleys following the Bear River, Hams Fork River, and other 

drainages. The Naughton and Kemmerer Reservoirs are located along Hams Fork 

River. The vast majority of the area is undeveloped, with some agriculture along the 

valleys. The small community of Cokeville is situated along U.S. Route 30, the primary 

highway through the area. There are three 345-kV transmission lines passing 

southeast to northwest through the study area and several other lower voltage 

transmission lines in the southwest. Forest land increases proceeding north towards 

and into the Bridger NF. Potentially sensitive viewing areas include the highways, 

communities, historic trails, the Cokeville Meadows NWR, and other recreational and 

natural areas.

Attachment A, Figure K-3a shows existing landscape conditions as viewed from KOP 

635. The topography is rolling to steep, covered with sage brush with a small lake in the 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-52

Plan Amendments Analysis

foreground. Other than a local dirt road and a fence, no other man-made features are 

apparent in the view.

Conformance Analysis – Figures 5.4-6 and 5.4-8 show the viewshed, KOPs, and 

other features within the 15-mile radius study areas for the Alternative 4F and the 

Proposed Route used to evaluate the consistency of the proposed transmission facilities 

with the existing landscape and VRM Class II objectives. Attachment A, Figures K-3b 

and K-3c simulate landscape conditions showing the Proposed Route and Alternative 

4F as viewed from KOP 635.

KOP 635 represents scenic views in the southern portion of the Sublette Range across 

Quealy Reservoir and toward Coke Mountain that are important to sensitive viewers. 

The views of the undulating terrain and background mountain silhouettes and simple

geometric water forms create diversity in form, line, color, and texture with few manmade features. From this KOP, it is apparent that the Proposed Route and Alternative 

4F would be highly visible on the ridge and that screening and other mitigation efforts 

would not effectively lower impacts to scenic resources in the surrounding area. 

Transmission line structures and access roads would contrast with the undulating 

terrain, simple geometric forms and mottled vegetation. As a result, both the Proposed 

Segment 4 and Alternative 4F would draw the attention of the casual observer and 

would not conform to VRM Class II objectives. It appears that VRM Class II objectives 

have been assigned to this particular area to protect the Oregon NHT corridor as well as 

adjacent scenic resources. The landscape surrounding Segment 4 of the Proposed 

Route and Alternative 4F should remain lands managed to achieve VRM Class II 

objectives. Should either the Proposed Route or Alternative 4F be selected, an 

amendment would be needed to permit a one-time visually altering action without 

changing the VRM classification. This would allow the Project but would maintain the 

underlying protective VRM classification to preserve historic trail and scenic resources. 

Mitigation measures and BMPs should be used to lower potential impacts to trails and 

the scenic qualities of the surrounding landscape. 

Mitigation would include moving the towers further south to lower visual impacts sue to 

noncompliance with VRM objectives. Additionally the following specific mitigation 

measure, VIS-9 , will be implemented: “In specific areas identified by the applicable 

federal land manager (such as VRM Class II, erosive soils, steep slopes, areas near 

NHT Trails) the access road used for construction will be restored and an alternative 

access route for operations will be designated” (see Table 2.7-1 in the Draft EIS). 

5.4.4 AOI K-4 Tunp Range (Alternative 4A)

Alternative 4A follows a corridor with three existing single-circuit 345-kV transmission 

lines and proceeds to the northwest to rejoin the Proposed Route at the Idaho-Wyoming 

border. The Tunp Range AOI begins at the southern end of Commissary Ridge, 

proceeds west across the Hams Fork Plateau and Rock Creek Ridge in the Tunp 

Range, and ends at the Bear River Valley just southeast of Cokeville. In this area, 

Alternative 4A crosses approximately 16 miles of land managed as VRM Class II. This 

area also includes a portion of the Rock Creek/Tunp Range SRMA, an administrative 

area with multiple restrictions on development due to its unspoiled character. Figure 

5.4-10 shows the viewshed of the Tunp Range AOI, the location of Alternative 4A, and 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-53

Plan Amendments Analysis

the VRM classification. Figure 5.4-11 shows the AOI, route, and amendment 

management recommendation. Two parcels designated as VRM Class II ranging in size 

from 1,872 acres to approximately 280,000 acres are crossed.

Alternatives Considered – Alternative 4A follows three existing 345-kV transmission 

lines, passing southeast to northwest. Because Alternative 4A follows an existing 

transmission corridor, it was considered a feasible alternative. However, following this 

existing corridor results in crossing an expanse of scenic topography designated as 

VRM Class II, high-quality historic trails, and two preservation viewsheds (see Section 

5.4-10). To avoid these resource areas would require selection of one of the southern 

alternatives (Alternatives 4B through 4E). The Kemmerer RMP states in Decision 6054 

to preserve the viewshed within 3 miles of Class 1 segments north and east of U.S. 

Highway 30 and west of the Hams Fork River (Tunp/Dempsey Trail area), where the 

visual characteristics of the setting contribute to the eligibility of the site, by managing 

projects in federal sections to retain the existing character of the landscape so 

developments do not dominate the visible area to detract from the feeling or sense of 

the historic time period of the trail setting. Design ROW to preserve the visual integrity 

of the settings consistent with the BLM visual resources handbook and manual. 

Existing Landscape Conditions – The vast majority of the area around AOI K-4 is 

undeveloped with some agriculture along the valleys. The terrain in the 15-mile-radius 

area surrounding this AOI is very rugged with many steep slopes. Numerous northsouth oriented features present include the Sublette Range, Tunp Range, Rock Creek 

Ridge, Dempsey Ridge, and Commissary Ridge; and valleys following the Bear River, 

Hams Fork River, and other drainages. Naughton and Kemmerer Reservoirs are 

located along Hams Fork River. The small community of Cokeville is situated along U.S. 

Route 30, which runs north to east through the area, and Kemmerer and Diamondville 

off U.S. Route 189 on the east side of the area. There is an existing transmission 

corridor with three 345-kV lines passing southeast to northwest through the study area 

and several other lines in the southwest. Forest land increases proceeding north 

approaching and entering the Bridger NF. Potentially sensitive viewing areas include the 

highways, communities, historic trails, the Cokeville Meadows NWR, Fossil Butte NM, 

and other recreational and natural areas.

As can be seen in Attachment A, Figures K-4a and K-4c, the topography in the vicinity 

of AOI K-4 as viewed from KOPs 642 and C8 varies from flat to steep-sloping to 

mountainous. Much of the area is covered with sage brush with some agriculture. From 

KOP 642, there are also glimpses of Hams Fork River. The existing transmission lines 

are the primary manmade feature in both views.

Conformance Analysis – Figure 5.4-10 shows the viewshed, KOPs, and other features 

within the 15-mile-radius area used to evaluate the consistency of the proposed 

transmission facilities located along Alternative 4A with the existing landscape and the 

VRM Class II objectives. 

Scenic views from the Nancy Hill grave site, located along the Sublette Cutoff on a 

finger ridge between several deep canyons, and views from the White Hill Trail 

Monument east of the Nancy Hill grave site are important to sensitive recreational 

viewers on the Oregon NHT. These sensitive viewers are represented by KOPs 642 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-54

Plan Amendments Analysis

and C8. Attachment A, Figures K-4b and K-4d simulate landscape conditions showing 

Alternative 4A as viewed from KOPs 642 and C8. 

KOP C8 is located on a flat ridge top that overlooks Robinson Creek to the north, 

Shuster Basin (North Fork Twin Creek) to the south, and the head of Quakenasp 

Canyon to the east. KOP 642 is located on the Hams Fork Plateau on the north rim of 

Quakenasp Canyon, approximately 1.5 miles west of the Hams Fork River. The White 

Hill Trail Monument overlooks the Hams Fork River and provides sweeping views of the 

Uinta Mountains, the Wind River Mountains, and Ham’s Plateau. Views of the 

undulating terrain, background pyramidal mountainous silhouettes, and mottled 

vegetation exhibit diversity in form, line, color, and texture with few man-made features.

From these KOPs, visibility of Alternative 4A would be low to moderate because of the 

similarity of the Project’s design with the existing structures in the area and the distance 

from the KOPs to the Route Alternative. As a result, the visual contrast rating from 

these KOPs would be weak to moderate in the undulating terrain with mottled 

vegetation. The addition of 500-kV facilities to the three existing sets of structures and 

access roads would increase their prominence within the view but may not draw the 

attention of the casual observer. 

It has been assumed that VRM Class II objectives have been assigned to this area to 

protect the landscape quality of the Nancy Hill grave site, White Hill Trail Monument, 

and the Oregon NHT corridor and scenic quality of the area in general. It is 

recommended that if Alternative 4A is selected, the Project be allowed as a visually 

altering action without changing the VRM classification. This would provide the most 

protection for visual resource management goals. 

Mitigation may include moving the alignment closer to the existing alignment to lower 

contrast and replant grasses to lower contrast from the tower pads. Additionally the 

following specific mitigation measure, VIS-9 , will be implemented: “In specific areas 

identified by the applicable federal land manager (such as VRM Class II, erosive soils, 

steep slopes, areas near NHT Trails) the access road used for construction will be 

restored and an alternative access route for operations will be designated” (see Table 

2.7-1 in the Draft EIS). 

5.4.5 AOI K-5 Hams Fork (Alternative 4F)

The Hams Fork AOI is located on Alternative 4F where it proceeds northwest across 

Commissary Ridge and the Tunp Range, between the Proposed Route to the north and 

Alternative 4A to the south. The Hams Fork AOI crosses approximately 16 miles of 

VRM Class II land within Dempsey Basin, and Dempsey Ridge and Rock Creek Ridge 

within the Tunp Range. Figure 5.4-12 shows the viewshed of the Hams Fork AOI, the 

location of Alternative 4F, and the VRM classifications. Figure 5.4-13 shows the AOI, 

route, and amendment management recommendation. The crossing of this AOI 

includes one parcel designated as VRM Class II comprising approximately 280,000 

acres. 

Alternatives Considered – Alternative 4F was the Proponents’ original Proposed 

Route through the Kemmerer area. It was sited to avoid as much as possible resource 

issues including sage-grouse leks and core areas, historic trails, VRM Class II lands, 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-55

Plan Amendments Analysis

Special Management Areas (SMAs), the Cokeville Meadows NWR, and big game 

wintering and parturition areas. Later, the northerly route was adopted as the Proposed 

Route to further minimize impact to high-quality trails. However, no alternative has been 

identified that minimizes to acceptable levels impacts to all the resources that occur 

along this segment. To minimize crossing of VRM Class II lands would require 

selection of one of the southern alternatives (Alternatives 4B through 4E).

Existing Landscape Conditions – The vast majority of the 15-mile-radius area 

surrounding this AOI is undeveloped with some agriculture along the valleys. The 

terrain is very rugged with many steep slopes. The numerous north-south oriented 

features include the Sublette Range, Tunp Range, Boundary Ridge, Dempsey Ridge, 

Commissary Ridge; and valleys following the Bear River, Hams Fork River, and other 

drainages. Naughton and Kemmerer Reservoirs are located along Hams Fork River. 

The small community of Cokeville is situated along U.S. Route 30, which runs north to 

east through the area. Kemmerer, Frontier, and Diamondville are located off U.S. Route 

189 on the east side of the area. There is an existing transmission corridor with three 

345-kV lines passing southeast to northwest through the study area and several other 

lines in the southwest. Forest land increases proceeding north; approaching and 

entering the Bridger National Forest. Potentially sensitive viewing areas include the 

highways, communities, historic trails, the Cokeville Meadows NWR, Fossil Butte NM, 

and other recreational and natural areas.

Attachment A, Figure K-5a shows the landscape in the vicinity of AOI K-5 as viewed 

from KOP 620. In this view, the topography varies from flat to steep-sloping and is 

covered in grasses and sage brush. The only man-made feature is a two-track road. 

Figure K-5c provides a view of AOI K-5 from KOP 636 showing grass covered rolling 

topography with a mixture of deciduous and coniferous trees and shrubs in the middle 

ground. The only man-made features in this view are a two-track road and a fence.

Conformance Analysis – Figure 5.4-12 shows the viewshed, KOPs, and other features 

within the 15-mile-radius study area used to evaluate the consistency of the proposed 

500-kV facilities with the existing VRM Class II objectives.

Scenic views from Dempsey Ridge north of Coke Mountain are important to recreational 

viewers on the Oregon NHT. The area of inconsistency generally spans between Rock 

Creek Ridge and the Tunp Range to Commissary Ridge across Dempsey Basin. 

Sensitive viewers are represented by KOPs 620, 637, 636, and C110. Attachment A, 

Figures K-5b and K-5d simulate landscape conditions showing Alternative 4A as viewed 

from KOPs 620 and 636 respectively. Scenic views of Pink Hill are important to 

recreational viewers on the Dempsey Hockaday Cutoff of the Oregon NHT. These 

sensitive viewers are represented by KOP 620. From KOP 620, there are sweeping 

views of the Dempsey Basin, Hams Fork Plateau, and Pink Hill. The views of the 

undulating terrain, background mountainous silhouettes, and mottled vegetation exhibit 

diversity in form, line, color, and texture with few man-made features and simple 

geometric patterns. From KOP 636, located on Dempsey Ridge, there are sweeping 

views of the Dempsey Basin, Rock Creek Ridge, and Coke Mountain. The views of the 

undulating terrain with pyramidal mountainous silhouettes in the background, and 

contrasting vegetation exhibit diversity in form, line, color, and texture with few manmade features and simple geometric patterns. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-56

Plan Amendments Analysis

From these KOPs it is apparent that Alternative 4F of the Proposed Project would be 

highly visible. The proposed Project facilities would draw the attention of the casual 

observer, with skylined structures dominating the views from KOP 636 and to a lesser 

extent from KOP 620. While micrositing of structures may lower impacts to scenic 

resources in the surrounding area, the proposed double-circuit structures would remain 

dominant in the view and not conform to VRM Class II objectives.

It appears that VRM Class II objectives have been assigned to this particular area to 

protect the Oregon NHT corridor and scenic undeveloped character of the area. It is 

recommended that if Alternative 4F is selected, the project be allowed as a one-time 

visually altering action without changing the VRM classification. Appropriate mitigation 

measures and BMPs to lower potential impacts to visual resources would be followed. 

This would allow the continuation of VRM Class II objectives to protect the sensitive 

scenic resources associated with the Oregon NHT and other nearby historic locations.

Mitigation may include clearing tower pads in a shape that is less geometric and 

contrasting, modifying the color of the towers to blend in better with backdrop landscape 

and vegetation, and move towers farther from the KOP to reduce skylining effects. From 

KOP 636 an additional mitigation measure may include moving towers below the 

ridgeline to take advantage of the topography’s ability partially hide towers and 

conductors. Additionally the following specific mitigation measure, VIS-9 , will be 

implemented: “In specific areas identified by the applicable federal land manager (such 

as VRM Class II, erosive soils, steep slopes, areas near NHT Trails) the access road 

used for construction will be restored and an alternative access route for operations will 

be designated” (see Table 2.7-1 in the Draft EIS). 

5.4.6 AOI K-6 A and B, Fossil Butte (Alternatives 4B/4C and 4D/4E)

The Fossil Butte AOI is located near the southern boundary of Fossil Butte NM. This 

AOI relates to the four southern Segment 4 Route Alternatives (Alternatives 4B, 4C, 4D, 

and 4E). All four Route Alternatives follow a combination of 2 routes, proceeding from 

southeast to northwest in southern Lincoln County, Wyoming. Alternatives 4B and 4C 

follow a joint route to the northwest until they reach US Highway 30. Just south of this 

highway, joint Alternatives 4B/4C turn to the west and continue for approximately 3 

miles paralleling the south side of U.S. Highway 30 and an existing low-voltage 

transmission line, then angle southwest and west. Fossil Butte NM is located on the 

north side of U.S. Highway 30. A siting goal was to preserve the views from the visitor 

center and surrounding trails. Alternatives 4D and 4E follow a more southern joint route 

farther from U.S. Highway 30 and Fossil Butte NM. Figures 5.4-14 and 5.4-16 show the 

viewshed of the Fossil Butte AOI, the location of Alternatives 4B/4C and 4D/E, and VRM 

classifications. Figures 5.4-15 and 5.4-17 show the AOI, routes, and amendment 

management recommendation. Alternative 4B/4C crosses in and out (7.5 miles) of one 

large irregularly-shaped parcel designated as VRM Class II comprising approximately 

280,000 acres. Alternative 4D/4E crosses the same large VRM Class II lands in two 

locations for a total of 4.5 miles. 

Alternatives Considered – In this area south of U.S. Highway 30 there were a variety 

of constraints considered in routing the proposed transmission line, including sagegrouse leks and buffers, wetlands, raptor nests, VRM Class II land, and potential 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-57

Plan Amendments Analysis

visibility from Fossil Butte NM. Alternatives 4B/4C and 4D/4E were attempts to minimize 

impacts to these resources and meet the needs of Wyoming and federal agencies. The 

major feature of these routes is avoidance of high-quality trail crossings and fewer miles 

of VRM Class II lands crossed. 

Existing Landscape Conditions – The majority of topography in the 15-mile area 

surrounding this AOI is very rugged with many steep slopes. Exceptions to this include 

the Bear River Valley, running north to south through the western half of the area, the 

valley along Hams Fork River, and Cumberland Flat in the east. There are many northsouth oriented ridges, including Dempsey Ridge and Tunp Ridge, and several welldefined drainages. The vast majority of the area is undeveloped with farms and 

farmland mostly in the Bear River Valley and along Hams Fork River. Other 

development includes coal-mining, as well as the communities of Kemmerer and 

Diamondville located in the southeast near the intersection of U.S. Highways 30 and 

189. SRs 89 and 30 provide access from western Wyoming into northeastern Utah and 

intersect with U.S. Highway 30 in the western portion of the area. There are several 

transmission lines entering and exiting the Naughton Substation and a generally east to 

west 345-kV corridor in the north. Forest land occurs in scattered locations, mostly in 

the central part of this area. Potentially sensitive viewing areas include the highways, 

communities, historic trails, Cokeville Meadows NWR, Fossil Butte NM, and other 

recreational and natural areas.

Attachment A, Figure K-6a shows existing landscape conditions crossed by Alternatives 

4B/4C viewed from KOP 655. The topography is flat to steep sloping with sage brush in 

the foreground and little in the way of man-made features. Figure K-6c shows existing 

landscape conditions crossed by Alternatives 4D/4E as viewed from KOP 652; the land 

is undulating with evenly dispersed sage brush in the foreground and there is little in the 

way of man-made features seen in this view. 

Conformance Analysis – Figures 5.4-14 and 5.4-16 show the viewshed, KOPs, and 

other features within the 15-mile-radius study area for Alternatives 4B/4C and 

Alternatives 4D/4E used in evaluating the degree of consistency of the proposed 500-kV 

transmission facilities with the existing VRM Class II objectives. 

Alternatives 4B/4C extend across Fossil Ridge and an area of federal lands south of the 

NM. Scenic views across Twin Creek toward Fossil Ridge from the Fossil Butte NM 

visitor’s center are important to sensitive recreational viewers represented by KOPs 

654, 655, and 676. Attachment A, Figure K-6b simulates landscape conditions showing 

Alternatives 4B/4C as viewed from KOP 655. The views of the undulating terrain, 

sweeping mesas, and mottled vegetation exhibit diversity in form, line, color, and texture 

with man-made features including the Union Pacific railroad and existing wood-pole 

transmission lines in the middleground. From KOP 655, Alternatives 4B/4C of the 

proposed Project would be moderately visible but seen in the context of the existing 

railroad and transmission lines. The proposed Project elements would draw the 

attention of the casual observer but would not dominate the setting. Screening and 

other mitigation efforts, such as micrositing, may reduce impacts to scenic resources in 

the surrounding area. Because the transmission facilities along this alternative route 

would be backdropped and located 1.5 miles or more from this KOP, the line would 

blend with the landscape. However, it would represent a deviation from the natural form, 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-58

Plan Amendments Analysis

line, color, and texture of the landscape and would not conform to VRM Class II 

objectives. It has been assumed that VRM Class II objectives have been assigned to 

this particular area to protect the historic resources adjacent to the Fossil Butte NM. It is 

recommended that if either Alternatives 4B or 4C are selected, that the following area 

be reclassified to VRM Class III: the portion of the planning area south and west of U.S. 

highway 30 (the highway) beginning on a north-south line along the high ridgeline 

approximately 1⁄4 mile west of the current active coal leases (west of the town of 

Kemmerer); south along the high ridgeline to the ridgeline behind the active coal leases 

in Township (T)21N, Range (R)117W, Section 25; then west following the high points of 

the topography approximately 3 miles south of the highway to T21N, R118W, Section

28; then north-west following the high points of the topography within approximately 3 

miles of the highway to T21N, R118 W, Section 18; then north-west following the high 

points to within approximately 1⁄2 mile of the highway in T21N, R118W, Section 12; then 

west to the junction of U.S. Highway 30/State Highway 89 (see Figure 5.4-15).

Scenic views toward Fossil Ridge from Twin Creek Road are important to sensitive 

recreational viewers south of Fossil Butte NM. This AOI includes a portion of Fossil 

Ridge adjacent to the historic Susanna Lewis Homestead. Sensitive recreational 

viewers are represented by KOPs 631, 651, and 652. Attachment A, Figure K-6d 

simulates landscape conditions showing Alternatives 4D/4E as viewed from KOP 652. 

The views of the undulating terrain, background mountainous silhouettes, and mottled 

vegetation exhibits diversity in form, line, color, and texture with few man-made features 

and simple geometric patterns. From KOP 652, Alternatives 4D/4E would be moderately 

visible from less than a mile due to the landscape backdrop absorbing the proposed 

structures. The Project would represent a deviation from the natural form, line, color, 

and texture and will not conform to VRM Class II objectives. It appears that VRM Class 

II objectives have been assigned to this particular area to protect the historic resources 

south of Fossil Butte NM as well as the monument itself. As a transmission line in this 

setting would not be consistent with the VRM Class II objectives, it is recommended that 

if either Alternative 4D or 4E is selected, that the following area be reclassified to VRM 

Class III: the portion of the planning area south and west of U.S. Highway 30 (the 

highway) beginning on a north-south line along the high ridgeline approximately 1⁄4 mile 

west of the current active coal leases (west of the town of Kemmerer); south along the 

high ridgeline to the ridgeline behind the active coal leases in T21N, R117W, Section

25; then west following the high points of the topography approximately 3 miles south of 

the highway to T21N, R118W, Section 28; then north-west following the high points of 

the topography within approximately 3 miles of the highway to T21N, R118 W, Section 

18; then north-west following the high points to within approximately 1⁄2 mile of the 

highway in T21N, R118W, Section 12; then west to the junction of U.S. Highway 

30/State Highway 89. Portions of the route that do not fall within this recommended 

reclassification area would be permitted a one-time allowance without changing the 

VRM Classification (see Figure 5.4-17).

Mitigation measures may include choosing the southern alternative yet another 

alternative may be to use design of structure and a mottled color pattern to blend better 

with the background landscape throughout the season but especially during any high 

tourist seasons. Additionally the following specific mitigation measure, VIS-9, will be 

implemented: “In specific areas identified by the applicable federal land manager (such 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-59

Plan Amendments Analysis

as VRM Class II, erosive soils, steep slopes, areas near NHT Trails) the access road 

used for construction will be restored and an alternative access route for operations will 

be designated” (see Table 2.7-1 in the Draft EIS).

5.4.7 AOI K-7 Sillem Ridge AOI (Alternatives 4C/4E)

The Sillem Ridge AOI comprises an isolated 341-acre parcel with a total VRM Class II 

area crossed of 0.11 mile that would be crossed by Alternatives 4C and 4E (see Figure 

5.4-19). 

Alternatives Considered – Alternatives 4C and 4E follow a joint route in this AOI and 

were identified as a means of following State Route 30 thereby substantially avoiding 

the Cokeville NWR, high-quality trail crossings, and Rock Creek/Tunp SMA. 

Existing Landscape Conditions – The AOI is centered on a peak just south of 

Highway 30. The Project would cross the southern ridgeline and associated foothills 

and lowlands within the AOI. Figure 5.4-18 shows the 15-mile radius viewshed, the 

proposed routes and alternatives, VRM classifications, and towers used to evaluate the 

viewshed impacts. The western portion of the analysis area is flat to rolling topography 

with some pivot-plot agriculture. The Bear River Valley NWR is approximately 4 miles 

northwest of the AOI. The eastern portion of the analysis area is rolling to mountainous 

with steep ravines and U-shaped valleys. The vegetation occurs in mottled forms of

coarse grasses/bushes and patchy clusters of natural vegetation and grasses. The 

Bear River runs north-south through the western area of the analysis area, and Twin 

Creek crosses east-west through the center of the analysis area before joining with 

Bear River. Historic trials run from the southeast to northwest in both the southern and 

northern portions of the analysis area and join in the western portion along the eastern 

edge of the NWR. Existing transmission lines run through the middle of the analysis 

area, branching north and southwest just south of the NWR, as well as running through 

the northeast section of the analysis area. Highway 30 crosses east-west through the 

middle of the area, following Twin Creek and then north, along the eastern edge of the 

NWR and the Bear River Valley.

Conformance Analysis –Crossing this isolated parcel would result in a high degree of 

contrast as the transmission line would be skylined where it crosses the peak. It would 

create a dominant element in the landscape. With no realistic mitigation options, the 

proposed transmission line facilities would draw the attention of the casual observer; 

dominate the setting and deviate from the natural form, line, color, and texture of the 

landscape. As a result, Alternatives 4C/4E will not conform to VRM Class II objectives 

that have been assigned to this area likely to protect the scenic quality of the peak. If 

either Alternatives 4C or 4E are selected, micrositing may reduce the length across 

VRM Class II areas but would not avoid the entire parcel. It is recommended that the 

Project be allowed as a visually altering action without changing the VRM classification 

in AOI K-7. The following specific mitigation measure, VIS-9 , will be implemented: “In 

specific areas identified by the applicable federal land manager (such as VRM Class II, 

erosive soils, steep slopes, areas near NHT Trails) the access road used for 

construction will be restored and an alternative access route for operations will be 

designated” (see Table 2.7-1 in the Draft EIS).
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-60

Plan Amendments Analysis

5.4.8 AOI K-8 Boulder Ridge (Alternatives 4C and 4E)

The Boulder Ridge AOI is a common segment of Alternatives 4C and 4E that comes 

within about 3 miles of the Wyoming-Utah state line before turning abruptly to the north, 

up the Bear River Valley, paralleling the east side of US Highway 30 and the west side 

of Boulder Ridge. The Boulder Ridge AOI is located within the southwest portion of the 

Rock Creek/Tunp Range SMA, an administrative area with multiple restrictions on 

development due to its unspoiled character. It is located on the east side of the 

Cokeville Meadows NWR. Figure 5.4-20 shows the viewshed of the Boulder Ridge 

AOI, Alternatives 4C/4E, and the VRM classifications. Figure 5.4-21 shows the AOI, 

routes, and amendment management recommendation. This AOI crosses a total of 

5.3 miles across two VRM II designated parcels comprising approximately 280,000 

acres. 

Alternatives Considered – Common Alternatives 4C/4E could not easily be moved to 

avoid the VRM Class II land. If moved farther east, they would increase the amount of 

VRM Class II land crossed, as well as placing the alternatives farther into the Rock 

Creek/Tunp Range SMA. The Cokeville Meadows NWR prevents movement to the 

west. Alternatives 4B/4E, located west of 4C/4E, provide an alternative to crossing the 

AOI. If Alternatives 4B/4E were selected, the Boulder Ridge AOI would be avoided, and 

it would cross only one small area of VRM Class II land.

Existing Landscape Conditions – With the exception of the Bear River Valley running 

north to south through the western half of the 15-mile-radius area surrounding this AOI, 

the topography is very rugged with many steep slopes. There are many north-south 

oriented landscape features including Boundary Ridge, Dempsey Ridge, the Sublette 

Range, and valleys following the Bear River and numerous other drainages. The vast 

majority of the area is undeveloped with farms and farmland mostly confined to the Bear 

River Valley. The small community of Cokeville is situated along U.S. Highway 30, the 

primary highway in the area. SRs 89 and 30 provide access from Wyoming into 

northeastern Utah and intersect U.S. Highway 30 south of Cokeville. There are several 

transmission lines crossing the area from east to west and north to south including a 

multiple 345-kV line corridor just south of Cokeville. Forest land occurs in scattered 

locations mostly in the eastern part of this area. Potentially sensitive viewing areas 

include the highways, communities, historic trails, the Cokeville Meadows NWR, Fossil 

Butte NM, and other recreational and natural areas.

Attachment A, Figure K-8a shows the landscape in the vicinity of KOP 1368. In this 

view, the topography ranges from undulating and rolling to more dramatic mountainous

terrain in the background. 

Conformance Analysis – Figure 5.4-20 shows the viewshed, KOPs, and other features 

within the 15-mile-radius study area used to evaluate the degree of consistency 

between the proposed 500-kV facilities and the existing landscape including VRM Class 

II lands. Attachment A, Figure K-8b simulates landscape conditions showing 

Alternatives 4C/4E as viewed from KOP 1368. 

Alternatives 4C/4E would be skylined and highly visible as a dominant element in the 

landscape. With no realistic mitigation options, the proposed transmission line facilities 

would draw the attention of the casual observer; dominate the setting and deviate from 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-61

Plan Amendments Analysis

the natural form, line, color, and texture of the landscape. As a result, Alternatives 

4C/4E will not conform to VRM Class II objectives that have been assigned to this area 

to protect the scenic quality of the landscape around and including Boulder Ridge. It is 

recommended that if either Alternative 4C or 4E is selected, that the Project be allowed 

as a visually altering action without changing the VRM classification (see Figure 5.4-21). 

This would provide the most protection for adjacent visual resource management goals.

Mitigation suggestions should include clearing tower pads that are less geometric and 

resemble the lines of the surrounding vegetation and moving the alignment across the 

road as not to cat lines across historic trail segments. Additionally the following specific 

mitigation measure, VIS-9, will be implemented: “In specific areas identified by the 

applicable federal land manager (such as VRM Class II, erosive soils, steep slopes, 

areas near NHT Trails) the access road used for construction will be restored and an 

alternative access route for operations will be designated” (see Table 2.7-1 in the Draft 

EIS).

5.4.9 Designated Viewsheds and Trail Segments 

The RMP identifies designated sites where viewsheds within 3 miles are to be 

preserved, retaining the existing character of the landscape such that developments do 

not dominate the visible area and detract from the feeling or sense of the historic time 

period of the site. 

These sites include the following: 

• Emigrant Spring/Slate Creek (87 acres) 

• Emigrant Spring/Dempsey (11 acres) 

• Johnston Scout Rock (2 acres) 

• Alfred Corum and Nancy Hill emigrant gravesites (1⁄2 acre) 

• Pine Grove emigrant camp (14 acres) 

• Rocky Gap trail landmark (15 acres) 

• Bear River Divide trail landmark (3 acres) 

• Gateway petroglyphs (518 Acres)

As shown on Figure 5.4-22 all of the routes are outside of the viewshed of six of the 

designated sites. Of the remaining sites the Proposed Route would be within the 

viewshed of the Gateway Petroglyphs (0.1 mile), Alternative 4A would be within the 

viewshed of the Emigrant Spring/Dempsey and Alfred Corum and Nancy Hill emigrant 

gravesites (1.3 miles). Alternative 4F would be within the viewshed of the Alfred Corum 

and Nancy Hill emigrant gravesites (1.5 miles). It is recommended that if either 

Alternatives 4A or 4F are selected, the Project be allowed as a visually altering action 

without changing the VRM classification, micrositing and alternative structure 

configurations would be considered in the design. This would provide the most 

protection of the historic character of the site. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-62

Plan Amendments Analysis

The RMP also sets the goal to manage the viewsheds of national historic trail 

segments. As started in the RMP, these goals include: 

• “(1)(a) Preserve the viewshed within 3 miles of Class 1 segments north and east 

of U.S. Highway 30 and west of the Hams Fork River (Tunp/Dempsey Trail area), 

where the visual characteristics of the setting contribute to the eligibility of the 

site, by managing projects in federal sections to retain the existing character of 

the landscape so developments do not dominate the visible area to detract from 

the feeling or sense of the historic time period of the trail setting. Design ROW to 

preserve the visual integrity of the settings consistent with the BLM visual 

resources handbook and manual. 

• (1)(b) Preserve the viewshed within 1 mile of Class 1 segments outside of the 

Tunp/Dempsey Trail area and the checkerboard land pattern area, where the 

visual characteristics of the setting contribute to the eligibility of the site, by 

managing projects in federal sections to retain the existing character of the 

landscape so developments do not dominate the visible area to detract from the 

feeling or sense of the historic time period of the trail setting. Design ROW to 

preserve the visual integrity of the settings consistent with the BLM visual 

resources handbook and manual.

• (1)(c) On Class 1 trail segments within the checkerboard land pattern area, 

manage the viewshed to preserve the existing character of the landscape within 

the federal section where the trail occurs. 

• (2)(a) Preserve the viewshed within 1⁄2 mile of Class 2 segments that exist in 

blocked federal lands west of U.S. Highway 189 (south of Kemmerer) and south 

of U.S. Highway 30 by managing projects in federal sections to retain the existing 

character of the landscape so developments do not attract the attention of the 

casual observer. 

• (2)(b) On Class 2 trail segments outside of the area described in (2)(a) manage 

the viewshed to preserve the existing character of the landscape within the 

federal section where the trail occurs. 

• (2)(c) On Class 3 segments, manage the viewshed according to the appropriate 

VRM class for the area. The management action is intended to manage 

developments to maintain setting qualities and not to have an exclusion zone.”

As shown on Figure 5.4-23 several of the proposed and alternative routes cross Class I, 

II, and III trails and associated viewsheds. Table 5.4-1 lists the number of crossings 

and extent of viewshed crossed by these route alternatives. Section 3.3 of the Draft 

EIS provides more information on the effects to each trail. 

It is recommended that micrositing and alternative structures be considered for any 

alternative that crosses a Class I, II, or III trail segment and that the Project be allowed 

as a visually altering action without changing the VRM classification. This would provide 

the most protection for the viewsheds of historic trail segments. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-63

Plan Amendments Analysis

Table 5.4-1. Historic Trail Segments

Route 

Designation

Class I Trail Segments

Class II Trail 

Segments

Class III Trail 

Segments

# of Crossings Miles within Viewshed # of Crossings # of Crossings

Proposed Route 1 1.9 mi within 1 mi viewshed 2 - 

Alternative 4A 2 16.8 mi within 3 mile viewshed 3 - 

Alternative 4B - - - 4 

Alternative 4C - 3.1 miles within 3 mi viewshed - 5 

Alternative 4D - - - 4 

Alternative 4E - 3.1 miles within 3 mi viewshed - 5 

Alternative 4F 1 16.8 miles within 3 mi viewshed 3 - 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-64

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.4-1. Kemmerer RMP Boundary Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-65

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.4-2. AOI K-1 Sublette Cutoff AOI Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-66

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.4-3. AOI K1 Sublette Cutoff AOI Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-67

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.4-4. AOI K-2 Commissary Ridge AOI Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-68

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.4-5. AOI K-2 Commissary Ridge AOI Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-69

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.4-6. AOI K-3 Sublette Range AOI Visual Analysis (Alternative 4F)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-70

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.4-7. AOI K-3 Sublette Range AOI Detailed Map (Alternative 4F)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-71

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.4-8. AOI K-3 Sublette Range AOI Visual Analysis (Proposed Route)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-72

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.4-9. AOI K-3 Sublette Range AOI Detailed Map (Proposed Route)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-73

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.4-10. AOI K-4Tunp Range AOI Visual Analysis (Alternative 4A)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-74

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.4-11 AOI K-4Tunp Range AOI Detailed Map (Alternative 4F)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-75

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.4-12. AOI K-5 Hams Fork AOI Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-76

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.4-13. AOI K-5 Hams Fork AOI Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-77

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.4-14. AOI K-6 Fossil Butte AOI Visual Analysis (Alternatives 4B/4C)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-78

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.4-15. AOI K-6 Fossil Butte AOI Detailed Map (Alternatives 4B/4C)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-79

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.4-16. AOI K-6 Fossil Butte AOI Visual Analysis (Alternatives 4D/4E)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-80

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.4-17. AOI K-6 Fossil Butte AOI Detailed Map (Alternative 4D/4E)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-81

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.4-18. AOI K-7 Sillem Ridge Visual Analysis (Alternative 4C/4E)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-82

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.4-19. AOI K-7 Sillem Ridge Detailed Map (Alternative 4C/4E)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-83

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.4-20. AOI K-8 Boulder Ridge AOI Visual Analysis (Alternative 4D/4E)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-84

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.4-21. AOI K-8 Boulder Ridge AOI Detailed Map (Alternative 4D/4E)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-85

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.4-22. Designated Viewsheds
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-86

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.4-23. Historic Trail Segments
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-87

Plan Amendments Analysis

5.5 Malad MFP

The Malad MFP (BLM 1981) provides direction for management of resource activities 

on public lands administered by the BLM within the southwestern portion of the 

Pocatello FO (see Figure 5.5-1). The Malad MFP includes the following visual 

recommendations that could be applicable to the Gateway West Project:

• Specific development proposals will be allowed, located, and designated in 

accordance with the existing VRM class restrictions with emphasis on Class I 

areas.

• Allow changes within the landscape that are as natural as possible with 

appropriate location design and mitigation.

• Maintain a degree of management that minimizes changes in the visual 

dominance elements.

The Project begins in Wyoming and proceeds west into southeast Idaho. Beginning at 

Populus Substation, the Proposed Route splits into a northern route (Segments 5, 6, 

and 8) and a southern route (Segments 7 and 9). In the eastern portion of the Pocatello 

FO, the Proposed Routes for Segments 5 and 7 are parallel and closely aligned; 

however, farther west they diverge. 

Segment 5 is 54.6 miles long and consists of a single-circuit 500-kV line between 

Populus Substation and Borah Substation. Routing issues in this segment include a 

subdivision, an eagle nest, the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, VRM Class II lands in the 

Deep Creek Mountains, avoidance of cultivated lands, establishment of a new ROW in 

rolling hills to mountainous terrain, residential development near the approach to the 

Borah Substation, and Power County zoning. There are no WWE corridors available for 

Segment 5. Segment 5 contains five feasible alternatives that are being studied in the 

EIS to provide options in negotiating the identified constraints.

Segment 7 also begins at Populus Substation and comprises a 118-mile-long singlecircuit 500-kV line connecting with the Cedar Hill Substation. Routing issues in this 

segment include agricultural operations such as concentrated animal feeding operation 

(CAFOs), pivot irrigation, livestock, proximity to residences and a local hang gliding 

area. Cultural resource concerns include proximity to historic trails such as the 

California Trail, Hudspeth’s Cutoff and the Oregon NHT, and the City of Rocks National 

Reserve. Big game winter range, sage-grouse key habitat and leks, visual impact, and 

conformance with BLM and Forest Service management plans are other concerns for 

this segment. There are no existing east-west transmission lines or WWE corridors 

available for Segment 7. Due to its long distance and considerable public interest, 10 

feasible alternatives are being studied in the EIS for Segment 7. 

In the Malad MFP area this Project would cross two VRM Class II management areas 

and one VRM Class III area. The presence of a transmission line in these landscapes 

would not meet the designated VRM objectives. As a result, BLM action would be 

necessary to modify the visual classifications or approve a one-time allowance to be 

consistent with the MFP. The AOIs are described in Sections 5.5.1 through 5.5.3 

below.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-88

Plan Amendments Analysis

5.5.1 AOI M-1 Deep Creek (Segment 5 and Segment 7 Proposed Routes)

The Deep Creek AOI is located in the Deep Creek Mountains, approximately 17 miles 

southeast of American Falls, Idaho. The Proposed Routes for Segments 5 and 7 leave 

Populus Substation and proceed northwest for about 15 miles following existing 

transmission lines, before turning due west and crossing the Deep Creek Range and 

lands managed for VRM Class II objectives, but avoiding the Fort Hall Indian 

Reservation. The Segment 5 of the Proposed Route turns to the north on the west side 

of the reservation and continues for approximately 20 miles to Borah Substation. 

Segment 7 of the Proposed Route continues approximately 90 to 100 miles farther west

to the proposed Cedar Hill Substation. 

These routes result in Segment 5 and Segment 7 crossing about 1.5 miles and 1.3 

miles, respectively, of land managed for VRM Class II lands in the Deep Creek 

Mountains. Figures 5.5-2 and 5.5-3 show the viewsheds of the Deep Creek AOI, 

Proposed Routes for Segments 5 and 7, respectively. Figure 5.5-4 shows the AOI, 

routes, and amendment management recommendation. This AOI includes one 17,638-

acre VRM Class II parcel. 

Alternatives Considered – The VRM Class II area is extensive, measuring 

approximately 10 miles north to south, and no small adjustments are possible to avoid 

it. BLM identified Alternatives 5A and 7A, which are approximately 5 to 6 miles south of 

the Proposed Route, and Alternatives 5B and 7B, approximately 10 to 12 miles farther 

south, to avoid the VRM Class II land and high quality forests. However, Alternatives 

5A/5B and 7A/7B would cross more agricultural land than the Proposed Route that is of 

concern to local government and citizens. Alternative 5C, also identified by BLM, 

diverges from the Proposed Route east of the AOI avoiding the VRM Class II area, 

following an existing transmission line through the Fort Hall Reservation. 

Existing Landscape Conditions – The landscape within a 15-mile-radius area of AOI 

M-1 has varied topography consisting of north-south oriented hills/mountains and 

valleys. The mountainous areas include the Deep Creek Mountains in the center of the 

study area, the Bannock Range along the eastern boundary, and the Sublette Range to 

the west. The Arbon Valley is located between the Deep Creek Range and the 

Bannock Range; Rockland Valley is located between the Deep Creek and Sublette 

Ranges in the western portion of the study area. Vegetation is dominated by grasses, 

forbs, and cropland in the valleys, and forests in the mountains. SR 37 and Arbon 

Valley Road cross the study area. Small communities like Rockland and Pauline as 

well as extensive agricultural lands are located in the valleys. A 345-kV transmission 

corridor passes east to northwest through the area.

Attachment A, Figure M-1/M-3a shows the existing landscape conditions as viewed 

from KOP 907. This view is used for both AOI M-1 and AOI M-3. The area is 

mountainous with a mixture of open land, forest land, and rock outcrops with no 

apparent manmade modifications.

Conformance Analysis – Figures 5.5-2 and 5.5-3 show the viewshed, KOPs, and 

other features within the 15-mile-radius study areas used to assess the consistency of 

the Project with existing landscape conditions for the Proposed Routes for Segments 5 

and 7. In the north-south valleys east of AOI M-1 there are significantly more viewing 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-89

Plan Amendments Analysis

areas and viewers, but these areas are located 3 to 15 miles away, significantly 

reducing potential visibility and visual impact. 

Attachment A, Figures M-1/M-3b and M-1/M-3c simulate landscape conditions of the 

Proposed Routes for Segment 5 and Segment 7, respectively, on the existing 

landscape from KOP 907. Scenic views of the Deep Creek Range are important to 

sensitive viewers in the surrounding area such as at the trailhead (KOP 920) and the 

scenic overlook at KOP 907. From both locations there are pristine mountain views 

exhibiting diversity in form, line, color, and texture and the lack development or 

manmade features. From high points such as KOP 907 on a scenic ridgeline, it is 

apparent that micrositing, screening, and other mitigation efforts may lower impacts to 

scenic resources, especially for Segment 5. However, the pyramidal forms, meandering 

ridgelines, and dominant rugged vegetation would contrast with transmission structures 

and access roads, which would draw the attention of the casual observer and thus not 

conform to VRM Class II objectives.

As illustrated in Figures M-1/M-3b and M-1/M-3c, vegetation and terrain would screen 

much of the transmission line for Segment 5 of the Proposed Route. Segment 7 of the 

Proposed Route would be more visible but would still be screened by topography and 

vegetation in many areas. The simulation of KOP 907 illustrates this, showing three 

structures in the view. Distances of over a mile between viewing locations and the 

transmission line make the Project more difficult to distinguish with the added influence 

of backdropping terrain. Although the proposed transmission line would not dominate 

the view, it would draw the attention of the casual observer and thus not conform to 

VRM Class II objectives. It appears that the area was designated VRM Class II to 

protect the undisturbed nature of the scenic Deep Creek Mountains. If the Gateway 

West Project were approved within the VRM Class II area, it would not meet the 

management objectives of a Class II, but would be located in a seldom seen portion of 

the area, and it would be beneficial to maintain the Class II Management Objectives to 

provide future protection of the visual resources found in this mountain range. It is 

recommended that if either of the Proposed Routes discussed here is selected, the 

Project be allowed as a visually altering action without changing the VRM classification. 

This would provide the most protection of visual resources found in this mountain range.

5.5.2 AOI M-2 Snake River (Proposed Route – Segment 5)

The Snake River AOI was originally identified as an area where the Project would likely 

not conform to BLM VRM requirements. This area is located on Segment 5 of the 

Proposed Route, approximately 1.5 miles east of Borah Substation. While the actual 

crossing of the VRM Class II parcel is across the Snake River, the remaining portion 

was of possible visual concern. It was subsequently determined by the Pocatello FO 

that no amendment was needed because the area of the VRM Class II parcel that 

would be crossed by the Proposed Route was inundated. 

5.5.3 AOI M-3 Deep Creek East (Segment 5 and Segment 7 Proposed Routes)

The Proposed Routes for Segments 5 and 7 leave Populus Substation and proceed 

northwest for about 15 miles, following existing transmission lines, before turning due 

west and crossing the Deep Creek Range. The routes cross VRM Class III lands to 

avoid the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. As the routes climb the east flank of the Deep 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-90

Plan Amendments Analysis

Creek Mountains, the Segment 5 Proposed Route crosses about 2.8 miles of VRM 

Class III lands and the Segment 7 Proposed Route crosses approximately 2.9 miles of 

VRM Class III land. Based on the visual analysis, it is believed that the proposed 

transmission line in this area would be inconsistent with visual management goals, due 

to sensitive viewers in the Arbon Valley to the east. 

Figures 5.5-5 and 5.5-6 show the viewsheds of the Deep Creek East AOI, the Proposed 

Routes for Segments 5 and 7, and land managed for VRM Class III objectives. Figure 

5.5-9 shows the AOI, routes, and amendment management recommendation. This AOI 

consists of a 6,636 acre parcel designated VRM Class. 

Alternatives Considered – The VRM Class III area extends north to the Fort Hall 

Indian Reservation and about 2 miles to the south where it meets VRM Class II land. 

Therefore, there is no local re-route of this segment that would avoid the VRM Class III 

land. Alternatives 5A and 7A, located approximately 5 to 6 miles south of the Proposed 

Route, or Alternatives 5B and 7B, approximately 10 to 12 miles farther south, would 

avoid this AOI. However, because Alternatives 5A/5B and 7A/7B would cross more 

agricultural land than the Proposed Route there is extensive local government and 

citizen concern. Alternative 5C, also identified by BLM, diverges from the Proposed 

Route east of this AOI and follows an existing transmission line northwest through the 

Fort Hall Reservation, avoiding the VRM Class II and III management areas. 

Existing Landscape Conditions – Topography in the 15-mile-radius area around AOI 

M-3 comprises north-south oriented hills/mountains and valleys. The mountainous 

areas include the Deep Creek Mountains in the center of the study area, the Bannock 

Range along the eastern boundary, and the Sublette Range to the west. The Arbon 

Valley is located between the Deep Creek Range and the Bannock Range; Rockland 

Valley is located between the Deep Creek and Sublette Ranges in the western portion 

of the Study Area. Vegetation consists mainly of grasses, forbs, and cropland in the 

valleys; mountainous areas are forested. Manmade development includes local roads 

and highways (SR 37 and Arbon Valley Road). Agricultural lands are located in the 

valleys, as are small communities, such Rockland and Pauline. A 345-kV transmission 

corridor passes east to northwest through the area.

Attachment A, Figure M-1/M-3a shows the existing landscape conditions as viewed 

from KOP 907. This view includes both AOI M-1, to the west, and AOI M-3, to the east. 

It is mountainous with a mixture of open land, forest land, and rock outcrops with no 

apparent manmade modifications. In the immediate vicinity of this AOI, topography and 

vegetation limit the viewing area and potential viewers. There are more numerous 

viewing areas in the north-south valleys east of the Segment 5 and 7 Proposed Route 

AOI crossings, however these areas are located 3 to 15 miles away, reducing potential 

visibility and visual impact.

Conformance Analysis – Figures 5.5-5 and 5.5-6 show the viewshed, KOPs, and 

other features within the 15-mile-radius study area used to establish the degree of 

consistency with the existing VRM class. Attachment A, Figures M-1/M-3b and M-1/M3c are simulations showing the Proposed Routes for Segments 5 and 7 on the existing 

landscape. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-91

Plan Amendments Analysis

Scenic views of the Deep Creek Range are important to the surrounding sensitive 

viewers, such as hikers at the trail head designated KOP 920 and the scenic overlook at 

KOP 907. KOP 907 looks north towards the Bannock and Moonshine Peaks, which 

exhibit dominant pyramidal silhouetted shapes. Both of these pristine mountain views 

exhibit a high level of diversity in form, line, color, and texture as well as a lack of 

surrounding development and manmade features. From high points such as this scenic 

ridgeline, it is apparent that screening and other mitigation efforts may be partially 

successful at lowering impacts to scenic resources. The pyramidal forms, meandering 

ridgelines, and dominant rugged vegetation would contrast with transmission structures, 

access roads, and ROW clearing. This contrast would draw the attention of the casual 

observer but would not dominate the view. While the Project would not dominate the 

view, it is assumed that Segment 7 (and possibly Segment 5) will not conform to VRM 

Class III objectives in this area, given the pristine nature of the surrounding landscape. 

It appears that VRM Class III objectives have been assigned to this particular area to 

protect this scenic mountainous terrain. If the Project were approved within the VRM 

Class II area, it would not meet the management objectives of a Class II, but would be 

located in a seldom seen portion of the area, and it would be beneficial to maintain the 

Class II Management Objectives to provide future protection of the visual resources 

found in this mountain range. It is recommended that if either of the Proposed Routes is 

selected, that the Project be given one-time exception, allowing it as a visually altering 

action without changing the VRM classification (See Figure 5.5-7). This would provide 

the most protection for adjacent visual resource management goals.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-92

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.5-1. Malad MFP Boundary Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-93

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.5-2. AOI M-1 Malad AOI Visual Analysis (Segment 5)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-94

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.5-3. AOI M-1 Malad AOI Visual Analysis (Segment 7)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-95

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.5-4. AOI M-1 Malad AOI Detailed Map (Segments 5 and 7)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-96

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.5-5. AOI M-3 Deep Creek East AOI Visual Analysis (Segment 5)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-97

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.5-6. AOI M-3 Deep Creek East AOI Visual Analysis (Segment 7)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-98

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.5-7. AOI M-3 Deep Creek East AOI Detailed Map (Segments 5 and 7)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-99

Plan Amendments Analysis

5.6 Cassia RMP

The Cassia RMP (BLM 1985a) provides direction for management of public lands in a 

planning area of approximately 1,629,472 acres to the south of the Snake River in 

south-central Idaho (see Figure 5.6-1), part of the Burley FO. Approximately 97 percent 

of the planning area is within Cassia County, with 2 percent in Oneida County and less 

than 1 percent in each of Twin Falls and Power Counties. Portions of Segments 7, 9 

and 10 are located within the Cassia RMPPA. Two VRM Class II management areas 

are crossed by Route Alternatives. The Cassia RMP states that the “consideration of 

scenic values will be included in the analysis of all activities involving alteration of the 

natural character of the landscape. The degree of alteration allowed is determined 

through an inventory process which results in the classification of all public lands into 

one of five Visual Resource Management classes, each class allowing for a different 

degree of modification.” Data from the inventory process is not available at this time but 

it can be assumed that the language from the RMP applies to the various VRM 

objectives assigned throughout the planning area. Because the AOIs are on 

alternatives of Segment 7, the discussion below focuses on that Segment. 

Proposed Segment 7 consists of 118 miles of single-circuit 500-kV transmission line. It 

leaves Populus Substation and proceeds northwest for about 15 miles, following 

existing transmission lines and Segment 5, before turning due west and proceeding 

through about 103 miles of mainly private irrigated agriculture to Cedar Hill Substation. 

Key siting issues are proximity to residences and agriculture including loss of prime 

farmland and CRP land, disruption to existing crops and surface irrigation patterns, 

interference with center pivot irrigation, and potential electrical effects on confined 

animal feeding operations. As a result of these concerns, a multi-county task force 

consisting of residents, county officials and state legislators, have recommended 

alternatives well south of the Proposed Route. These alternatives would primarily cross 

BLM or Forest Service land. Constraints in these southern alternatives include high

quality forested land, historic trails, wetlands, steep slopes, crucial big game range, 

sage-grouse and raptor nests.

In all, there are 10 feasible alternatives for Segment 7. Eight additional routes were 

reviewed, but not carried forward for detailed analysis. Alternatives 7A through 7G are 

short alternatives which diverge from the Proposed Route to avoid local features, such 

as dairies, raptor nests, areas of concentrated agriculture, and so on. Alternatives 7H, 

7I, and 7J are alternative routes to the south of the Proposed Route. Alternative 7H is 

located approximately 10 to 15 miles south of the Proposed Route. It passes through a 

mix of private land, BLM-managed land and the Caribou and Sawtooth NFs. The total 

length of Alternative 7H is 127 miles. Alternatives 7I and 7J share the same alignment 

through the route along the Idaho/Nevada state line, approximately 25 to 30 miles south 

of the Proposed Route, before splitting into separate routes to travel through NF or 

Private and BLM lands. Alternative 7I was recommended by the multi-county task 

force. This alternative is a 173 mile route located near the Idaho/Nevada state line.

VRM objectives in the Cassia RMP could be affected by the Project in four areas 

depending on the route selected. Jim Sage AOI (CA-1) is a VRM II management area 

crossed by Alternative 7H. Cottonwood Creek AOI (CA-2), also along Alternative 7H, is 

land managed as VRM Class III, but the transmission line would dominate the view of 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-100

Plan Amendments Analysis

the casual observer. Spring Canyon AOI (CA-3) is an isolated parcel managed as VRM 

Class II crossed by the Alternative 7E. Alternative 7I would cross AOI (CA-4) which 

includes the Goose Creek Travel Zone with lands managed for VRM Classes II and III. 

5.6.1 AOI CA-1 Jim Sage (Alternative 7H)

The Jim Sage AOI is a single BLM parcel of approximately 1,515 acres, located on 

Alternative 7H, approximately 7 miles southwest of Malta, Idaho. Approaching the Jim 

Sage AOI from the east, Alternative 7H runs through the Raft River Valley, then into a 

pinch point between the Cotterel Mountains to the north and the Jim Sage Mountains to 

the south. The route at this point is adjacent to Idaho State Highway 77-Elba/Almo 

Highway, and Cassia Creek. The proximity of the highway and creek requires the 

powerline to be placed in the foothills of the Jim Sage Mountains. This route crosses 

approximately 0.8 mile of VRM Class II land in the Jim Sage AOI. The northeast corner 

of the VRM Class II parcel would be avoided during micrositing. Figure 5.6-2 shows the 

viewshed of the Jim Sage AOI, Alternative 7H, and VRM management classification. 

Figure 5.6-3 shows the AOI, routes, and amendment management recommendation. 

Alternatives Considered – In the vicinity of Jim Sage AOI the route could not be 

moved to the south or north because of steep terrain and conflicts with raptor nest 

buffers. As the route proceeds west in its current placement, it maintains a straight line 

that also avoids the steeper areas within the Albion Range. Selection of the Proposed 

Route or Alternative 7I would avoid the Jim Sage AOI; however, the Proposed Route is 

closer to residential areas, and would affect more active agricultural operations. 

Alternative 7I is 55 miles longer than the Proposed Route and 46 miles longer than 

Alternative 7H and crosses other VRM Class II and VRM Class III areas.

Existing Landscape Conditions – The 15-mile radius study area includes the Raft 

River Valley on the east, the Cotterel and Jim Sage Mountains running north to south in 

the middle, and the Albion Range in the Sawtooth NF in the west. Figure 5.6-2 shows 

the Jim Sage AOI viewshed analysis area. Most of the area is undeveloped with large 

areas of forests in the Sawtooth NF. Areas of irrigated agriculture occur on the west 

side of Raft River Valley, in the Elba Basin, along the more narrow valleys between 

mountainous areas, in the area around the city of Albion, and on the northwest side of 

the Albion Mountains. There are a small number of waterbodies, including Lake 

Cleveland and the Independence Lakes. SR 81 runs north-south on the west side of 

Raft Valley and intersects Interstate 84 near Horse Butte in the northeast. SR 77 

crosses the study area northwest to southeast through the mountains, and joins SR 81 

at Malta. There are many recreation opportunities including Pomerelle Ski Area, picnic 

areas, campgrounds, and trails. Attachment A, Figure CA-1a shows existing landscape 

conditions as viewed from KOP 1246. 

Conformance Analysis – Figure 5.6-2 shows the viewshed, KOPs, and other features 

within the 15-mile radius study area used to establish the degree of consistency with the 

existing VRM class. Attachment A, Figure CA-1b simulates landscape conditions, 

showing the Proposed Route as viewed from KOP 1246. Scenic views of Jones Hollow, 

the Jim Sage Mountains, and the surrounding mountainous terrain of the Sawtooth NF 

are important to sensitive viewers such as the adjacent residents on SR 77, and 

recreational drivers on the City of Rocks Back Country Byway. These sensitive 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-101

Plan Amendments Analysis

residential and recreational viewers are represented by KOPs 1243, 1244, 1245, and 

1246. The mountain views exhibit diversity and dominance in form, line, color, and 

texture with the surrounding residential development and man-made features. From 

this lower elevation vantage point, it is apparent that Alternative 7H of the Proposed 

Project would interrupt the scenic views. Micrositing to take advantage of topographic 

and screening would be unlikely to reduce impacts in the surrounding area. As shown 

on the Figure CA-1b, there would be skylining in some of these views, representing a 

high level of contrast. The pyramidal forms, jagged terrain with numerous silhouette 

lines, and mottled rugged vegetation would be directly contrasted with the proposed 

structures (and perhaps access roads). As a result, the Project would attract the 

attention of the casual observer and thus not conform to VRM Class II objectives.

If Alternative 7H is selected, the VRM Class II area northwest of the Project would be 

bounded by the transmission line, residences, and the Elba-Almo Road. Therefore, it is 

recommended that the Project be allowed as a visually altering action resulting in 

reclassifying 122 acres of AOI CA-1 from VRM Class II to VRM Class III if this 

alternative is selected (see Figure 5.6-3). During final design, consideration would be 

given to micrositing the alignment to reduce visibility as much as possible. This 

micrositing would also be used to either avoid crossing the northeastern corner of the 

AOI or cross in such a way that it would conform to VRM Class II requirements for that 

area.

5.6.2 AOI CA-2 Cottonwood Creek AOI (Alternative 7H)

The Cottonwood Creek AOI is located on the west end of Alternative 7H, about 5 miles 

northwest of Oakley, Idaho. The route passes just south of Oakley before turning to the 

northwest to connect with the Cedar Hill Substation. The route is predominantly on 

BLM-managed land. Local route adjustments occur in several locations to avoid 

agricultural fields with center pivot irrigation. The Cottonwood Creek AOI is one 2,496-

acre VRM III parcel that would be crossed for approximately 2.5 miles by Alternative 7H. 

Due to proximity of the route to key observation points, including a residence, a historic 

trail, and an entrance to the Cottonwood Wildlife Management Area (WMA), a visual 

analysis was conducted to evaluate the effects of a transmission line in this location. 

Figure 5.6-4 shows the viewshed of the Cottonwood Creek AOI, Alternative 7H, and the 

VRM management classifications. Figure 5.6-5 shows the AOI, route, and amendment 

management recommendation.

Alternatives Considered – Much of the BLM-managed land near the Cottonwood 

Creek AOI is managed as VRM Class III. The route location is constrained to the 

southwest by scenic mountainous areas of the Sawtooth NF and to the north by center 

pivot irrigated agricultural lands. Several alternative routes that avoid VRM areas were 

eliminated due to increased agricultural impact. Both the Proposed Route and 

Alternative 7I would avoid VRM lands at this location. However, Alternative 7I crosses 

VRM Class I and VRM Class II areas at other locations.

Existing Landscape Conditions – Within the 15-mile radius study area, two landscape 

conditions predominate. In the southeast, east, and northeast, the foreground and 

middle ground are flat against a backdrop of the Albion Mountains. To the south and 

southwest there are many canyons, ridges, and steep slopes within the Sawtooth NF. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-102

Plan Amendments Analysis

The Snake River crosses the northernmost part of the 15-mile radius area. U.S. Route 

30 is the primary road and is located in the northern portion of the study area. There 

are a number of small communities including Burley to the north of the study area, 

Oakley in the southeast, and Albion to the east of the study area. In addition to the local 

roads, highways and communities, there are sensitive viewing areas such as 

campgrounds and trails in the NF, the Pomerelle ski area, and Martaugh Lake County 

Park. The main access road to the Big Cottonwood Wildlife Management Area would 

be crossed by Alternative 7H. Attachment A, Figure CA-2a shows existing landscape 

conditions in the immediate vicinity as viewed from KOP 1171 and Figure CA-2c shows 

existing landscape conditions in the immediate vicinity as viewed from KOP 1173. 

Conformance Analysis – Figure 5.6-4 shows the viewshed, KOPs, and other features 

within the 15-mile radius study area used to establish the degree of consistency with the 

existing VRM class. Attachment A, Figures CA-2b and CA-2d simulate impacts to 

landscape conditions showing Alternative 7H as viewed from KOP and KOP 1173, 

respectively. Scenic views of Golden Valley, adjacent to Cottonwood Creek, are 

important to sensitive viewers such as hikers on the trail at KOP 1173, WMA visitors, 

and the residential viewers in the vicinity of KOPs 1171 and 1174. These valley and 

mountain views exhibit a diversity of form, line, color, and texture with few visible manmade features. From low valley vantage points, it is apparent that there would be some 

skylining with little potential vegetation and topographic screening. Structures for 

Alternative 7H would directly contrast with the various angular and pyramidal forms, 

meandering ridgelines, and strong horizon. These structures would be visible and 

dominant, thus not conforming to VRM Class III objectives. While not stated, It appears 

that that a VRM Class III objective has been assigned to this particular area to protect 

the viewshed of this scenic mountainous terrain and the broad almost flat terrain of the 

Golden Valley. 

With the transmission line in place, the VRM Class III area to the east of the 

transmission line would be more visually associated with the transmission structures 

which dominate the flat agricultural landscape. If Alternative 7H is approved, it is 

recommended that the area north/northeast of the transmission line, totaling 806 acres 

of AOI CA-2, be reclassified from VRM Class III to VRM Class IV (see Figure 5.6-5). 

5.6.3 AOI CA-3 Spring Canyon (Alternative 7E)

This AOI comprises an isolated 300-acre VRM Class II parcel located at the north end 

of the Albion Mountains, in the Declo Hills. A total of 0.3 mile of this parcel would be 

crossed by Alternative 7E. Figure 5.6-6 shows the viewshed of the Spring Creek AOI 

and VRM management classification. Figure 5.6-7 shows the AOI, route, and 

amendment management recommendation. 

Alternatives Considered – Alternative 7E (4.5 miles long) diverges from the 3.8-mile 

equivalent segment of the Proposed Route at point 7j, approximately 4.5 miles north of 

Albion. It proceeds southeast for about 1 mile and then southwest for about 3 miles 

back to the Proposed Route. This alternative diverges slightly east from the Proposed 

Route to avoid two sage-grouse lek 0.65-mile buffers and stay east of a hang gliding 

launch location. The entire route would be Greenfield. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-103

Plan Amendments Analysis

Existing Landscape Conditions – Within the 15-mile radius study area around AOI 

CA-3, the northwest half is generally flat to rolling. The majority of this area, and the 

area along the Snake River, is occupied by farms and farmland. In contrast, the 

southeastern half of the area is mostly undeveloped and, to a large extent, mountainous 

(Albion and Cotterel Mountains). The exceptions to this being farms and farmland in the 

Raft River Valley and in the vicinity of Albion. Forests are found in the mountainous 

areas, especially within the Sawtooth NF. Interstate 84, U.S. 30, and SRs 24, 25, 27, 

77 and 81 cross the area and provide highway service to communities such as Burley, 

Rupert, Heyburn, and Albion. Sensitive viewers include motorists, local residents and 

visitors to the NF, campgrounds, trails and other recreation areas and historic sites.

Conformance Analysis – Figure 5.6-6 shows the viewshed, KOPs, and other features 

within the 15-mile radius study area used to assess the consistency of Alternative 7E 

with the existing VRM Class II. Sensitive viewers, such as the residents at KOPs 306, 

310, and 311, have scenic views of Spring Canyon north of the Albion Mountains and 

Pine Knob. Figure 5.6-8 shows views of the existing conditions south of KOP 311 and 

KOP 306. These valley and mountain views exhibit diversity in form, line, color, and 

texture, with a few man-made features visible in the residential areas. 

From high elevation vantage points, it is apparent that screening and other mitigation 

efforts would not be successful at sufficiently lowering impacts to scenic resources in 

the surrounding area. The various angular and pyramidal forms, mountain silhouettes, 

meandering ridgelines, curvilinear divergent bands, and strong horizon would contrast 

directly with transmission structures and access roads for Alternative 7E. There would 

be areas where skylining of the powerline and towers would dominate the view of the 

casual viewers. As a result of these visual impacts, Alternative 7H would not conform to 

VRM Class II objectives. It is assumed that VRM Class II objectives have been 

assigned to this particular area to protect the hills and mountainous terrain adjacent to 

Spring Canyon. 

Micro-siting may reduce the length across VRM Class II area but would not completely 

avoid the parcel. If this route is approved, it is recommended that 39 acres of AOI CA-3 

be reclassified from VRM Class II to VRM Class III (see Figure 5.6-7). Alternative 7E 

would be constructed using appropriate mitigation measures and BMPs to lower 

potential impacts to visual resources and scenic qualities.

5.6.4 AOI CA-4 Goose Creek Travel Zone (Alternative 7I and Alternative 7J)

The Goose Creek AOI comprises one 20.9-acre VRM Class II parcel within the Goose 

Creek Travel Zone that is crossed for 348 feet by Alternatives 7I/7J, just north of the 

Idaho/Utah State line. The RMP states that the management objective is to “preserve 

scenic values in the Goose Creek Travel Zone (within 0.5 mile of Goose Creek road 

between Wilson Pass and the Utah border).” Other constraints in the area include sagegrouse leks and buffers, raptor nests and buffers, a historic trail and lands classified as 

VRM I and II. In routing a line east to west through this area, the Travel Zone cannot be 

avoided. This route does, however, avoid the sage-grouse and raptor habitat. Figure 

5.6-9 shows the viewshed for AOI CA-4 Goose Creek Travel Zone, the Alternative 

routes, and VRM classifications. Figure 5.6-10 shows the AOI, routes, and amendment 

management recommendation.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-104

Plan Amendments Analysis

Alternatives Considered – Proposed Segment 7 and Alternative 7H would avoid this 

AOI. The proposed route would cross more pivot plot agriculture land that these 

alternatives. Alternative 7H would cross Sawtooth NF land as would Alternatives 7I and 

7J. Alternative 7I is the route preferred by the Southern Idaho Task Force, a group of 

residents, irrigators, and county and state officials who oppose the Proposed Route 

which largely passes through private agricultural land. Alternative 7J was proposed by 

the Task Force as an alternate route for the west end of 7I. 

Existing Conditions –Figure 5.6-9 shows the 15-mile radius study area and the 

viewshed analysis for towers within the AOI. Goose Creek flows northeast through the 

analysis area. The 0.3 mile-wide floodplain is bounded by eroding cliffs and buttes. 

There is scattered agriculture and grasslands within the river valley. Beaverdam Creek 

drains into Goose Creek just north of this AOI. The Goose Creek Road follows the 

valley along the eastern edge. Lower Goose Creek Reservoir is in the northeast portion 

of the analysis area. The Sawtooth NF comprises the northwest quadrant of the 

analysis area. The upland area around Goose Creek is characterized by broad, flat 

expanses and dramatic buttes. Further from the creek, the landscape becomes 

mountainous with a patchwork of forested, shrub, and high elevation grasslands. 

Numerous drainages cross the area.

Conformance Analysis – High-sensitivity residential viewers at KOP 1091 would have 

a moderate level of Project visibility 1.1 mile from Alternative 7I/7J. The viewer would 

have a focal and somewhat enclosed view toward the alignment which would not 

parallel any existing alignments or linear features but would be either screened or back 

dropped by the rocky terrain in the middle ground and background resulting in contrast 

levels that are anticipated to be moderate to high. Potential visual impacts on 

residences from this KOP and in the general vicinity are expected to be moderate to 

high because the Alternative would create a new linear feature in a relatively 

undisturbed landscape with moderate to high contrast due to possible opportunities for 

screening or backdropping. The various angular and pyramidal forms, mountain 

silhouettes, meandering ridgelines, curvilinear divergent bands, and strong horizon 

would contrast directly with transmission structures and access roads for Alternative 

7I/7J.

Because the Travel Zone cannot be avoided, and a transmission line in this area would 

not be consistent with VRM Class II objectives, an amendment would be needed, if this 

route is approved, to reclassify the 20.9-acre VRM II parcel crossed to VRM Class III 

(see Figure 5.6-10). 

5.6.5 AOI CA-5 Goose Creek Travel Zone (Alternative 7I and Alternative 7J)

The Goose Creek AOI comprises a single VRM III parcel located within the Goose 

Creek Travel Zone near the Idaho/Utah State line. AOI CA-5 is east of the river 

crossing from AOI C-4. The RMP states that the management objective is to “preserve 

scenic values in the Goose Creek Travel Zone (within 0.5 mile of Goose Creek road 

between Wilson Pass and the Utah border).” Alternatives 7I and 7J follow the same 

route through this portion of their routes and cross the VRM Class III parcel for a 

distance 1,241 feet. Figure 5.6-11 shows the viewshed for AOI CA-5 Goose Creek 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-105

Plan Amendments Analysis

Travel Zone, the Route Alternatives, and VRM classifications. Figure 5.6-12 shows the 

Alternative 7I/7J, the existing VRM Class, and proposed amendment action.

Alternatives Considered – Proposed Route 7 and Alternative 7H would avoid this 

AOI. The Proposed Route would cross more pivot plot agriculture land that these 

alternatives. Alternative 7H would cross Sawtooth NF land as would Alternatives 7I and 

7J. Alternative 7I is the route preferred by the Southern Idaho Task Force, a group of 

residents, irrigators, and county and state officials who oppose the Proposed Route 

which largely passes through private agricultural land. Alternative 7J was proposed by 

the Task Force as an alternate route for the west end of 7I.

Existing Conditions –Figure 5.6-11 shows the 15-mile radius study area and the 

viewshed analysis for towers within the AOI. Goose Creek flows northeast through the 

analysis area. The 0.3 mile-wide floodplain is bounded by eroding cliffs and buttes. 

There is scattered agriculture and grasslands within the river valley. Beaverdam Creek 

drains into Goose Creek just north of this AOI. The Goose Creek Road follows the 

valley along the eastern edge. One Scenic Byway and two NHTs cross the northeast

quadrant of the study area. Lower Goose Creek Reservoir is in the northeast portion of 

the analysis area. The Sawtooth NF comprises the northwest quadrant of the analysis 

area. The upland area around Goose Creek is characterized by broad, flat expanses 

and dramatic buttes. Further from the creek, the landscape becomes mountainous with 

a patchwork of forested, shrub, and high elevation grasslands. Numerous drainages 

cross the area. 

Conformance Analysis – The Project would be highly visible from the Goose Creek 

road and micrositing and screening would not lower the visual impact to the area. The 

transmission line would cross rolling, sparsely vegetated terrain with rocky outcrops and 

dramatic views. Because the Travel Zone cannot be avoided, and a transmission line in 

this area would not be consistent with VRM Class II objectives, an amendment would be 

needed, if this route is approved. It is recommended that, if this route is approved, the 

project be allowed as a single-use visually altering action across the VRM III lands in 

the Goose Creek Travel Zone, without changing the VRM classification (see Figure 5.6-

12).
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-106

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.6-1. Cassia RMP Boundary Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-107

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.6-2. AOI CA-1 Jim Sage Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-108

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.6-3. AOI CA-1 Jim Sage Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-109

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.6-4. AOI CA-2 Cottonwood Creek Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-110

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.6-5. AOI CA-2 Cottonwood Creek Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-111

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.6-6. AOI CA-3 Spring Canyon Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-112

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.6-7. AOI CA-3 Spring Canyon Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-113

Plan Amendments Analysis

KOP 311 Looking South

KOP 306 

Figure 5.6-8. Spring Canyon AOI Looking South from KOP 311 and KOP 306
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-114

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.6-9. AOI CA-4 Goose Creek Visual Analysis 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-115

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.6-10. AOI CA-4 Goose Creek Detailed Map 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-116

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.6-11. AOI CA-5 Goose Creek Visual Analysis 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-117

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.6-12. AOI CA-5 Goose Creek Detailed Map 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-118

Plan Amendments Analysis

5.7 Twin Falls MFP

The Twin Falls MFP (1982) provides direction for management of public land within its 

planning area under the jurisdiction of the Burley FO in south-central Idaho. The Twin 

Falls MFP planning area consists of approximately 809,000 acres in eastern Twin Falls 

County (see Figure 5.7-1). The Twin Falls MFP includes Objective L-4, which states

“Confine future power transmission lines and oil and gas pipelines to designated 

corridor locations. 

Objective VRM-1 states that the district is to “Manage all public lands in manner which 

will protect and maintain the existing visual qualities and provide for enhancement 

where consistent with management policies”. The Twin Falls MFP lists various VRM 

decisions starting with a high priority for the protection of Salmon Falls Creek. The VRM 

decisions are detailed as: 

• VRM 1.1 – Manage Salmon Falls Canyon between the Salmon Falls Dam and 

Lilly Grade for natural ecological change in accordance with a VRM Class I 

designation. This designation would include only the area from rim to rim. 

Manage the canyon from Lilly Grade to Balanced Rock under a VRM Class II 

designation.

• VRM 1.2 – Designate 12,695 acres as VRM Class II. This class requires 

management activities to be designated and located to blend into the natural 

landscape and not to be visually apparent to the casual visitor. The following 

resource management guidelines shall apply: 

• Range Management – Juniper and sagebrush removal must be made to simulate 

adjacent natural openings. Fences, water developments, etc., would require 

construction with mostly hand tools and be of natural materials. No red fence 

posts allowed.

2) Structures – Structures must incorporate the natural lines, colors, and 

materials of the natural landscape, skylined structures would be prohibited.

3) Roads – Required roads must be concealed by vegetation, follow natural 

landforms, and be seeded as soon as possible. Overland “roads” may be 

necessary in some areas to protect the scenic values. Cut and fill areas that 

exceed 5 feet will generally not be accepted unless the fill can be replaced and 

vegetation established in 2 years.

• VRM 1.3 – Designate 32,819 acres of VRM Class III. This class provides the 

management activities may be evident to the casual visitor; however, the activity 

should remain subordinate to the visual strength and natural character of the 

landscape. The following resource management guidelines shall apply: 

• Range management – Juniper and sage brush clearings shall simulate typical 

natural openings.

2) Structures – Structures should incorporate the natural lines, colors and 

materials of the natural landscape. Skylined structures should be avoided, if 

possible.

3) Roads – Roads should be partially concealed by vegetation, follow natural 

landforms, and be seeded as soon as possible.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-119

Plan Amendments Analysis

Data from the visual resource inventory process are not available at this time but it can 

be assumed that the above language from the MFP should be applied to the various 

VRM objectives assigned throughout the planning area. 

An amendment to the MFP was approved in 1989, designating the Salmon Falls Creek 

ACEC to protect natural and scenic values. Alternative 7I would cross this area and 

therefore be inconsistent with the management objectives.

Segment 9 of the Proposed Route is 161.7 miles long and connects the proposed 

Cedar Hill Substation with the Hemingway Substation. The line would be constructed as 

a single-circuit 500 kV line. The primary concerns for siting in the eastern portion of this 

segment were avoidance of irrigated farmland and dairy operations; scattered 

residential development; interference with the Jarbidge Military Operating Area; making 

use of the WWE corridor; and minimizing impacts to visual resources. In the western 

portion of the Proposed Route (within the Jarbidge and Owyhee FOs), following the 

WWE corridor was a primary objective. Other concerns included minimizing impact to 

Bruneau Dunes State Park and scenic qualities associated with the Bruneau River, 

avoiding conflicts with the Saylor Creek Air Force Range and Military Operating Area, 

and issues associated with crossing the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey 

Nature Conservation Area. Use of public land versus private land was an important 

issue for all portions of the route. 

Two VRM Class I and II areas in the Twin Falls MFP would be affected by this project. 

AOI TF-1 was identified as an AOI because it is managed as VRM Class I. This AOI is 

located within Salmon Falls Creek. The presence of the proposed transmission line in 

this location would be inconsistent with visual objectives. This section of Salmon falls 

Creek is an eligible Wild and Scenic River (WSR) segment. Unless this segment was 

determined to be unsuitable for WSR designation, crossing Salmon Falls Creek would 

not be allowed, and therefore an amendment would not be able to be approved at this 

time for the Proposed Route through this area. The Rock Creek AOI is an isolated 

parcel of land managed for VRM Class II objectives in an area of an existing 

transmission line. The MFP would need to be amended to allow the Route Alternatives 

7J and 7I at this location. 

5.7.1 AOI J-1/TF-1 Salmon Falls Creek (Proposed Route – Segment 9)

The Salmon Falls Creek AOI is located approximately 4 miles south of Castleford, 

Idaho, in Twin Falls County. The AOI overlaps both the Twin falls MFP and Jarbidge 

RMP boundaries. The Proposed Route for Segment 9 proceeds west and north from 

the proposed Cedar Hill Substation, avoiding areas of irrigated agriculture. After 

crossing SR 93, the route proceeds west to eastern border of Salmon Falls Creek 

ACEC, then turns northwest to parallel the east side of Salmon Falls Creek adjacent to 

an existing 138-kV transmission line for about 4.4 miles before turning west again and 

crossing the Salmon Falls Creek ACEC at Lily Grade, just north of the Salmon Falls 

Creek WSA but still part of an ACEC and eligible WSR segment. The portion of the AOI 

within the Twin Fall MFP is managed as Class I within the riparian area and is crossed 

for 0.6 mile. Figure 5.7-2 shows the viewshed of the Salmon Falls Creek AOI, 

Proposed Route, and VRM management classifications. Figure 5.7-3 shows the AOI, 

route, and amendment management recommendation. Because this segment of 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-120

Plan Amendments Analysis

Salmon Falls Creek is WSR eligible, this route would not be permitted to cross and an 

amendment would only be possible if the river segment was determined to be 

unsuitable for WSR designation. 

Alternatives Considered – Several alternatives are analyzed in the EIS that avoid the 

sensitive resources affected by the Proposed Route. At the point where the Segment 9 

of the Proposed Route crosses Salmon Falls Creek, Alternative 9B leaves the Proposed 

Route and continues northwest then north just east of Salmon Falls Creek. BLM 

portions of Alternative 9B follow the WWE Corridor to the northwest then north to within 

a few miles of the Snake River, before turning west and re-joining the Proposed Route 

several miles north of the Salmon Falls Creek AOI. If Alternative 9B is selected no VRM 

Class I managed lands would be affected near Salmon Falls. However, Alternative 9B 

intercepts VRM Class II further north, by the Snake River. Another alternative 

designated 9C would cross Salmon Falls Creek north of the eligible WSR segment in 

the vicinity of Balanced Rock County Park as well as avoid land managed for Class I 

and II objectives. The Proposed Route was selected by the Proponents based on the 

its preferred location by Twin Falls County due to concerns over residential and 

agricultural impacts from Alternative 9B.

Existing Landscape Conditions – The 15-mile-radius study area for the Salmon Falls 

Creek AOI is located in southern Idaho. Approximately 75 percent of the study area is 

in Twin Falls County, the remaining land in Owyhee County. The topography is mostly 

flat to rolling with much steeper slopes along the banks of Salmon Falls Creek and other 

drainages. Salmon Falls Creek traverses the study area from the southeast, north to its 

confluence with the Snake River at about mile 58.6 just north of the area. There are 

numerous farms and farmland in the northeastern part of this area with scattered 

farmland in other locations. The majority of the area is undeveloped. The small 

communities of Buhl and Filer are located along U.S. Route 30, in the northeast 

quadrant.

Attachment A, Figures J-1/TF-1a show existing landscape conditions as viewed from 

KOP 1068. The land adjacent to the proposed alignment is very flat and grass covered. 

In such an area there is no topography or vegetation to screen views of the proposed 

line, thus skylining would occur. The steep topography along Salmon Falls Creek is not 

seen in the view from KOP 1068; however it is discussed for KOP 1067 in the EIS. 

Conformance Analysis- Figure 5.7-2 shows the viewshed, KOPs and other features 

within the 15-mile radius study area. Attachment A, Figures J-1/TF-1b simulate 

landscape conditions showing for the proposed Route as viewed from KOP 1068. 

Sensitive views of the sagebrush steppe and rolling grasslands west of Twin Falls 

adjacent to Salmon Falls Creek are important to the surrounding sensitive viewers such 

as recreational drivers, represented by views from KOPs 1068 and 1067, as well as the 

numerous residences on the east side of the creek. The flat to rolling landscape views 

from KOP 1068 exhibit little diversity in form, line, color, or texture. There is very little 

development visible this far from Twin Falls, Idaho. From this broad open vantage point 

it is apparent that screening and other mitigation efforts would not be successful in

lowering impacts to scenic resources in the surrounding area. The flat plain and strong 

horizon line would be directly contrasted with the proposed transmission structures for 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-121

Plan Amendments Analysis

the proposed transmission line would be visible and dominant. Though not represented 

in KOP 1068, views in the Salmon Falls Creek Canyon are also an important scenic 

resource and located in an interesting and diverse canyon landscape. It is important to 

note that VRM Class I objectives in the MFP have been assigned from canyon rim to 

canyon rim to protect the viewshed of Salmon Falls Creek Canyon. Through 

micrositing, it is likely that towers could be set back from the canyon rim such that the 

visual intrusion within the canyon would be confined to the conductors. Nevertheless, 

any intrusion would be inconsistent with VRM Class I objectives. 

There is a high degree of visual sensitivity in the crossing of Salmon Falls Creek due to 

its VRM Class I management objective, ACEC designation, and eligible Wild and Scenic 

River status. An amendment to land use would not be allowed unless this portion of 

Salmon Falls Creek was determined to be unsuitable for Wild and Scenic River 

designation. If this did occur, an amendment to the ACEC objectives and, an 

amendment to the RMP VRM objectives would be needed in order to build this route. It 

is recommended that if the Proposed Route is selected, and the above conditions are 

met, that the Project be allowed as a visually altering action without changing the VRM 

classification in the Twin Fall MFP portion of AOI J-1/TF-1. This would provide the most 

protection for adjacent management goals. If this route is selected it is recommended 

that the Proponents be required to microsite structures to minimize the visibility from 

within the Salmon Falls Creek canyon. 

5.7.2 AOI TF-2 Rock Creek (Alternative 7I and Alternative 7J)

The Rock Creek AOI is located approximately 2 miles southeast of the town of Rock 

Creek and approximately 0.3 miles east of Rock Creek. The AOI consists of an isolated 

parcel of approximately 232 acres crossing 0.3 mile of VRM Class II land. At this 

location, 7I and 7J-C share the same route. These alternatives share the same route 

from the Populus Substation to MP 137.2 where Alternative 7J takes a more southern 

route in a northwest direction and Alternative 7I proceeds in a more northerly direction 

across Forest Service land. The routes join up again after 7J splits into two separate 

routes, with 7J-C proceeding to the northeast, meeting 7I approximately 18 miles from 

the end of their routes. Figure 5.7-4 shows the viewshed for the AOI, routes, and VRM 

classification. Figure 5.7-5 shows the location of the Rock Creek AOI, Alternative 7I, 

and VRM management classifications. 

Alternatives Considered – Proposed Segment 7 and Alternative 7H would avoid this 

AOI. The proposed route would cross more pivot plot agriculture land that these 

alternatives. Alternative 7H would cross Sawtooth NF land as would Alternatives 7I and 

7J. Alternative 7I is the route preferred by the Southern Idaho Task Force, a group of 

residents, irrigators, and county and state officials who oppose the Proposed Route 

which largely passes through private agricultural land. Alternative 7J was proposed by 

the Task Force as an alternate route for the west end of 7I.

Existing Landscape Conditions – Figure 5.7-4 shows the viewshed, KOPs and other 

features within the 15-mile radius study area. Landscape conditions north of Alternative 

7I are flat with predominant agricultural land use. To the south the terrain rises, 

crossing both BLM-managed and NFS lands. The town of Rock Creek is approximately 

2 miles northwest of the AOI. The Snake River flows east to west across the north-
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-122

Plan Amendments Analysis

northeast portion of the study area. Multiple canals cross the northern half of the study 

area with pivot-agriculture dominating the landscape. The middle portion of the study 

area is shrub-dominated BLM land with multiple south-to-north drainages, including 

Rock Creek, Dry Creek, and Dry Cottonwood Creek. This area is dominated by shrubsteppe habitat. The southern portion of the area contains Sawtooth NF land. 

Attachment A, Figure TF-2a shows existing landscape conditions as viewed from KOP 

410. This view shows the shrub and agricultural land in the Rock Creek valley bottom 

and the view toward the AOI as the land rises with rocky outcrops and shrub-dominated 

hillsides. An existing transmission line runs south through the middle of the study area 

and then proceeds west-southwest, approximately 2 miles east of the AOI.

Conformance Analysis – Figure 5.7-4 shows the viewshed, KOPs and other features 

within the 15-mile radius study area. Figure TF-2b simulates landscape conditions 

showing Alternative 7Ias viewed from KOP 410. It is apparent that mitigation and 

micrositing would not lower the visual impact to the surrounding area. The Project 

would be highly visible and would draw the attention of the casual viewer, thus not 

conforming to the VRM Class II management objectives. Crossing this isolated parcel 

in parallel to, but offset by 1,500 feet from, and existing 345-kV transmission line would 

be preferred over creating a new Greenfield route. If this alternative is selected, 

micrositing may reduce the distance across VRM Class II areas but could not feasibly 

avoid all parcels. If Alternative 7I or 7J were selected, an amendment changing the 

VRM classification for the VRM Class II area north of the section line to VRM Class III 

objectives (approximately 70 acres) is recommended for AOI TF-2 (see Figure 5.7-5). 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-123

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.7-1. Twin Falls MFP Boundary Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-124

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.7-2. AOI J-1/TF-1 Salmon Falls Creek Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-125

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.7-3. AOI J-1/TF-1 Salmon Falls Creek Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-126

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.7-4. AOI TF-2 Rock Creek Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-127

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.7-5. AOI TF-2 Rock Creek Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-128

Plan Amendments Analysis

5.8 Jarbidge RMP

The Jarbidge RMP (BLM 1887, 1989) provides direction for managing public lands under 

the jurisdiction of the Jarbidge FO in south-central Idaho. The Resource Area includes 

2,100,519 acres of land in south-central Idaho and northern Nevada. Within this area, 81 

percent are public lands administered by BLM in Elmore, Owyhee, and Twin Falls 

Counties in Idaho and Elko County, Nevada (see Figure 5.8-1). The Jarbidge RMP 

states: 

the visual or scenic values of the public lands will be considered whenever any 

physical actions are proposed on BLM lands. The degree of alterations to the 

natural landscape will be guided by the criteria established for the four Visual 

Resource Management Classes as outlined in BLM 8400. 

The Jarbidge RMP includes a map of VRM classified lands (Map 9). In addition, the RMP 

provides locations of utility lines and utility avoidance areas (Map 7). The Jarbidge RMP 

boundary is crossed by the proposed route and alternative routes for Segments 8 and 9. 

The existing land use plan is currently being revised. If a new plan is in effect prior to 

action on Gateway West, this visual analysis would be revised.

Segment Alternatives

The Segment 8 Proposed Route would be 131.0 miles long and connect the Midpoint 

Substation to the Hemingway Substation with a single-circuit 500-kV line. The route 

location was selected to follow the WWE corridor or existing transmission lines and avoid 

agricultural lands, especially in the southeastern portions. The Proposed Route is within 

the WWE corridor for 38.1 miles out of its total 131.0-mile length. Constraints on federal 

land include historic trails, wetlands, steep slopes, and raptor nests. In addition to the 

Proposed Route, five Route Alternatives were considered that have varying impacts on 

military training ranges and the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National 

Conservation Area (SRBOP). Initially, routing in the northwestern portion of Segment 8 

focused primarily on avoiding the SRBOP and the Orchard Training Area. Later siting 

studies identified opportunities to parallel the existing Summer Lake to Midpoint 500-kV 

transmission line through the SRBOP. Other siting constraints include existing and 

planned commercial and residential development, in the cities of Kuna and Melba.

Segment 9 of the Proposed Route would be a 161.7-mile-long 500-kV single-circuit line 

that would connect the proposed Cedar Hill Substation with the Hemingway Substation. 

Primary siting considerations in the eastern portion of this segment were avoidance of 

irrigated farmland, dairy operations, and scattered residential development; avoiding 

interference with the Jarbidge Military Operating Area; making use of the WWE corridor; 

and minimizing impacts to visual resources. In the western portion, following the WWE 

corridor was a primary objective, with other concerns such as minimizing impact to 

Bruneau Dunes State Park and scenic qualities associated with the Bruneau River, 

avoiding conflicts with the Saylor Creek Air Force Range and Military Operating Area, and 

crossing the SRBOP. For the entire line segment, placement of the transmission line on 

public land versus private land was an important issue.

Six VRM Class I and II areas in the Jarbidge RMP would be affected by the Proposed 

Route and Route Alternatives. The presence of a transmission line in these landscapes 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-129

Plan Amendments Analysis

would not meet VRM Class I or II objectives. As a result, BLM action would be necessary 

to modify the visual classifications to be consistent with the RMP. AOI J-1/TF-1 could not 

be amended unless the segment of Salmon Falls Creek crossed by the Proposed Route 

was determined to be unsuitable for WSR designation, because this portion of the 

alignment is dependent on the portion that would cross the WSR. The analysis of the AOI 

is presented below for informational purposes. The AOIs are described in Sections 5.8.1 

through 5.8.6, below.

5.8.1 AOI J-1/TF-1 Salmon Falls Creek (Proposed Route – Segment 9)

The Salmon Falls Creek AOI is located approximately 4 miles south of Castleford, Idaho, 

in Twin Falls County. The AOI overlaps both the Twin Falls MFP and Jarbidge RMP 

boundaries. The Proposed Route for Segment 9 proceeds from the proposed Cedar Hill 

Substation west and north avoiding areas of irrigated agriculture. After crossing SR 93, 

the route proceeds west until near the east side of Salmon Falls Creek, then turns 

northwest to parallel the east side of Salmon Falls Creek adjacent to an existing 138-kV 

transmission line for about 4.4 miles before turning west again and crossing the Salmon 

Falls Creek ACEC at Lily Grade just north of the Salmon Falls Creek WSA but still part of 

an ACEC and eligible WSR segment. The portion of the AOI within the Twin Falls MFP is 

managed as Class I within the riparian area and is crossed for 0.6 mile. Figure 5.8-2 

shows the viewshed of the Salmon Falls Creek AOI, Proposed Route, and VRM 

management classifications. The portion of the AOI within the Jarbidge RMP is managed 

as Class II and is crossed at two locations for a total distance of 3.7 miles. Crossing the 

VRM Class II lands within the Jarbidge management area with the current alignment 

would require that the WSR-eligible segment of Salmon Falls Creek be crossed; 

therefore, the BLM cannot amend the land use plan to accommodate the Project. The 

following analyses are provided for informational purposes.

Alternatives Considered – Several alternatives are analyzed in the Draft EIS that avoid 

the sensitive resources affected by the Proposed Route. At the point where the Proposed 

Route crosses Salmon Falls Creek, Alternative 9B leaves the Proposed Route and 

continues northwest then north just east of Salmon Falls Creek. BLM portions of 

Alternative 9B follow the WWE corridor to the northwest then north to within a few miles of 

the Snake River, before turning west and re-joining the Proposed Route several miles 

north of the Salmon Falls Creek AOI. If Alternative 9B is selected, no BLM-managed 

lands classified as VRM Class I would be affected near Salmon Falls. However, 

Alternative 9B intercepts BLM-managed lands classified as VRM Class II farther north, by 

the Snake River. Another alternative, Alternative 9C, would cross Salmon Falls Creek 

north of the WSR-eligible segment in the vicinity of Balanced Rock County Park as well 

as avoid land managed for Class I and II objectives. The Proponents state that they 

prefer the Proposed Route because of Twin Falls County’s concerns over how Alternative 

9B would impact residential and agricultural areas.

Existing Landscape Conditions – The study area for the Salmon Falls Creek AOI is

located in southern Idaho, with approximately 75 percent of the land area in Twin Falls 

County and the remainder in Owyhee County. Generally the topography is flat to rolling, 

with much steeper slopes along the banks of Salmon Falls Creek and other drainages. 

Salmon Falls Creek traverses the study area from the southeast to north up to its 

confluence with the Snake River at about milepost 58.6 just north of the study area. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-130

Plan Amendments Analysis

There are considerable farms and farmland in northeastern part of this area and at 

several smaller scattered locations. The large majority of the area is undeveloped; 

however, there are communities like Buhl and Filer along U.S. Route 30, the major road 

in the area located in the northeast quadrant.

Attachment A, Figure J-1/TF-1a shows existing landscape conditions as viewed from 

KOP 1068. The land in close proximity to the alignment is very flat and grass covered. In 

such an area there is no topography or vegetation to screen views of the proposed line 

and therefore skylining will occur. Although not seen in the view from KOP 1068, KOP 

1067 in the EIS documents the steep topography along Salmon Falls Creek.

Conformance Analysis – Figure 5.8-2 shows the viewshed, KOPs, and other features 

within the 15-mile radius study area. Attachment A, Figure J-1/TF-1b simulates 

landscape conditions showing the Proposed Route as viewed from KOP 1068.

Sensitive views of the sagebrush steppe and rolling grasslands west of Twin Falls 

adjacent to Salmon Falls Creek are important to the surrounding sensitive viewers such 

as recreational drivers at KOPs 1068 and 1067 as well as the numerous residences on 

the east side of the creek. The flat to rolling landscape views from KOP 1068 exhibit little 

diversity in form, line, color, or texture as well as few man-made features visible this far 

from Twin Falls, Idaho. Views in the Salmon Falls Creek Canyon are interesting and 

diverse but are not apparent from KOP 1068. From this broad open vantage point it is 

apparent that screening and other mitigation efforts would not be successful in lowering 

impacts to scenic resources in the surrounding area. The flat plain and strong horizon 

would be directly contrasted with the transmission structures for the proposed 

transmission line, which would be visible and dominant. However, it is important to note 

that VRM Class I objectives in the Twin Falls MFP have been assigned from canyon rim 

to canyon rim to protect the viewshed. Through micrositing, it is likely that towers could 

be set back from the canyon rim such that the visual intrusion within the canyon would be 

confined to the conductors. Nevertheless, any intrusion would be inconsistent with VRM 

Class I objectives.

An amendment would be needed if the Proposed Route is selected because of the visual 

sensitivity of crossing Salmon Falls Creek due to its VRM Class II management objective, 

ACEC designation, and WSR-eligible status. Unless this river segment is determined to 

be unsuitable for WSA designation, however, crossing of the canyon would not be a 

feasible option. If management regulations would permit an amendment to this area, it is 

recommended that the Project be allowed as a visually altering action without changing 

the VRM classification in the Jarbidge RMP portion of AOI J-1/TF-1. Figure 5.8-3 shows 

the location of the Salmon Falls Creek AOI, Proposed Route, and amendment 

management recommendation that would apply if this segment of Salmon Falls Creek is 

determined to be unsuitable for WSR designation.

This would provide the most protection for adjacent management goals. If this route is 

selected, it is recommended that the Proponents be required to microsite structures to 

minimize the visibility from within the canyon.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-131

Plan Amendments Analysis

5.8.2 AOI J-2 Saylor Creek (Proposed Route – Segment 9)

The Proposed Route for Segment 9 enters the SRBOP east of the Saylor Creek AOI 

(milepost 88.0). The route proceeds to the west, passing through the northern edge of the 

Saylor Creek Air Force Range restricted area and to the south of Bruneau Dunes State 

Park. The Jarbidge RMP designates the area between Saylor Creek Air Force Range 

and Bruneau Dunes State Park as an area of utility avoidance. However, consultation 

between representatives of the BLM, U.S. Air Force, Idaho Department of Parks and 

Recreation, and the Proponents has determined that the location of the Proposed Route 

within the restricted Military Operating Area and just to the south of Bruneau Dunes State 

Park is acceptable. From this point, the Proposed Route proceeds generally southwest 

across the Bruneau River Valley. Constraints in this portion of Segment 9 include 

minimizing the distance across the SRBOP and Saylor Creek Air Force Range, and 

avoiding Bruneau Dunes State Park. 

The Saylor Creek AOI is located about 4 miles south of the Snake River, approximately 

18 miles south of Mountain Home, Owyhee County, Idaho. The AOI is less than 1 mile 

west of the Elmore County/Owyhee County boundary. As the route proceeds west, 

constrained on the south by the Saylor Creek Range Air Force restricted area and on the 

north by Bruneau Dunes State Park, it crosses approximately 1.7 miles of VRM Class II 

area located in a low interval of hills within the WWE corridor. Figure 5.8-4 shows the 

viewshed of the Saylor Creek AOI, the location of the Proposed Route, and VRM 

management classifications. Figure 5.8-6 shows the AOI, route, and amendment 

management recommendation.

Alternatives Considered – The Saylor Creek AOI is located in a portion of the Project 

without a feasible alternative. There are no alternatives to Segment 9 of the Proposed 

Route that would avoid the Saylor Creek AOI. The route is fixed in its current location 

due to the short distance between the Saylor Creek Air Force Range and Bruneau Dunes 

State Park. Farther south, the Bruneau Canyon and continuous VRM Class I 

Management Areas extend south into Nevada. The location of this route is further 

restricted to the north by the Snake River. An important routing consideration is that the 

Proposed Route in this location is within the WWE corridor. 

Existing Landscape Conditions – The major water feature within the15-mile-radius area 

of Saylor Creek AOI is the Snake River, which passes east to west through the northern 

half of this area. Topography is mostly flat to rolling. More severe topography exists 

along the river and other drainages, especially north of Glenns Ferry. There are 

extensive areas of farmland and farms along the Snake River in the northwest, southeast 

(Deadman Flat), and other scattered locations. Interstate 84 is the major highway in the 

vicinity of this AOI and traverses the area from northwest to southeast. Development in 

the area, such as Hammett and Glenns Ferry, is found primarily along Interstate 84. 

There are a number of recreation facilities along the Snake River, such as Three Island 

Crossing State Park. Numerous transmission lines occur in the northeast.

Attachment A, Figure J-2a shows existing landscape conditions as viewed from KOP 372. 

The land is flat to gently sloping and grass-covered. There is no topography or vegetation 

to screen views of the proposed line and skylining would be unavoidable. There is steep 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-132

Plan Amendments Analysis

topography along a canyon designated VRM Class II outside of the view from KOP 372. 

Views of this steep topography can be seen from KOP 816 (see Figure 5.8-5).

Conformance Analysis – Figure 5.8-4 shows the viewshed, KOPs, and other features 

within the 15-mile-radius study area used to assess the consistency of the proposed 

transmission line facilities with the existing VRM Class II area. Attachment A, Figure J-2b 

simulates landscape conditions showing for the Proposed Route as viewed from KOP 

372. 

KOPs 372 and 389 represent sensitive residential viewers along the Snake River Plain. 

The existing views from these residences are mostly of agricultural lands with few manmade elements; however; the view from KOP 816 has distinguishing canyon features. 

KOP 816 exhibits diversity in form, line, color, and texture that would result in moderate 

levels of contrast with the proposed transmission facilities along Segment 9. The views 

from KOP 816 are interrupted by a wind farm in the middleground to background viewing 

distance zone. Views of the Snake River are not apparent from these particular KOPs. 

From more elevated viewing locations, it is apparent that screening and other mitigation 

efforts would not mitigate impacts to scenic resources in the surrounding area. The 

alignment would need to span the canyon, making it highly visible to sensitive viewers 

and drawing the attention of the casual observer from over a mile away, which would not 

conform to VRM Class II objectives.

The Proposed Route would cross lands managed for VRM Class II objectives within a 

WWE corridor. The VRM Class II designation is not consistent with an area designated as 

the WWE corridor; therefore, it is recommended that, if this route is selected, the area 

within the WWE Corridor be designated VRM Class III (approximately 667 acres). It is 

further recommended that the Proponents be required to microsite structures to minimize 

the visibility from within the canyon.

5.8.3 AOI BOP-1/J-3 South Oregon Trail (Alternative 9D/9G)

The South Oregon Trail AOI is located north and south of the Snake River beginning at 

the C.J. Strike Reservoir dam. This AOI overlaps both the SRBOP and Jarbidge RMP 

boundaries. Alternatives 9D and 9G share the same alignment in this area. Alternative 

9D/9G leaves the Proposed Route near Bruneau, Idaho, heading northwest for about 6 

miles before intercepting the C.J. Strike Reservoir, formed at the junction of the Bruneau 

River and the Snake River. Land surrounding the reservoir has been designated as VRM 

Class II due to its scenic qualities and close proximity to the Oregon NHT. Alternative 

9D/9G turns west, paralleling the Oregon NHT and crossing the Narrows portion of the 

Bruneau Arm of C.J. Strike Reservoir. Alternative 9D/9G continues west on the south 

side of the reservoir crossing back to the north side of the Snake River approximately 

one-half mile downstream from C.J. Strike Dam. Except for minor detours to avoid 

agricultural land, the route continues west from the dam then turns to the northwest, 

diverging into two different routes before crossing the SRBOP before and rejoining the 

Proposed Route east of Hemingway Substation. Although not located within a WWE 

corridor, Alternative 9D follows existing transmission lines for approximately 37 miles. 

The portion of the AOI within the Jarbidge RMP crosses 0.3 miles of BLM land managed 

for VRM Class II objectives. Figure 5.8-7 shows the viewshed of the South Oregon Trail 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-133

Plan Amendments Analysis

AOI, Alternative 9D, and VRM management classifications. Figure 5.8-8 shows the AOI. 

Routes, and amendment management recommendation.

Alternatives Considered – Three alternative routes in the western portion of Segment 9 

are analyzed in the EIS as a means of connecting the Cedar Hill and Hemingway 

Substations. The Proposed Route is largely within the WWE corridor but crosses more 

private land than the alternatives. Alternative 9D was identified by the Owyhee County 

task force and recommended by Owyhee County to avoid private land and maximize the 

use of public land. Alternative 9E was also identified by the task force but is less 

preferred than Alternative 9D. Alternative 9F follows the same route as 9D north of CJ 

Strike Reservoir, taking a southern route for the first part of the route in order to avoid the 

Cove non-motorized zone. Alternative 9G follows the same route as alternative 9D 

through this AOI. Alternative 9H follows the same route as 9F through this area and 

diverges from the joint route south of where 9D crosses the SRBOP. No VRM Class I or 

Class II areas are crossed by this portion of the Proposed Route or Alternative 9E. 

Existing Landscape Conditions – The Snake River is the major water feature in the 15-

mile-radius area surrounding the South Oregon Trail AOI. The river crosses the middle of 

the area from west to east and leaves the study area in the vicinity of Indian Cove. C.J. 

Strike Reservoir is located at the northern end of the Bruneau Valley in the center of the 

area. The topography is generally flat to rolling with numerous drainages. Although 

much of the area is undeveloped, there are large areas of farms and farmland along the 

Snake River, south of Mountain Home, and in other locations such as the Bruneau Valley 

and Twentymile Flat. SR 78 is the major road and generally follows the Snake River east 

to west. SR 51 extends north to south though the area. There are a number of 

communities along the local highways and Snake River including Grandview and 

Bruneau. Mountain Home Air Force Base is located in the northeast portion of the study 

area. Numerous transmission lines cross this area. In addition to the highways and 

communities, other potential viewing areas include recreation areas such as Bruneau 

Dunes State Park, the SRBOP, and historic sites and trails.

Attachment A, Figure AOI BOP-1/J-3a shows existing landscape conditions as viewed 

from KOP 1156. The area has a rolling topography that slopes toward the reservoir. An 

existing wood pole H-frame transmission line is evident in the view. More distant views 

toward the north are characterized by water and bluffs. 

Conformance Analysis – Figure 5.8.7 shows the viewshed, KOPs, and other features 

within the 15-mile-radius study area. Attachment A, Figure BOP-1/J-3b simulates 

landscape conditions showing for Alternative 9D/9G as viewed from KOP 1156. 

Scenic views of the C.J. Strike Reservoir and the surrounding Snake River Plain are 

available to sensitive recreational viewers at nearby locations including KOPs 1154, and 

1156, and visitors to the Oregon NHT (KOP 1155). The views of the undulating to rocky 

terrain from these viewpoints exhibit diversity in form, line, and texture with numerous 

man-made features such as high voltage transmission lines and a dam. From these 

KOPs it is apparent that Alternative 9D/9G of the proposed Project would be visible in the 

foreground and middle ground, sometimes skylined and at other times, backdropped. It 

would often be seen in conjunction with the existing wood pole H-frame line. Screening 

and other mitigation efforts would be moderately successful at lowering impacts to scenic 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-134

Plan Amendments Analysis

resources in the surrounding area. The undulating and rugged terrain with mottled and 

diverse vegetation and expansive waters of the reservoir would be moderately contrasted 

by an additional set of structures. These additions would draw the attention of the casual 

observer in certain portions of the area; represent a deviation from the natural form, line, 

color, and texture of the surrounding landscape; and thus would not conform to VRM 

Class II objectives. The Boise District office has stated that the alignment to the east and 

north of the river within the VRM Class II area would be buffered by topography and thus 

would not attract the attention of the casual observer. It appears that VRM Class II 

objectives have been assigned to this particular area to protect the Oregon NHT corridor 

and adjacent landscapes. A high-voltage transmission line would not be consistent with 

the VRM Class II management goals for those VRM Class II areas west of the Snake 

River. It is recommended that, if Alternative 9D is selected, 1,203.6 acres of VRM Class II 

area associated with the route be reclassified to VRM Class III for the Jarbidge RMP 

portion of AOI BOP-1/J-3 (see Figure 5.8-8). 

5.8.4 AOI J-4 Oregon Trail (Alternative 8A, Alternative 9B)

The Oregon Trail AOI is located approximately 13 miles east and slightly north of 

Hagerman, Idaho. Alternatives 8A and 9B pass through the Oregon Trail AOI. These 

alternatives pass less than 1 mile from each other. Both alternatives were identified as 

potential routes because they follow the WWE corridor for much of their lengths. 

From the Snake River, Alternative 8A proceeds to the west, following the WWE corridor 

and existing transmission lines for about 8 miles, before turning northwest, crossing the 

Snake River again, and joining the Segment 8 Proposed Route. Four parcels totaling 6.4 

miles of VRM Class I–managed area is crossed by Alternative 8A both north and south of 

the river crossing. Several segments of the Oregon NHT crisscross through this area 

along the river. The town of Glenns Ferry, located just west of the Segment 8A river 

crossing, was an important river crossing point for travelers on the Oregon NHT. Many 

historic trail segments converge on the Snake River in this area. The Three Mile Island 

State Park, which commemorates the historic river crossing, is located at Glenns Ferry 

and is within the vicinity of Alternative 8A. Figures 5.8-9 and 5.8-11 show the viewshed of 

the South Oregon Trail AOI, the location of Alternative 8A and Alternative 9B, and the 

VRM management classifications. Figures 5.8-10 and 5.8-12 show the AOI, routes, and 

amendment management recommendations.

Alternative 9B proceeds from the southeast toward the northwest until it approaches the 

Snake River just south of Alternative 8A, where it turns west to join the Segment 9 

Proposed Route about 5 miles west of the AOI. Alternative 9B crosses Deer Gulch, a 

1.4-mile length of VRM Class I land, south of the Snake River. Figure 5.8-10 shows the 

location of Alternative 9B.

Alternatives Considered – Proposed Segment 8 does not cross the Snake River and 

would not affect the Oregon Trail AOI or other VRM Class I–managed areas in the vicinity 

of the Snake River. There is no local change that could be made to Alternative 8A that 

would keep it in the WWE corridor without also crossing VRM Class I or Class II 

Management Areas. The presence of many historic trail segments converging at the 

Glenns Ferry Crossing would make it very difficult to avoid visual impacts to historic trails. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-135

Plan Amendments Analysis

Segment 9B is sited within a WWE corridor and crosses 1.6 miles of VRM Class I land. It 

would be feasible to move the alignment south to avoid the Class I area but that would be 

inconsistent with maximizing use of the WWE corridor. 

Existing Landscape Conditions – The Snake River is the major water feature in the 15-

mile area surrounding the Oregon Trail AOI. It crosses the area from east to west in a 

circuitous path and leaves the study area in the vicinity of Hagerman WMA. The flat to 

rolling topography on both sides of the river is cut by numerous drainages; many with 

steep, canyon-like walls. The northern part of the area is occupied by steep terrain of the 

Mount Bennett Hills. A large part of the study area is undeveloped; however there is 

some agriculture along the Snake River and in other locations such as Indian Cove, 

Deadman Flat, and Black Mesa. Interstate 84 passes southeast and then east through 

the study area. A number of communities including Hammett, Glenns Ferry, King Hill, 

Bliss, and Hagerman occur along local highways and the Snake River. Numerous 

transmission lines cross this area northwest to southeast. Potentially sensitive viewing 

includes highways, communities, historic sites and trails, and recreation areas such as 

Three Island Crossing State Park, and Hagerman WMA.

Attachment A, Figure J-4a shows existing landscape conditions as viewed from KOP 810. 

The landscape is flat to hilly grassland. Although this KOP is oriented toward Alternative 

9B, it is representative of landscape conditions along Alternative 8A. 

Conformance Analysis – Figures 5.8-9 (8A) and 5.8-11 (9B) show the viewshed, KOPs, 

and other features within the 15-mile radius study area. Attachment A, Figure J-4b 

simulates landscape conditions showing for the Proposed Route as viewed from KOP 

810. 

Scenic views affected by Alternative 8A include Rosevear Gulch and Black Mesa south of 

Glenns Ferry, which are important to residential and recreational viewers (KOPs 788, 

789, 813, and 815). These sensitive viewers are residents as well as recreational viewers 

on the Oregon NHT. The undulating terrain viewed from these KOPs exhibits diversity in 

form, line, and texture with residential developments and man-made features such as 

transmission lines in view. From these vantage points it is apparent that Alternative 8A of 

the proposed Project would be skylined in some instances and partially screened or 

backdropped in other locations. All of these views include existing man-made 

developments and, at such distances, would represent a low level of contrast. Views 

from KOP 815 exhibit somewhat pristine viewing conditions and a higher level of variety 

in form, line, and texture other than an existing wood-pole H-frame transmission line in 

the foreground and middleground. The addition of a set of taller lattice transmission 

structures would increase the contrast with the existing landscape, which would draw 

more attention from a casual observer and thus not conform to VRM Class I objectives. It 

is recommended that if Alternative 8A is selected, the area managed with VRM Class I 

objectives, impacted by the transmission line, be reclassified to conform to VRM Class III 

objectives.

Scenic views affected by Alternative 9B include Big Pilgrim Gulch and Twenty Mile Butte, 

south of the Snake River. These views are important to recreational viewers and visitors 

to the Oregon NHT represented by KOPs C95, 810, 811, and 814. The views of 

undulating to rocky terrain from KOPs 810 and 811 display some diversity in form, line, 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-136

Plan Amendments Analysis

and texture with very few man-made features. KOP 814 has a more pristine view except 

for a high-voltage steel lattice structure. From these KOPs it is apparent that Alternative 

9B would be moderately visible and that screening and other mitigation efforts would not 

sufficiently lower impacts to scenic resources in the surrounding area. The additional set 

of structures and access roads would draw the attention of the casual observer and thus 

not conform to VRM Class II objectives. It is recommended that if Alternative 9B is 

selected, the area managed with VRM Class I objectives, impacted by the transmission 

line, be reclassified to conform to VRM Class III objectives.

5.8.5 AOI J-5 North Oregon Trail (Proposed Route – Segment 8)

The North Oregon Trail AOI is located about 4 miles north of Glenns Ferry, Idaho. From 

Midpoint Substation, the Segment 8 Proposed Route proceeds to the west-northwest 

following existing transmission lines. As the route approaches King Hill Creek, 

approximately 3.2 miles of VRM Class I land is crossed, just south of Blair Trail Reservoir. 

Visually sensitive features in this area include views of Bennett Mountain to the north, 

Kings Crown to the east, and several Oregon NHT segments. Figure 5.8-13 shows the 

viewshed of the North Oregon Trail AOI, the location of the Proposed Route and 

Alternatives, historic trails and VRM management classifications. Figure 5.8-14 shows 

the AOI and amendment management recommendations.

Alternatives Considered – There are no alternatives in this vicinity that would 

completely avoid VRM Class I and II land, due to the presence of scenic local features, 

historic trails, and the Snake River Canyon. The Snake River prevents the Proposed 

Route from being sited in a more southerly location. Several Segment 8 alternatives were 

reviewed in locations north of the Proposed Route; however, none of these alternatives 

were selected due to even greater impacts to sensitive visual resources, steep terrain, 

and SRMAs and ACECs. The nearest feasible alternative is Alternative 8A, described in 

Section 5.8.5. 

Existing Landscape Conditions – The Snake River is the major water feature in the 15-

mile-radius area surrounding the North Oregon Trail AOI. It crosses the southern half of 

the area from east to west and leaves the study area just east of the community of 

Mountain Home. The flat to rolling topography on both sides of the river is cut by 

numerous drainages, many with steep canyon like walls. The northern part of the area is 

occupied by steep terrain of the Bennett Hills. Although much of the area is undeveloped, 

there are large areas of farms and farmland along the Snake River and in other locations 

such as Indian Cove, Deadman Flat, Black Mesa, and Pasadena Valley. Interstate 84 

crosses southeast and then east through the study area. Communities such as Hammett, 

Glenns Ferry, and King Hill are located along local highways and the Snake River. 

Numerous transmission lines cross northwest to southeast through this area. Potential 

viewing areas include highways, communities, historic sites and trails, and recreation 

areas such as Three Island Crossing State Park..

Attachment A, Figure J-5a shows existing landscape conditions as viewed from KOP 

1350. The land in close proximity to the alignment is very flat and grass-covered. In such 

an area there is no topography or vegetation to screen views of the proposed line and 

thus skylining would occur. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-137

Plan Amendments Analysis

Conformance Analysis – Figure 5.8-13 shows the viewshed, KOPs, and other features

within the 15-mile-radius study area. Attachment A, Figure J-5b simulates landscape 

conditions showing for the Proposed Route as viewed from KOP 1350. 

Scenic views of Kings Crown along the foothills of Bennett Mountain are represented by 

KOPs 815, 1209, and 1210. KOPs 1209 and 1210 represent local residents whereas 

KOP 815 represents recreational viewers on the Oregon NHT. The views of the 

undulating terrain adjacent to these viewpoints exhibit some diversity in form, line, and 

texture and include numerous man-made features. KOP 815 has a view of a high-voltage 

transmission line. KOPs 1209 and 1210 have views of numerous high-voltage 

transmission lines and a wind farm. From these KOPs, Segment 8 of the proposed 

Project would be moderately visible due to presence of existing transmission lines and 

structures. Screening and other mitigation efforts would not lower impacts to scenic 

resources in the surrounding area. The additional set of transmission structures and 

access roads would be in contrast with the landscape topography, would draw the 

attention of the casual observer, and would represent a deviation from the natural form, 

line, color, and texture, which would not conform to VRM Class I objectives. It is 

recommended that, if Alternative 8 is selected, the area now managed to conform to VRM 

Class I objectives, impacted by the transmission line, be reclassified to be managed by 

VRM Class III objectives (see Figure 5.8-14). 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-138

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.8-1. Jarbidge RMP Boundary Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-139

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.8-2. AOI J-1/TF-2 Salmon Falls Creek AOI Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-140

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.8-3. AOI J-1/TF-1 Salmon Falls Creek AOI Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-141

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.8-4. AOI J-2 Saylor Creek AOI Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-142

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.8-5. View from KOP 816 (AOI J-2)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-143

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.8-6. AOI J-2 Saylor Creek AOI Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-144

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.8-7. AOI BOP-1/J-3 South Oregon Trail AOI Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-145

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.8-8. AOI BOP-1/J-3 South Oregon Trail AOI Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-146

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.8-9. AOI J-4 Oregon Trail AOI Visual Analysis (Alternative 8A)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-147

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.8-10. AOI J-4 Oregon Trail AOI Detailed Map (Alternative 8A)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-148

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.8-11. AOI J-4 Oregon Trail AOI Visual Analysis (Alternative 9B)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-149

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.8-12. AOI J-4 Oregon Trail AOI Detailed Map (Alternative 9B)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-150

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.8-13. AOI J-5 North Oregon Trail AOI Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-151

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.8-14. AOI J-5 North Oregon Trail AOI Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-152

Plan Amendments Analysis

5.9 SRBOP RMP

The SRBOP RMP (BLM 2008b) provides guidance for the public lands and resources 

within the SRBOP that are managed as a part of the BLM Four Rivers FO. The SRBOP 

contains approximately 483,700 acres of public land extending 81 miles along the Snake 

River in the Idaho counties of Ada, Canyon, Elmore, and Owyhee (see Figure 5.9-1). The 

SRBOP includes the 138,000-acre Orchard Training Area, used by the Idaho Army 

National Guard (IDANG) for military training since 1953. The RMP provides for protection 

of the Oregon NHT as a VRM Class II management area. The RMP further provides 

direction to “manage the areas along the Oregon Trail and the Snake River Canyon as 

VRM Class II, the Army National Guard Orchard Training Area (OTA) as VRM Class IV, 

and remaining areas as Class III. This RMP will provide reasonable protection of the 

Oregon Trail and flexibility in managing the remainder of the NCA.” 

Portions of the proposed and alternative routes for Segments 8 and 9 cross the SRBOP 

RMP management area. The Proposed Route for Segment 8 is 131.0 miles long and 

would connect the Midpoint Substation to the Hemingway Substation with a single-circuit 

500-kV line. This route follows the WWE corridor for 38.1 miles out of its total 131.0-mile 

length and follows existing transmission lines for almost its entire length. In addition to 

the Proposed Route, five Route Alternatives were considered with varying impacts on the 

SRBOP. Initially, routing in the northwestern portion of Segment 8 focused on avoiding 

the SRBOP and the Orchard Training Area. Later siting studies identified opportunities to 

parallel the existing Summer Lake – Midpoint 500-kV transmission line through the 

SRBOP. An additional alternative was developed for Segment 8, in order to avoid the 

Halverson Bar Non-motorized Area in the Guffey Butte-Black Butte Archaeological 

District. Alternative 8E follows the Proposed Route until just east of the Snake River, 

where it follows and existing transmission line south to the 9D Sinker Butte crossing, 

sharing the same alignment as 9D from that point until it connect to Segment 8 of the 

Proposed Route, north of Alternative 9D. Other constraints considered in siting included 

commercial and residential development, both existing and planned, east, west, and north 

of the SRBOP in the cities of Kuna and Melba; pivot irrigation; historic trails; wetlands; 

steep slopes; and raptor nests. 

The Proposed Route for Segment 9 is a 161.7-mile-long 500-kV single-circuit line that 

would connect the proposed Cedar Hill Substation with the Hemingway Substation. 

Primary siting considerations in the eastern portion of this segment were avoidance of 

irrigated farmland, dairy operations, and scattered residential development; avoidance of 

interference with the Jarbidge Military Operating Area; making use of the WWE corridor; 

and minimizing impacts to visual resources. In the western portion of Segment 9, the 

area closest to the SRBOP, following the WWE corridor was a primary objective. Other 

concerns included minimizing impact to Bruneau Dunes State Park and scenic qualities 

associated with the Bruneau River, avoiding conflicts with the Saylor Creek Air Force 

Range and Military Operating Area, and crossing the SRBOP. For the entire line 

segment, placement of the transmission line on public land versus private land was an 

important issue with local stakeholders. In addition to the Proposed Route, eight Route 

Alternatives were considered.

Alternative route 9D is an alternate route identified by the Owyhee County Taskforce. 

Three additional alternatives were developed that incorporate much of the 9D alignment. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-153

Plan Amendments Analysis

Alternative 9F was developed to avoid the Cove Non-motorized Area south of C.J. Strike 

Reservoir. This alternative follows the Proposed Route until just west of the reservoir, at 

which point it crosses north and joins with the 9D alignment for the rest of its route. 

Alternative 9G follows the same alignment as 9D until approximately 4 miles south of the 

Snake River crossing at Sinker Butte. At this point, 9G crosses the Snake River and 

takes a more southern route through VRM Class II areas before joining with the Proposed 

Route at the same location as Alternative 9D. Alternative 9H has the same alignment as 

Alternative 9F until approximately 4 miles south of the Snake River crossing at Sinker 

Butte, at which point it then follows the same alignment as Alternative 9G. All four 

Alternatives would cross the SRBOP in areas that are not compatible with VRM Class II 

management objectives. 

Three VRM Class II management areas are crossed by Segment 8 of the Proposed 

Route and Alternatives 8E, 9D, 9F, 9G, and 9H. The presence of a transmission line in 

these landscapes would not meet VRM Class II management objectives. To construct the 

proposed transmission line and/or the alternative route, BLM action would be necessary 

to either modify visual classifications or to permit a one-time allowance in order for the 

Project to be consistent with the RMP. The AOIs are described below in Sections 5.9.1 

through 5.9.3.

5.9.1 AOI BOP-1/J-3 South Oregon Trail (Segment 9 Alternative 9D/9G)

The South Oregon Trail AOI is located north and south of the Snake River, beginning at 

the C.J. Strike Reservoir dam. This AOI overlaps both the SRBOP and Jarbidge RMP 

boundaries. Alternative 9D leaves the Proposed Route near Bruneau, Idaho, heading 

northwest for about 6 miles before intercepting the C.J. Strike Reservoir, at the junction of 

the Bruneau River and the Snake River. Land surrounding the reservoir has been 

designated as VRM Class II due to its scenic qualities and close proximity to the Oregon 

NHT. Alternative 9D turns west, paralleling the Oregon NHT, and crossing the Narrows 

portion of the Bruneau Arm of C.J. Strike Reservoir. The route then continues west on 

the south side of the reservoir, crossing back to the north side of the Snake River 

approximately 0.5 mile downstream from the C.J. Strike Reservoir dam. Except for minor 

detours to avoid agricultural land, the route continues west from the dam then turns to the 

northwest, crossing the SRBOP before re-joining the Proposed Route east of Hemingway 

Substation. Although not located within a WWE corridor, Alternative 9D follows existing 

transmission lines for approximately 37 miles. 

The portion of the AOI within the SRBOP RMP crosses a 330-acre parcel for 1.2 miles 

and a 3,859-acre parcel for 4.9 miles of land managed for VRM Class II objectives. 

Figure 5.9-2 shows the viewshed of the South Oregon Trail AOI, Alternative 9D, and VRM 

management classifications. Figure 5.9-3 shows the AOI and amendment management 

recommendations.

Alternatives Considered – The Proposed Route and eight alternative routes in the 

western portion of Segment 9 are analyzed in the Draft EIS as a means of connecting the 

Cedar Hill and Hemingway Substations. The Proposed Route is largely within the WWE 

corridor but crosses more private land. Alternative 9D was identified by the Owyhee 

County Task Force and recommended by Owyhee County as its preferred route to avoid 

private land and maximize the use of public land. The specific alignment has been 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-154

Plan Amendments Analysis

developed through consultation between the County Task Force, BLM representatives, 

and the Proponents. This alternative substantially deviates from the designated WWE 

corridor and would cross 47.9 miles of the SRBOP. Alternatives 9F, 9G, and 9H are 

variations on Alternative 9D. Alternatives 9F and 9H would avoid the Cove Non-motorized 

Area south of C.J. Strike Reservoir by following the Proposed Route farther west and 

cutting north to join with the 9D alignment west of the reservoir. Alternatives 9G and 9H 

would cross the Snake River approximately 4 miles south of 9D/9F and cross through 

approximately 15 miles of the SRBOP in a more southerly route. This alignment crosses 

much more VRM Class II areas than the other alternatives; however, it was developed in 

order to provide an alternate route in Segment 9 in case Alternative 8E was selected. 

Alternative 9E was also identified by the taskforce but was preferred less than Alternative 

9D. No VRM Class I or Class II areas are crossed by this portion of the Proposed Route 

or Alternative 9E. 

Existing Landscape Conditions – The Snake River is the major water feature in the 15-

mile-radius area surrounding the South Oregon Trail AOI. The river crosses the middle of 

the area from west to east and leaves the study area in the vicinity of Indian Cove. C.J. 

Strike Reservoir is located at the northern end of the Bruneau Valley in the center of the 

area. The topography is generally flat to rolling with numerous drainages. Although much 

of the area is undeveloped, there are large areas of farms and farmland along the Snake 

River, south of Mountain Home, and the Bruneau Valley and Twentymile Flat. SR 78 is 

the major road and generally follows the Snake River east to west. SR 51 extends north 

to south though the area. Communities, such as Grandview and Bruneau, are located 

along local highways and the Snake River. Mountain Home Air Force Base is located in 

the northeast portion of the study area. Numerous transmission lines cross this area. 

Potential viewing areas include highways, communities, historic sites and trails, and 

recreation areas such as Bruneau Dunes State Park.

Attachment A, Figure BOP-1/J-3a shows existing landscape conditions as viewed from 

KOP 1156. The area consists of rolling terrain that slopes toward the reservoir. An 

existing wood pole H-frame transmission line is evident in the view. More distant views 

toward the north are characterized by water and bluffs. 

Conformance Analysis – Figure 5.9-2 shows the viewshed, KOPs, and other features 

within the 15-mile-radius study area. Attachment A, Figure BOP-1/J-3b simulates the 

landscape conditions showing for Alternative 9D as viewed from KOP 1156. 

Scenic views of the CJ Strike Reservoir and the surrounding Snake River Plain are 

available to sensitive recreational viewers at nearby locations including KOPs 1154 and 

1156 and visitors to the Oregon NHT (KOP 1155). The views of the undulating to rocky 

terrain from these viewpoints exhibit diversity in form, line, and texture. Developments, 

such as high-voltage transmission lines and a dam, are in view as well. From these 

KOPs, it is apparent that Alternative 9D would be visible in the foreground and middle 

ground, sometimes skylined and at other times, backdropped. The Project would often be 

seen in conjunction with an existing wood pole H-frame line. Screening and other 

mitigation efforts would be only moderately successful at lowering impacts to scenic 

resources in the surrounding area. The undulating and rugged terrain with mottled and 

diverse vegetation and the expansive waters of the reservoir would be moderately 

contrasted by an additional set of structures. These additions would draw the attention of 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-155

Plan Amendments Analysis

the casual observer and represent a deviation from the natural form, line, color, and 

texture of the surrounding landscape; and therefore would not conform to VRM Class II 

objectives. It would appear that VRM Class II objectives have been assigned to this 

particular area to protect the Oregon NHT corridor and adjacent landscapes. A 500-kV 

transmission line would not be compatible with VRM Class II objectives; therefore, the 

VRM Class II areas associated with the Oregon NHT and Snake River Canyon scenic 

areas that would be crossed by the transmission line, where the line would not be 

consistent with VRM Class II objectives, would be reclassified to be managed with VRM 

Class III objectives (see Figure 5.9-3). 

5.9.2 AOI BOP-2 Sinker Butte (Segment 9 Alternative 9D/9F and Segment 8 

Alternative 8E; Segment 9G/9H)

The Sinker Butte AOI is located about 20 miles south of Kuna, Idaho, on the western 

portion of Alternatives 9D/9F/8E and Alternatives 9G/9H. Alternative 9D was identified by 

the Owyhee County Taskforce and recommended by Owyhee County for detailed 

analysis. Alternative 9F was developed to avoid the Cove Non-motorized Area, and 8E to 

avoid the Halverson Bar Non-motorized Area. Alternatives 9G and 9H are variations of 

9D and 9F, developed as an alternative alignment to the 9D/9F/8E route. The primary 

County siting criteria were avoidance of private land and maximizing the use of public 

land. The majority of Alternative 9D (about 48 miles) is within the SRBOP. In the vicinity 

of Sinker Butte, Alternative 9D crosses Swan Falls Reservoir about 1 mile south of Swan 

Falls Dam. In this section of the Sinker Butte AOI, the route crosses one 16,759-acre 

parcel for a distance of approximately 1.3 miles of land managed for VRM Class II 

objectives to protect scenic views of the Snake River and the area around the Oregon 

NHT. Alternative 8E crosses the Snake River at this point and joins the 9D/9F alignment 

in this area. Also within this AOI is the southern portion of the VRM Class II area crossed 

by Alternatives 9G/9H. The RMP designates that both the Oregon NHT and the Snake 

River Canyon should be managed as VRM Class II. Figure 5.9-4 shows the location of 

the Sinker Butte AOI, the location of Alternatives 9D/9F/8E, and the associated VRM 

Class II lands. Figure 5.9-5 shows the location of the AOI area for Alternatives 9G/9H 

and the associated VRM Class II lands.

Alternatives Considered – Siting considerations for the part of the AOI crossed by 

9D/9F/8E are the same as for the South Oregon Trail AOI described in Section 5.9.1. In 

addition, the BLM, Owyhee Task Force, and Proponents focused on the specific crossing 

of the Snake River north of the Swan Falls Dam and closer to an existing transmission 

line crossing. The selected alignment results in crossing land managed for VRM Class II 

objectives that could not be avoided. Alternatives 9G and 9H avoid this part of the AOI by 

crossing at a more southern location; however, this route crosses significantly more VRM 

II managed areas; the eastern half of which is included in AOI BOP-2. The Proposed 

Routes for Segment 8 and 9 and Alternatives 8B and 9E avoid the VRM Class II lands 

surrounding Sinker Butte AOI. 

Existing Landscape Conditions – The 15-mile-radius area surrounding the 9D/9F/8E 

crossing of Sinker Butte AOI is bisected from northwest to southeast by the Snake River 

and its many buttes (see Figure 5.9-4). North and east of the river, the topography is 

mostly flat, while to the south and west, it is more rolling and rises up to the Owyhee 

Mountains. Most of the area is undeveloped; however, there are large irrigated 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-156

Plan Amendments Analysis

agricultural areas with many farms in the area where Ada, Canyon, and Owyhee Counties 

come together near Murphy and at other scattered locations. SR 78 passes northwest to 

southeast on the west side of the Snake River. SR 45, located on the east side of the 

river, intersects SR 78 at Walters Ferry. There are a number of small communities such 

as Murphy and Melba and much of the area on both sides of the river is part of the 

SRBOP. Sensitive viewers include motorists, local residents, and visitors to the SRBOP, 

historic trails, and historic sites.

Attachment A, Figure BOP-2a illustrates the landscape in the area as viewed from KOP 

1352. As seen from this highway location in the foreground, the topography is flat with a 

mesa in the middleground and mountains in the background. Man-made modifications 

include agricultural operations and the highway.

Figure 5.9-5 shows the 15-mile radius area for the part of the AOI that would be crossed 

by Alternatives 9G/9H. Due to proximity to Alternatives 9D/9F/8E, many of the study area 

features and landscape conditions are the same. The localized area crossed by this 

portion of the AOI differs, however, in that after crossing the Snake River, the route 

travels through the SRBOP where the landscape is flat to undulating, interrupted by 

buttes and rock features. The route would parallel the Oregon NHT for much of its length 

within the AOI.

Conformance Analysis – Figure 5.9-4 shows the viewshed, KOPs, and other features 

within the 15-mile-radius study area used to establish the degree of consistency of the 

proposed transmission line with the existing VRM Class II land crossed for Alternatives 

9D/9F/8E. Attachment A, Figure BOP-2b simulates landscape conditions showing for the 

Proposed Route as viewed from KOP 1352. 

Scenic views along the Snake River adjacent to Sinker Butte, such as those represented 

by KOPs 1115 and 1352, are important to sensitive residential viewers. As viewed from 

these KOPs, the landscape around AOI BOP-2 exhibits little diversity in form, line, color, 

and texture. Views of the Snake River are not apparent from this KOP. The proposed 

structures and access roads would result in low to moderate contrast with the undulating 

to flat terrain with blocky mesas and uniform vegetation and would not draw the attention 

of the casual observer from locations such as KOP 1352 over a mile away from the line. 

In this particular area, the distance of the Project from the viewer is an important factor 

impacting contrast levels but would still not meet VRM Class II objectives. If Alternative 

9D/9F or Proposed Route 8E is selected, structures should be microsited to minimize the 

visibility from the VRM Class II area. A 500-kV powerline would not be compatible with 

VRM Class II objectives. If this route is selected, it is recommended that the VRM Class 

II areas associated with the Snake River Canyon and Sinker Butte scenic areas that 

would be crossed by the alternative be reclassified to be managed with VRM Class III 

objectives. 

Figure 5.9-5 shows the viewshed, KOPs, and other features within the 15-mile-radius 

study area used to establish the degree of consistency of the proposed transmission line 

with the existing VRM Class II land crossed for Alternatives 9G/9H. Proximity to 

Alternatives 9D/9F/8E results in similar features being present in the landscape; however, 

the viewshed shows differing areas of effect. Due to proximity of the Oregon NHT, there 

is a potential for a fairly high visual impact from this route and therefore it would not 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-157

Plan Amendments Analysis

conform to the VRM Class II objectives. If this route is selected, it is recommended that 

an area 250 feet from the centerline of the transmission line be reclassified to VRM Class 

III, after taking into account the 0.5 mile buffer needed around the NHT. Micrositing 

should be used to lessen visual impact.

5.9.3 AOI BOP-3 Guffey Butte (Segment 8 Proposed Route, Alternative 8E, 

Alternative 9D/9F, and Alternative 9G/9H)

The Guffey Butte AOI is located about 10 miles east of Hemingway Substation where 

several proposed and alternative routes for Segments 8 and 9 come together. The 

Proposed Route for Segment 8 and Alternative 9D cross the Guffey Butte AOI. This AOI 

crosses a 11,517-acre parcel of VRM Class II lands. As these routes come together in 

the vicinity of the Snake River, the Segment 8 Proposed Route would cross this VRM 

Class II parcel for approximately 4.2 miles while Alternative 8E would cross this area for 

1.1 miles before joining up with the Proposed route (for a total of 3.9 miles crossed in this 

AOI). Alternatives 9D/9F would cross the same parcel for 3.7 miles, while Alternatives 

9G/9H would cross this area for approximately 5.3 miles. Figures 5.9-7 through 5.9-10 

show the viewsheds for Proposed Route Segment 8, Alternative 8E, Alternatives 9D/9F, 

and Alternative 9G/9H. Figure 5.9-11 shows the location of the Guffey Butte AOI, the 

Segment 8 Proposed Route, Alternative 8E, Alternatives 9D/9F, Alternatives 9G/9H, and 

the VRM Class II lands with amendment management recommendations.

Alternatives Considered – The alignments for both the Segment 8 Proposed Route and 

Alternatives 9D/9F were developed, in part, through collaboration of the Owyhee County 

Task Force, BLM, and the Proponents. The Segment 8 Proposed Route constraints 

included areas of increasing development north of the Snake River, Celebration Park, and 

visual impact closer to the Snake River. Alternative 8B would avoid crossing any lands 

managed for VRM objectives within the SRBOP. For Alternative 9D, the primary County 

siting criteria have been avoidance of private land and maximizing of the use of public 

land. Alternative 8E was proposed by BLM to avoid the Halverson Bar Non-motorized 

Area in the Guffey Butte-Black Butte Archaeological District, while Alternative 9F was 

developed by the BLM to avoid crossing the Cove Non-motorized Area south of C.J. 

Strike Reservoir. Alternatives 9G and 9H were developed to provide an alternate 

alignment for Segment 9 alternatives in case Alternative 8E is selected. Alternative 9G 

follows the same alignment as 9D through the Cove Non-motorized Area, while 

Alternative 9H would follow the same alignment as 9F through that area. Alternatives 

9G/9H would cross the most land managed for VRM Class II objectives. Crossing of land 

managed for VRM objectives would be avoided by selecting the Segment 9 Proposed 

Route or Alternative 9E. 

Existing Landscape Conditions – The 15-mile-radius area surrounding the Guffey Butte 

AOI is bisected from northwest to southeast by the Snake River. North and east of the 

river, the topography is mostly flat and, while to the south and west, it is more rolling and 

rises up to the Owyhee Mountains. Most of the area is undeveloped; however, there are 

large irrigated agricultural areas with many farms in the area where Ada, Canyon, and 

Owyhee Counties come together near Murphy and at other scattered locations. SR 78 

passes northwest-southeast through the area on the west side of the Snake River. SR 45, 

which is located in the northwestern part of the study area, intersects SR 78 at Walters 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-158

Plan Amendments Analysis

Ferry. There are a number of small communities such as Murphy and Melba and much of 

the area on both sides of the river is part of the SRBOP.

Attachment A, Figure BOP-3a illustrates the existing landscape as viewed from KOP 561 

with flat to rolling terrain in the foreground and middleground and mountains in the 

background. Developments include a small community, distribution lines, and a dirt road.

The portion of the AOI crossed by Alternative 9G/9H is south of the Proposed Route and 

Alternative 9D/9F. This route would cross undulating terrain containing buttes and other 

rock features. The alignment would cross just north of the town of Murphy as well as land 

near Murphy Rim. Due to proximity, much of the study area is the same as for the 9D/9F 

alignment. 

Conformance Analysis – Figures 5.9-7 through 5.9-10 show the viewsheds, KOPs, and 

other features within the 15-mile-radius study area used to establish the degree of 

consistency of the proposed transmission line with the existing VRM Class II land 

crossed. Attachment A, Figures BOP-3b and BOP-3c are simulations showing the 

Segment 8 Proposed Route and Alternative 9D transmission lines, respectively, in the 

existing landscape as viewed from KOP 561.

Scenic views in the Striker Basin of Guffey Butte and the surrounding mountainous terrain 

are important to sensitive viewers such as hikers at the BLM trailhead (KOP 561) and the 

adjacent residences. From this vantage point, Segment 8 of the Proposed Route would 

interrupt the pristine mountain views that exhibit diversity in form, line, color, and texture. 

The structures of Segment 8 of the Proposed Route would contrast with the pyramidal 

forms, jagged terrain with numerous silhouette lines, and mottled rugged vegetation and 

would draw the attention of the casual observer, thus not conforming to VRM Class II 

objectives. 

Although Alternative 9D/9F would be farther from the viewers at KOP 561 and partially 

screened, it would still not conform to VRM Class II objectives due to some skylining 

structures that would be apparent in the middleground of the view. It would also contrast 

with the undulating silhouette lines and mottled vegetation.

Alternative 9G/9H would cross north of the town of Murphy and could be visible along 

Murphy Rim. Additionally, the alignment would parallel NHTs and cross VRM Class II 

lands near historic sites. The structures for Alternatives 9G/9H would contrast with the 

pyramidal forms as well as the flat to rolling expanse of the existing landscape. Contrast 

with form and texture as well as proximity to historic sites would draw the attention of the 

casual observer, thus not conforming to VRM Class II objectives.

If the Segment 8 Proposed Route, Alternative 8E, Alternatives 9D/9F, or Alternatives 

9G/9H is selected, an amendment would be needed for the project to comply with the 

SRBOP RMP. A 500-kV powerline would not be compatible with VRM Class II objectives, 

therefore, the VRM Class II areas associated with the Striker Basin scenic areas that 

would be crossed by the Alternative(s), would be reclassified to be managed with VRM 

Class III objectives. If Alternative 9G or Alternative 9H is selected, an area within 250 feet 

of the route centerline, taking into account the need for NHT buffers, would be reclassified 

to VRM Class III. Micrositing may be needed to ensure a proper buffer distance from the 

NHTs. If any of these routes are selected, it is recommended that the Proponents be 

required to microsite structures to minimize the visibility. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-159

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.9-1. SRBOP RMP Boundary Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-160

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.9-2. AOI BOP-1/J-3 South Oregon Trail AOI Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-161

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.9-3. AOI BOP-1/J-3 South Oregon Trail AOI Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-162

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.9-4. AOI BOP-2 Sinker Butte AOI Visual Analysis (Alternatives 9D/9F/8E)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-163

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.9-5. AOI BOP-2 Sinker Butte AOI Visual Analysis (Alternative 9G/9H)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-164

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.9-6. AOI BOP-3 Guffey Butte AOI Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-165

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.9-7. AOI BOP-3 Guffey Butte AOI Visual Analysis – Segment 8
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-166

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.9-8. AOI BOP-3 Guffey Butte AOI Visual Analysis – Alternative 8E
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-167

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.9-9. AOI BOP-3 Guffey Butte AOI Visual Analysis – Alternative 9D/9F
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-168

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.9-10. AOI BOP-3 Guffey Butte AOI Visual Analysis – Alternative 9G/9H
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-169

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.9-11. AOI BOP-3 Guffey Butte AOI Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-170

Plan Amendments Analysis

5.10 Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP

The Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP (1980) provides direction for management of 

public land within its boundaries under the jurisdiction of the Shoshone FO in southcentral Idaho. The Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP planning area consists of 

approximately 892,000 acres in Blaine, Camas, Elmore, Gooding, and Lincoln Counties 

(see Figure 5.10-1). The Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP includes objectives and 

recommendations for the following activities: lands, minerals, recreation, wildlife, range 

management, and watershed management.

The MFP includes Recreation Objective R-4, with a stated goal to “Manage the visual 

resources within the Planning Area in conformance with the guidance in BLM Manual 

63l0.l8 B-E.” BLM Manual 6310.18 states that the cited guidance is to be used as 

tentative minimum management objectives. If these objectives can be met, no further or 

more detailed objectives are considered necessary. The following Classifications appear 

in the MFP, which are equivalent to the BLM Visual Classes presented in Section 1.0 of 

this report.

“R-4.1 VRM Class II As a guideline, no management activity should be allowed to 

cause any evident changes in the form, line, color, or texture that is characteristic

of the landscape within Class II areas, utilizing concealment, repetition of 

elements, minimizing surface disturbance, etc. to meet the goal.

R-4.2 VRM Class III As a goal, management activities may cause changes in the 

basic elements (form, line, color, texture) of the characteristic landscape, but the 

changes should remain subordinate to the existing visual character. Incorporate 

the methodology outlined in BLM Manual 6320 Visual Resource Contrast Rating.

R-4.3 VRM Class IV Changes caused by management activities may subordinate 

the original character but should reflect what could be a natural occurrence within 

the characteristic landscape.” 

Proposed Segment 8 is a 131-mile route north of the Snake River that connects the 

Midpoint and Hemingway Substations. Segment 8 would be constructed as single circuit 

500 kV line. A key issue in Segment 8 is balancing between disturbing private agricultural 

land and publicly managed land with more resource constraints. Constraints on publicly 

managed land include historic trails, wetlands, steep slopes, and raptor nests. An 

important siting factor was following existing transmission line corridors. Of the several 

existing east-west transmission lines the proposed route follows the existing transmission 

line with the least overall impact. 

Approximately 13 miles of Proposed Route 8 cross BLM-administered land managed 

under the Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP, 8.2 miles of which cross VRM Class II 

lands. VRM objectives within the Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills MFP would not be met 

by the Project in this area. AOI BH-1 Burnt Ridge was identified as an AOI because the 

Project would not conform to VRM Class II objectives for this area. Typically the level of 

change to the characteristic landscape in VRM Class II areas would not allow for the 

presence of a transmission line. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-171

Plan Amendments Analysis

5.10.1 AOI BH-1 Burnt Ridge (Proposed Route – Segment 8)

The Burnt Ridge AOI is in the vicinity of King Hill, Idaho. It is located approximately 30 

miles northwest of Midpoint Substation and approximately three miles north of Interstate 

84. Much of the Segment 8 Proposed Route in this area was located parallel to existing 

230 kV transmission lines. This section of the route, however, also follows portions of the 

Oregon NHT. The Burnt Ridge AOI passes through four separate parcels of BLMadministered land managed for VRM Class II, ranging in size from 27 acres to 8,249 

acres. The Project crosses a total of 8.2 miles of VRM Class II-managed land within the 

AOI. Figure 5.10-2 shows the location of the Burnt Creek AOI, the location of the 

Proposed Route, and the VRM management classification.

Alternatives Considered – Segment 8 consists of the Proposed Route, and four feasible 

alternatives. Four additional alternatives were considered in detail, but were eliminated 

due to various constraints. The Proponents attempted to avoid residential and 

agricultural land and to follow the WWE corridor or existing transmission lines when 

determining the route for Segment 8. Alternative 8A follows a WWE corridor and would 

not cross the area managed under the MFP. In making a balanced routing decision that 

led to the selection of the proposed and alternative routes, crossing VRM Class II areas 

was unavoidable without causing greater overall effects.

Existing Landscape Conditions – The Snake River is the major water feature in the 15-

mile-radius area surrounding the Burnt River AOI. It crosses the southern half of the area 

from west to southeast, leaving the Study Area in the vicinity of the Hagerman Wildlife 

Management Area. The flat to rolling topography on both sides of the river is cut by 

numerous drainages; some with steep, canyon-like, walls. The northern part of the area 

is occupied by the steep terrain of the Mount Bennett Hills. Much of the area in the north

is undeveloped. There are large areas of farmland along the Snake River in the southeast 

as well as Deadman Flat, Black Mesa, and Pasadena Valley. Interstate 84, the major 

road in the area, passes east and then southeast through the Study Area. U.S. Highway 

26 crosses the study area from east to west and U.S. Highway 30 crosses north to south. 

Along these highways and the rivers there are a number of communities including Glenns 

Ferry, Bliss, and Hagerman. Numerous transmission lines run southeast to northwest 

through this area. In addition to the highways and communities, potential viewing areas 

include recreation areas such as Three Island Crossing State Park.

Attachment A, Figure BH-1a shows existing landscape conditions as viewed from KOP 

C84. The topography along the western portion of AOI BH-1 along Segment 8, ranges 

from essentially flat to more severe and canyon-like along King Hill Creek. Figure BH-1c 

shows the existing wood pole H-frame transmission line that would be paralleled, as 

viewed from KOP 347. South of Segment 8 of the Proposed Route, and moving east, 

there is a substantial amount of irrigated agriculture and development while north of the 

segment there is more undeveloped land. 

Conformance Analysis- Figure 5.10-3 shows the viewshed, KOPs and other features 

within the 15-mile radius study area used to determine the degree of consistency with the 

existing VRM classification. Attachment A, Figure BH-1b simulates landscape conditions 

showing the Proposed Route as viewed from KOP C84. This KOP, as well as C85, were 

selected because they are located on the Oregon NHT where VRM Class II objectives 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-172

Plan Amendments Analysis

were assigned to protect from visual intrusion. Thus consistency between the project and 

visual management goals may be directly assessed.

Scenic views of Kings Crown and the surrounding area north of King Hill are important to 

the surrounding sensitive viewers such as sensitive viewers along the Oregon NHT at 

KOPs C84 and C85. Many of the views in this area, including these particular KOPs, are 

interrupted by development and man-made features such as high voltage transmission 

lines and wind towers. Man-made development has changed the surrounding form, line, 

and texture of the adjacent views, representing a deviation from the natural setting. 

Attachment A, Figure BH-1d shows the Proposed Route in relation to an existing H-frame 

transmission line from KOP 347. From these KOPs it is apparent that there will be some 

skylining and that screening and other mitigation efforts would not substantially lower the 

impacts to scenic resources in the surrounding area. The sweeping terrain, undulating 

forms, strong horizon line, and mottled vegetation are interrupted by existing man-made 

development. However, from views in the foreground and middleground, the Proposed 

Project structures and access roads would draw the attention of the casual observer and 

thus, not conform to VRM Class II objectives.

Due to the number of transmission lines and other development in the vicinity, it is 

recommended that the area within 3,000 feet north of the existing transmission line ROW 

will be reclassified from VRM Class II to VRM Class III (including the existing ROW). This 

VRM designation will better reflect the visual resource conditions of the area and allow 

the Gateway West Project to be consistent with the MFP visual objectives.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-173

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.10-1. Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills RMP Boundary Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-174

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.10-2. AOI BH-1 Burnt Ridge Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-175

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.10-3. AOI BH-1 Burnt Ridge Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-176

Plan Amendments Analysis

5.11 Wells RMP

The Wells RMP (BLM 1985b) provides direction for management of public lands in a 

planning area of approximately 5.7 million acres in northeast Nevada (see Figure 5.11-1). 

The area is managed by the Wells FO of the Elko District. Public land occupies 

approximately 83 percent of the planning area, with the remainder consisting of private 

parcels, including checkerboard lands (alternating public/private sections). A 

management objective in the RMP is to determine designated utility corridors in 

coordination with other multiple uses, including scenic resources. One management 

action is to locate utility corridors on existing rights-of-way wherever possible. Other 

planning criteria include following existing roads or highways, including Interstate 

highways. Scenic views of the north-south trending mountains were viewed as high 

quality visual resources, while valley areas were considered lower quality scenic 

resources. One VRM Class II management is crossed by Alternative 7I. 

5.11.1 Segment Alternatives

Segment 7 of the Proposed Route consists of 118 miles of single-circuit 500-kV 

transmission line. It leaves Populus Substation and proceeds northwest for about 15 

miles, following existing transmission lines and Segment 5, before turning due west and 

proceeding through about 103 miles of mainly private irrigated agriculture to Cedar Hill 

Substation. There is significant local opposition to the Proposed Route due to proximity 

to residences and potential economic effects on a number of agricultural lands, including 

loss of prime farmland and CRP land, disruption to existing crops and surface irrigation 

patterns, interference with center pivot irrigation, and potential electrical effects on 

confined animal feeding operations. As a result, a multi-county task force consisting of 

residents, county officials, and state legislators, have recommended alternatives well 

south of the Proposed Route, mainly on NFS lands or BLM-managed lands. Constraints 

in the southern alternatives include high-quality forested land, historic trails, wetlands, 

steep slopes, designated big game range, sage-grouse, and raptor nests.

In all, there are 10 feasible alternatives for this segment and eight segments that were 

reviewed, but are no longer under consideration. Alternatives 7A through 7G are short 

alternatives that diverge from the Proposed Route to avoid local features, such as dairies, 

raptor nests, more concentrated agriculture, and so on. There are three alternatives 

located to the south of the Proposed Route. Alternative 7H is located approximately 10 to 

15 miles south of the Proposed Route. It passes through a mix of private land, BLMmanaged land, and the Caribou-Targhee and Sawtooth NFs. Total length of Alternative 

7H is 127 miles. The multi-county task force recommends Alternative 7I, a 173-mile route 

located near the Idaho/Nevada state line, approximately 25 to 30 miles south of the 

Proposed Route. The Proponents prepared Alternative 7H in response to comments from 

the Counties. Alternative 7J was identified by the multi-county task force in August 2010. 

The route follows the same alignment as 7I until milepost 137.2. From here, Alternative 

7J continues west and northwest before branching into two lines; one of which travels 

northeast to meet up with the start of Proposed Route 9, the other continuing northwest 

and north before meeting up with Proposed Segment 9 near the western border of the 

Burley FO.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-177

Plan Amendments Analysis

5.11.2 AOI W-1 Goose Creek (Alternative 7I/7J)

The Wells AOI is located on Alternatives 7I/7J, immediately south of the Nevada/Idaho 

state line, beginning approximately 10 miles west of the Nevada/Utah border. The 

Nevada alignment for Alternatives 7I/7J was proposed because it would avoid a 

designated roadless area in the Sawtooth NF that extends to the Idaho/Nevada border. 

Alternatives 7I/7J pass east to west through several miles of land managed for VRM 

Class III objectives, before crossing 0.25-mile of VRM Class II land (a single parcel 

totaling 48.4 acres), located on the east side of Goose Creek. Figure 5.11-1 shows the 

viewshed for the Goose Creek AOI, Alternatives 7I/7J (the green line along the state 

boundary), and the VRM classifications lands. 

AOI Alternatives – The route could not be moved north in the vicinity of the AOI without 

entering the designated roadless area within the Sawtooth NF. The route could be 

moved south to avoid the VRM Class II parcel (see below). Selection of the Segment 7 

Proposed Route would avoid the Wells AOI, all of the NFS land, and most BLM-managed

land. Selection of any route except 7I or 7J also keeps the transmission line out of 

Nevada. However, the Proposed Route is closer to residential areas, and would meet 

with determined local opposition and probable economic losses to agriculture. Alternative 

7I is 55 miles longer than the Proposed Route and 46 miles longer than Alternative 7H, 

much of it in high-quality natural areas, two geothermal resources, and other NFS and 

BLM-managed land with sensitive visual resources. Much of the route for Alternative 7J 

follows the same alignment as Alternative 7I. It was proposed as an alternative routing 

for 7I. The different alignment at the western end of the segment moved the substation 

southwest of the Proposed Route substation location. 

Landscape Conditions – The 15-mile study area centered on AOI W-1 is located on the 

border of Idaho and Nevada, but includes a small part of northwestern Utah. There is 

little development and much of the area comprises rugged topography especially in the 

Sawtooth NF. Forests are scattered throughout the 15-mile study area in the more 

mountainous areas, especially in the NF. No major roads or transmission lines cross the 

area and there are no large communities. The local landscape comprises rolling 

topography, sagebrush and grasses with little or no manmade features and more

mountainous areas in the background. Sensitive viewing areas include the many trails 

and campgrounds in the area.

Conformance Analysis – Figure 5.11-2 shows the viewshed from AOI W-1, VRM II 

managed lands, and other features within the 15-mile radius study area used to assess 

the consistency of the proposed project with the existing VRM class. Scenic views of 

Goose Creek between Fivemile Gulch and Deadline Ridge are important to sensitive 

viewers visiting portions of the California NHT or the Sawtooth NF located directly north of 

this AOI. These sensitive viewers are represented by KOPs 1089 and 1090 (Attachment

A, Figures W-1 and W-2) located approximately 2.0 miles east of the VRM Class II parcel 

crossed by the Alternative 7I alignment.3

 General views are illustrated in Attachment A,

 

3 A field trip to area was undertaken in November 2010. However, a snow storm prevented taking a photo at the actual 

AOI location. Establishing a photo point in the spring of 2011 was also prevented by snow. Therefore, a simulation 

could not be prepared for the Draft EIS. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-178

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figures W-1 and W-2, landscape character pictures from KOPs 1089 and 1090. The 

views of undulating terrain and background mountainous silhouettes, such as Sugarloaf 

Peak and Rocky Peak, with mottled vegetation exhibits diversity in form, line, color, and 

texture with little or no visible man-made features. The setting is undisturbed and diverse 

in form, line, and texture but very common within the surrounding region of sagebrush 

steppe landscapes. 

While a transmission line following the Alternative 7I route would be partially screened by 

the surrounding topography, it would still introduce new structural elements to this 

landscape. As a result, a transmission line in this area would draw the attention of the 

casual observer, would deviate from the natural form, line, color, and texture and would 

not conform to VRM Class II objectives. The distance of Alternative 7I from sensitive 

viewers would not allow project elements to blend in with the surrounding landscape 

features; therefore, the visual contrast would be high.

Plan Amendment – It is assumed that VRM Class II objectives have been assigned to 

this particular area to protect the scenic values of the landscape adjacent to Goose 

Creek, and adjacent scenic resources. During the original Visual Resource Inventory for 

the Wells FO, private lands were not considered when determining inventory class 

polygons. A VRM Class II polygon was created along the Goose Creek drainage. 

Surrounding lands were classified as VRM Class III. When private lands were removed 

from the polygons, specifically those private lands within the VRM Class II polygon along 

Goose Creek, a small 48.4-acre piece of public land abutting Idaho was left in as VRM 

Class II. Alternative 7I would cross this isolated VRM II parcel for approximately 0.25 

mile. The Draft Wells RMP and EIS discuss how projects that would exceed 

recommended contrast maximum for area will be addressed and states that the “decision 

as to whether mitigating measure must be implemented rests with the District Manager 

and will be made on a case-by-case basis.” If this route is selected, an amendment has 

been determined to be necessary. The recommended amendment would be to allow the 

Project to cross the area classified as VRM II as a one-time, visually altering action 

without reclassifying the area (Figure 5.11-3). 

There would be two additional options. The first would be to re-align the route to avoid 

the area classified as VRM II by moving the line approximately 0.25 mile south onto 

private land. Re-alignment of this route further south would impact similar natural 

resources and would cross higher ground, thereby increasing visibility. It would also 

impact a private landowner. The second option would be to reclassify the area of VRM 

Class II crossed by Alternative 7I to a VRM Class III objective, which would conform to 

the surrounding VRM Class III landscapes. This would have less effect on scenery than 

shifting the route onto private land immediately south of the parcel to avoid crossing VRM 

Class II. It also would avoid impacts to private land. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-179

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.11-1. Wells Field Office and Resource Management Plan Area
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-180

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.11-2. AOI Viewshed
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-181

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.11-3. Area of Inconsistency
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-182

Plan Amendments Analysis

5.12 Bruneau MFP

Actions that occur on lands managed by the Bruneau FO, including the granting of ROW 

under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, are guided by 

decisions recorded in the Bruneau MFP (1983b). The Bruneau MFP currently restricts 

impacts to visual resources. Thus, the proposed Gateway West Project does not conform 

with the Bruneau MFP as currently written: 

“Manage all public lands in a manner which will protect and maintain the existing 

visual qualities, provide for enhancement where consistent with management 

policies, and provide for rehabilitation of land which presently do not meet the 

visual quality standards of surrounding lands. Use VRM contrast rating and project 

application design process for all management activities without unduly reducing 

commodity production or limiting program effectiveness.” 

5.12.1 Segment Alternatives

Segment 9 of the Proposed Route consists of 161.7 miles of single-circuit 500-kV 

transmission line between the proposed Cedar Hill and planned Hemingway Substations. 

The route proceeds generally west through private and public land through the Twin Falls 

MFP planning area and the northwest through Jarbidge RMP, SRBOP RMP, Bruneau 

MFP, and Owyhee MFP planning areas. The route crosses the Salmon Falls Creek 

ACEC, WSR-eligible sections of Salmon Falls Creek, as well as multiple SRMAs 

throughout its length.

In all, there are eight feasible alternatives for this segment and four alternatives that were 

reviewed but not studied in detail. . Alternatives 9A and 9C are short alternatives that 

diverge from the Proposed Route in the Twin Falls MFP management area. Alternative 

9B is a 53-mile-long segment developed to follow the nearby WWE corridor and diverges 

from the Proposed Route within the Jarbidge and Twin Falls planning areas. Alternative 

9D diverges from the Proposed Route in the Jarbidge RMP planning area and parallels 

the Proposed Route to the north, through the SRBOP RMP planning area, joining with the 

Proposed Route approximately 20 miles northwest of the Bruneau planning area. 

Alternative 9E parallels the Proposed Route approximately 7 miles to the south, leaving 

and joining the Proposed Route at the same locations as Alternative 9D. Alternative 9F 

follows the Proposed Route until MP 113.3, avoiding the C.J. Strike SRMA and the Cove 

Non-motorized Area, and then crosses in a northeast direction to join up with the 9D 

alignment at MP 16.6, following this alignment until it joins with the Proposed Route. 

Alternative 9G follows the 9D alignment until MP 41.2, where it crosses the Snake River, 

approximately 4 miles south of the Alternative 9D crossing. Alternative 9G then crosses 

in a northwest direction through the SRBOP for approximately 15 miles before joining the 

Proposed Route, paralleling the Oregon NHT for much of its length. Alternative 9H 

follows the same alignment as Alternative 9F, avoiding the Cove Non-motorized Area, 

until it crosses the Snake River at the same point as Alternative 9G and follows the 

Alternative 9G alignment through the SRBOP for the rest of its length.

Approximately 33 miles of Segment 9 of the Proposed Route cross the area within the 

Bruneau FO boundaries, 17.6 miles of which is on BLM-managed land. One Route 

Alternative for Segment 9, 9E, is present within the Bruneau MFP planning area, and 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-183

Plan Amendments Analysis

avoids the VRM class II areas. Alternative 9D is also avoids this area, traveling through 

the SRBOP to the north instead. Neither of these routes follow an existing utility corridor. 

5.12.2 AOI B-1 Castle Creek (Segment 9 Proposed Route)

The Bruneau AOI is located on Segment 9 of the Proposed Route to the east of Castle 

Creek, approximately 2 miles south of the SRBOP management boundary. The route 

would cross a 282-acre VRM Class II parcel for approximately, 0.25-mile. Figure 5.12-1 

shows the viewshed for the Castle Creek AOI, Segment 9 of the Proposed Route and the 

VRM classifications lands. 

Existing Conditions – The topography in the area within 15 miles of AOI B-1 is defined 

by undulating to dominant ridges and buttes such as Sinker Creek Butte dissected by 

broad, open valleys and meandering water bodies such as Castle Creek and the Snake 

River. The central and northern portions of the area have a series of drainages and 

ridges running north and south into the Snake River. The areas to the southwest of the 

Snake River Valley are more rugged with severe slopes such as near Red Mountain and 

Hayden Peak. The majority of the area is extensively farmed with pivot irrigation. Murphy, 

the most significant community in the area, is located in the north quadrant on the west 

side of the Snake River. Highway 45 crosses the area from northwest to southeast and 

generally parallels the Snake River. One transmission lines proceeds north to south 

through the area. Sensitive viewing areas include the Oregon NHT, the Snake River, 

Snake River Canyon Scenic Byway, Western Heritage Historic Byway, Owyhee Uplands 

Back Country Byway, Celebration Park, Swan Falls, and residences in Murphy and in the 

adjacent agricultural areas along the Snake River Plain. 

Figure 5.12-4 shows existing landscape conditions as viewed from KOP 581. The 

landscape in the foreground is flat to gently sloping and covered with grasses and riparian 

vegetation adjacent to Castle Creek. Rolling to rugged hills, such as Red Mountain, are 

seen in the background. There are visible water elements and a few man-made 

modifications in view, including Castle Creek Road and farm outbuildings immediately 

adjacent to the viewer. 

Conformance Analysis – Figure 5.12-2 shows the viewshed from AOI B-1, VRM II 

managed lands, and other features within the 15-mile radius study area used to assess 

the whether the proposed project conforms the existing VRM class. Scenic views of the 

various buttes throughout the Snake River Plain as well as distant mountain ranges are 

important to sensitive residential viewers or recreational users visiting portions of the 

Oregon NHT adjacent to KOP 581. KOP 581 is located on a segment of the Oregon NHT 

approximately 280 feet north of Segment 9 of the Proposed Route as it follows the Snake 

River in a southeast to northwest direction. The view from KOP 581 provided in Figure 

5.12-4 is not facing the AOI, but is viewing adjacent lands. The views of the flat to 

undulating terrain, background mountain silhouettes with mottled to clumped vegetation, 

and meandering waterbody exhibits diversity in form, line, color, and texture with few 

man-made features. The setting at this KOP is relatively undisturbed in all directions, 

except for roadway and a few adjacent wooden structures. From this KOP, the proposed 

Project would be partially screened by the ridge but would still skyline the mountainous 

views. The close distance of the Project from KOP 581 results in the features dominating 

the landscape with such prominence that the visual contrast would be strong. The 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-184

Plan Amendments Analysis

Proposed Route would introduce new dominant structural elements into this view to the 

north which would draw the attention of the casual observer, and would deviate from the 

natural form, line, color, and texture; therefore, it would not conform to VRM Class II 

objectives. It is assumed that VRM Class II objectives have been assigned to this 

particular area in order to protect the Oregon NHT corridor as well as adjacent scenic 

resources. 

5.12.3 Plan Amendment

This AOI is a relatively isolated parcel of VRM Class II management within a larger 

landscape of extensive agriculture, including pivot-irrigation. It is proposed that, if this 

route is selected, the entire 282-acre parcel be reclassified from VRM Class II to Class III 

(Figure 5.12-3). This would prevent the creation of two relatively small and isolated VRM 

Class II parcels that would occur if just the 177 acres within the WWE corridor were 

reclassified. This amendment would be consistent with the use of the land for a highvoltage transmission line ROW. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-185

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.12-1. Bruneau Field Office and Resource Management Plan Area
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-186

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.12-2. AOI B-1 Castle Creek Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-187

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.12-3. AOI B-1 Castle Creek Detailed Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management G.1-188

Plan Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.12-4. View of Lands Adjacent to AOI B-1 from KOP 581
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management 

Plan Amendments Analysis

Attachment A 

Existing Conditions and Photographic Simulations
G-1, Attachment A - Simulations 

List of Simulations by G-1 Sections 

5.1......C-1a................KOP 105.............Existing Conditions 

5.1......C-1b................KOP 105.............Photographic Simulation 

5.1......C-2a................KOP 1039...........Existing Conditions 

5.2......R-1a................KOP 860.............Existing Conditions 

5.2......R-1b................KOP 860.............Photographic Simulation 

5.2......R-2a................KOP 991.............Existing Conditions 

5.2......R-2b................KOP 991.............Photographic Simulation 

5.2......R-3a................KOP 822.............Existing Conditions 

5.2......R-3b................KOP 822.............Photographic Simulation 

5.2......R-3c................KOP 822.............Photographic Simulation 

5.3......GR-1a..............KOP 1353............Existing Conditions 

5.3......GR-1b..............KOP 1353...........Photographic Simulation 

5.4......K-1a................KOP C56.............Existing Conditions 

5.4......K-1b................KOP C56.............Photographic Simulation 

5.4......K-1c................KOP 1288............Existing Conditions 

5.4......K-1d................KOP 1288.............Photographic Simulation 

5.4......K-2a................KOP 1359............Existing Conditions 

5.4......K-2b................KOP 1359............Photographic Simulation 

5.4......K-2c................KOP 1363............Existing Conditions 

5.4......K-2d................KOP 1363............Photographic Simulation 

5.4......K-3a................KOP 635.............Existing Conditions_Seg. 4 

5.4......K-3b................KOP 635.............Photographic Simulation_Seg. 4 

5.4......K-3c................KOP 635.............Existing Conditions_Alt. 4F 

5.4......K-3d................KOP 635.............Photographic Simulation_Alt. 4F 

5.4......K-4a................KOP 642.............Existing Conditions_Alt. 4A 

5.4......K-4b................KOP 642.............Photographic Simulation_Alt. 4A 

5.4......K-4c................KOP C8..............Existing Conditions_Alt. 4A 

5.4......K-4d................KOP C8..............Photographic Simulation_Alt. 4A 
G-1, Attachment A – Simulations (continued) 

5.4......K-5a................KOP 620.............Existing Conditions_Alt. 4F 

5.4......K-5b................KOP 620.............Photographic Simulation_Alt. 4F 

5.4......K-5c................KOP 636.............Existing Conditions_Alt. 4F 

5.4......K-5d................KOP 636.............Photographic Simulation_Alt. 4F 

5.4......K-6a.................KOP 655.............Existing Conditions_Alt. 4B/C 

5.4......K-6b.................KOP 655.............Photographic Simulation_Alt. 4B/C 

5.4......K-6c.................KOP 636.............Existing Conditions_Alt. 4B-E 

5.4......K-6d.................KOP 636.............Photographic Simulation_Alt. 4B-E 

5.4......K-8a.................KOP 1368...........Existing Conditions_Alt. 4C/E 

5.4......K-8b.................KOP 1368...........Photographic Simulation_Alt. 4C/E 

5.5......M-1/M-3a..........KOP 907..............Existing Conditions 

5.5......M-1/M-3b..........KOP 907.............. Photographic Simulation 

5.5......M-1/M-3c..........KOP 907...............Photographic Simulation 

5.5......M-2a................KOP 260.............Existing Conditions 

5.5......M-2b................KOP 260.............Photographic Simulation 

5.6......CA-1a..............KOP 1246............Existing Conditions 

5.6......CA-1b..............KOP 1246.............Photographic Simulation 

5.6......CA-2a..............KOP 1171............Existing Conditions 

5.6......CA-2b..............KOP 1171.............Photographic Simulation 

5.6......CA-2c..............KOP 1173.............Existing Conditions 

5.6......CA-2d..............KOP 1173............Photographic Simulation 

5.7......TF-1a..............KOP 1068.............Existing Conditions 

5.7......TF-1b..............KOP 1068..............Photographic Simulation 

5.7......TF-2a..............KOP 410................Existing Conditions 

5.7......TF-2b..............KOP 410...............Photographic Simulation 

5.8......J-1a................KOP 1068.............Existing Conditions 

5.8......J-1b................KOP 1068.............Photographic Simulation 

5.8......J-2a................KOP 372..............Existing Conditions 

5.8......J-2b................KOP 372..............Photographic Simulation 

5.8......BOP-1/J-3a......KOP 1156............Existing Conditions 

5.8......BOP-1/J-3b......KOP 1156.............Photographic Simulation 
G-1, Attachment A – Simulations (continued) 

5.8......J-4a................KOP 810 North.......Existing Conditions 

5.8......J-4b................KOP 810 North.......Photographic Simulation 

5.8......J-4c................KOP 810 South.......Existing Conditions 

5.8......J-4d................KOP 810 South......Photographic Simulation 

5.8......J-5a................KOP 1350..............Existing Conditions 

5.8......J-5b................KOP 1350..............Photographic Simulation 

5.9......BOP-1a............KOP 1156.............Existing Conditions 

5.9......BOP-1b............KOP 1156.............Photographic Simulation 

5.9......BOP-2a............KOP 1352............Existing Conditions 

5.9......BOP-2b............KOP 1352.............Photographic Simulation 

5.9......BOP-3a.............KOP 561..............Existing Conditions 

5.9......BOP-3b..............KOP 561......... .....Photographic Simulation 

5.10.....BH-1a..............KOP C84..............Existing Conditions 

5.10.....BH-1b..............KOP C84..............Photographic Simulation 

5.10.....BH-1c...............KOP 347..............Existing Conditions 

5.10.....BH-1d...............KOP 347...............Photographic Simulation 

5.11.....A-1..................KOP 1089.............Existing Conditions 

5.11.....A-2..................KOP 1090.............Existing Conditions 
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts 1 Export Date 06/181/1 \kop-105 deer creek.indd Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\ 1 Export Date 06/181/1 sims\layouts\kop-105 deer creek.indd Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1039.indd Export Date 07/194/11 Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\la 1 Export Date 6/30/201 youts\kop-860.indd Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-860.indd Export Date 6/30/2011 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-991.indd Export Date 06/30/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-991.indd Export Date 06/30/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-822.indd Export Date 06/30/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-822.indd Export Date 06/30/11 
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-822.indd Export Date 06/30/11 Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1353.indd Export Date 07/01/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1353.indd Export Date 07/01/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-c56.indd Export Date 06/30/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-c56.indd Export Date 06/30/11 
 Export Date 06/30/11 -1288.indd Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1288.indd Export Date 06/30/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1359.indd Export Date 07/01/11 
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\ko 1 Export Date 07/01/1 p-1359.indd Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1363.indd Export Date 07/01/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1363.indd Export Date 07/01/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-635.indd Export Date 06/30/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-635.indd Export Date 06/30/11 
 Export Date 06/30/11 p-635.indd Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\ko 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-635.indd Export Date 06/30/11 
 P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-642.indd Export Date 07/182/11 Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-642.indd Export Date 07/182/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-c8 For appendix G.indd Export Date 06/181/11 
 Export Date 06/181/11 p-c8 For appendix G.indd Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\ko 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-620.indd Export Date 07/01/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-620.indd Export Date 07/01/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-636.indd Export Date 07/01/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-636.indd Export Date 07/01/11 
 Export Date 06/30/11 655.indd Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-655.indd Export Date 06/30/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-636.indd Export Date 07/01/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-636.indd Export Date 07/01/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1368.indd Export Date 06/30/11 
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts 1 Export Date 06/30/1 \kop-1368.indd Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-907 alts 5 and 7.indd Export Date 07/182/11 
 Export Date 07/182/11 \kop-907 alts 5 and 7.indd Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-907 alts 5 and 7.indd Export Date 07/182/11 
 Export Date 07/186/11 \kop-260.indd Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts
 Export Date 07/186/11 uts\kop-260.indd Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layo
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1246.indd Export Date 06/181/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1246.indd Export Date 06/181/11 
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\ko Export Date 06/181/11 171.indd p-1Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1171.indd Export Date 06/181/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1173.indd Export Date 06/181/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1173.indd Export Date 06/181/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1068.indd Export Date 06/181/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1068.indd Export Date 06/181/11 
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\k 1 Export Date 07/186/1 op-410.indd Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\ko 1 Export Date 07/186/1 p-410.indd Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1068.indd Export Date 06/181/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1068.indd Export Date 06/181/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-372.indd Export Date 06/181/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-372.indd Export Date 06/181/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1156.indd Export Date 07/182/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1156.indd Export Date 07/182/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-810.indd Export Date 07/186/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-810.indd Export Date 07/186/11 
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop 1 Export Date 07/186/1 -810.indd Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 
1 Export Date 07/186/1 op-810.indd Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

youts\k P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\la
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1350.indd Export Date 07/186/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1350.indd Export Date 07/186/11 
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop Export Date 07/182/11 -1156.indd Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\k Export Date 07/182/11 156.indd op-1Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1352.indd Export Date 06/181/11 Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1352.indd Export Date 06/181/11 Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-561.indd Export Date 07/186/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-561.indd Export Date 07/186/11 
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts 1 Export Date 07/186/1 \kop-561.indd Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-c84.indd Export Date 07/186/11 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-c84.indd Export Date 07/186/11 
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layo 1 Export Date 06/181/1 uts\kop-347.indd Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 
 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-347.indd Export Date 06/181/11 
Figure W-1. KOP 1089 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management 

Plan Amendments Analysis 
Figure W -2. KOP 1090 

Appendix G-1 – Visual Resource Management 

Plan Amendments Analysis 
Appendix G-2 

USDA Forest Service

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis 

Gateway West Transmission Line Project

Prepared by:

Tetra Tech Inc.

Submitted To:

USDA Forest Service 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-iii

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. G.2-1

1.1 Scenic Management System (SMS) ...................................................................G.2-1

1.2 Visual Management System ...............................................................................G.2-4

2 PROJECT FEATURES AFFECTING THE VISUAL ENVIRONMENT............. G.2-5

2.1 Facility Components ...........................................................................................G.2-5

2.2 Project-wide Visual Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Proponents...............G.2-7

3 STUDY ASSUMPTIONS.................................................................................. G.2-8

4 PROJECT-WIDE ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT ..................................... G.2-8

5 AREAS OF INCONSISTENCY ...................................................................... G.2-10

5.1 Medicine Bow National Forest Plan ..................................................................G.2-12

5.1.1 AOI MB-1 Medicine Bow (Segments 1W[a],1W[c], 1E, and 

Alternative 1E-C) ....................................................................................G.2-15

5.2 Caribou National Forest Plan............................................................................G.2-20

5.2.1 AOI CB-1 Caribou (Segment 4) ..............................................................G.2-24

5.3 Sawtooth National Forest..................................................................................G.2-28

5.3.1 AOI ST-1 Sublett (Alternative 7H, Alternative 7I, and Alternative 7J) ......G.2-31

5.3.2 AOI ST-2 Albion Mountain (Alternative 7H).............................................G.2-35

5.3.3 AOI ST-3 Cassia (Alternative 7I and Alternative 7J) ...............................G.2-41

6 MITIGATION MEASURES............................................................................. G.2-45

Attachment A. Existing Conditions and Photographic Simulations

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1-1. Primary Transmission Structures – Visual Description .............................G.2-7

Table 5-1. Forest Plan Areas of Inconsistency ........................................................G.2-11

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1-1. Project Overview ......................................................................................G.2-2

Figure 5.1-1. AOI Location for the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests ....................G.2-14

Figure 5.1-2. AOI MB-1 Aerial View.............................................................................G.2-18

Figure 5.1-3. AOI MB-1 Medicine Bow AOI Visual Analysis.........................................G.2-19

Figure 5.2-1. Caribou-Targhee National Forest AOI Location......................................G.2-21

Figure 5.2-2. Existing Transmission Lines in the Caribou NF, Viewed from Within the 

Right-of-Way (a distance of zero)...........................................................G.2-22

Figure 5.2-3. Existing Transmission Lines in the Caribou-Targhee NF, Visible in the 

Foreground to Middleground (approximately 0.5 mile away) ..................G.2-23
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-iv

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.2-4. Existing Transmission Lines in the Caribou-Targhee NF, Visible in the 

Middleground (less than 5 miles away)...................................................G.2-23

Figure 5.2-5. AOI CB-1 Caribou Visual Analysis..........................................................G.2-26

Figure 5.2-6. AOI CB-1 Caribou AOI Aerial Map .........................................................G.2-27

Figure 5.3-1. Overview Map of AOI Locations on Sawtooth National Forest Land.......G.2-30

Figure 5.3-2. AOI ST-1 Visual Analysis .......................................................................G.2-33

Figure 5.3-3. AOI ST-1 Aerial Map ..............................................................................G.2-34

Figure 5.3-4. AOI ST-2 Sawtooth Central Visual Analysis ...........................................G.2-38

Figure 5.3-5. AOI ST-2 Sawtooth Central Aerial Map ..................................................G.2-39

Figure 5.3-6. Western Portion of Alternative 7H through the Albion Division (ST-2).....G.2-40

Figure 5.3-7. Eastern Portion of Alternative 7H through the Albion Division (ST-2) .....G.2-40

Figure 5.3-8. AOI ST-3 Sawtooth West Visual Analysis...............................................G.2-43

Figure 5.3-9. AOI ST-3 Sawtooth West Aerial Map......................................................G.2-44
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-v 

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

AOI area of inconsistency

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP best management practice

EIS environmental impact statement

Forest Plan Land and Resource Management Plan

Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

FSM Forest Service Manual

Gateway West Gateway West Transmission Line Project

GIS geographic information system

IRA Inventoried Roadless Area

KOP key observation point

kV kilovolt

LRT Linear Routing Tool

MA Management Area

NF National Forest

NFS National Forest System

NHT National Historic Trail

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

Project Gateway West Transmission Line Project

RN Roaded Natural

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

SIO Scenic Integrity Objective

SMS Scenery Management System

SPM Semi-Primitive Motorized

SR State Route

VMS Visual Management System

VQO Visual Quality Objective

WWE West-Wide Energy
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-1 

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

1 INTRODUCTION 

This document provides an analysis of locations where the Gateway West Transmission 

Line Project (Gateway West or Project) may be inconsistent with established scenery 

objectives. This 1,103-mile high-voltage transmission line consists of 10 segments 

between the Windstar Substation at Glenrock, Wyoming, and the Hemingway 

Substation approximately 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho (see Figure 1-1). 

Portions of the proposed transmission line route or an alternative route would cross 

three National Forests (NFs). Effects on scenery are analyzed using Scenic 

Management System (SMS) for the Medicine Bow-Routt NFs and Visual Management 

System (VMS) for the Caribou-Targhee and Sawtooth NFs. The U.S. Department of

Agriculture Forest Service (Forest Service) developed these systems to provide a 

mechanism for inventory and analysis of landscape resources and the effects of land 

management activities on those resources. The SMS was developed to eventually 

replace the VMS and, in October 1996, Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery 

Management (Forest Service 1995) was released to begin the transition to SMS. This 

handbook supersedes the National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2, Chapter 

1: The Visual Management System (issued April 1974). Scenic management criteria 

are described below. 

1.1 Scenic Management System (SMS) 

The SMS entails identifying the landscape character, visual sensitivity, and scenic 

integrity. The SMS was used to evaluate those portions of the proposed Project and an 

alternative route that would cross the Medicine Bow-Routt NFs. The SMS provides an

overall framework for the orderly inventory, analysis, and management of scenery. It is 

a tool for integrating the benefits, values, desires, and preferences regarding aesthetics 

and scenery for all levels of land management planning. The SMS also considers 

Concern Levels, which are a categorization of the importance of scenic resources to 

forest visitors. Three concepts of the SMS are of key importance to the present 

analysis: (1) Scenic Attractiveness, (2) Landscape Character, and (3) Scenic Integrity 

Objectives. These concepts and landscape character are defined below: 

• Scenic Attractiveness is the primary indicator of the scenic importance of a 

landscape based on human perceptions of the intrinsic beauty of landforms, rock 

outcrops and forms, waterforms, vegetation patterns, and cultural features. It 

reflects varying visual perception attributes of variety, unity, vividness, intactness, 

coherence, uniqueness, harmony, balance, and pattern. The frame of reference 

for scenic attractiveness (generally at the section scale) is landscape character. 

Three levels of scenic attractiveness are identified during the scenery inventory 

process: (A) Distinctive, (B) Common or Typical, and (C) Undistinguished (Forest 

Service Manual [FSM] 2380 – Landscape Management).

• Landscape Character is a combination of physical, biological, and cultural 

images that gives an area its visual and cultural identity and helps to define a 

"sense of place.” Landscape character provides a frame of reference from which 

to determine scenic attractiveness and to measure scenic integrity (FSM 2380 – 

Landscape Management).
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-2 

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

Figure 1.1-1. Project Overview 

FIGURE 1-1
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-3 

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

• Scenic Integrity Objectives, referred to as SIOs, define the degrees of 

deviation from the landscape character that occur at any given time by using the 

process described in Agriculture Handbook 701, Landscape Aesthetics: A 

Handbook for Scenery Management (FSM 2380 – Landscape Management). 

When discussing SIOs, the degree of alteration is measured in terms of visual contrast 

with the surrounding natural landscape. The objectives of each SIO classification are 

included below:

• Very High – Management activities, except for very low visual-impact recreation 

facilities, are prohibited. Allows for ecological changes only. The existing 

landscape character and sense of place is expressed at the highest possible 

level. 

• High – Management activities are not visually evident to the casual observer. 

The landscape character appears intact. Deviations may be present but must 

repeat the form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape 

character so completely and at such scale that they are not evident. Changes in 

the qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc., should not be 

evident.

• Moderate – Management activities remain visually subordinate to the 

characteristic landscape being viewed. Activities may repeat form, line, color, or 

texture common to the characteristic landscape but may not change in their 

qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc. 

• Low – Management activities begin to visually dominate the original 

characteristic landscape. However, activities of vegetative and landform 

alteration must borrow from naturally established form, line, color, or texture so 

completely and at such a scale that its visual characteristics are those of natural 

occurrences within the surrounding area or character type. Structures must 

remain visually subordinate to the proposed composition. 

• Very Low – Management activities of vegetative and landform alterations may 

dominate the characteristic landscape. While alterations may not borrow from 

attributes such as size, shape, edge effect, and pattern of natural openings, 

vegetative type changes, or architectural styles within or outside the landscape 

being viewed, they must be shaped and blended with the natural terrain so that 

elements such as unnatural edges, roads, landings, and structures do not 

dominate the composition. 

The SMS system defines four distance zones for project-level planning and to evaluate 

potential visibility:

• Immediate Foreground – At this distance people can distinguish details such as 

individual leaves, flowers, twigs, bark texture, small animals, and can notice the 

movement of leaves and grasses in light wind (from 0 to 300 feet).

• Foreground – At this distance people can distinguish small boughs of leaf 

clusters, tree trunks and large branches, individual shrubs, clumps of wildflowers, 

medium sized animals, and medium-to-large birds. At this distance, people can 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-4 

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

also distinguish movement of tree boughs and tree tops in moderate winds (from 

0 to 0.5 mile). Forms are dominant.

• Middleground – This is the predominant distance zone at which Forest Service 

landscapes are seen, except for regions of flat lands or tall, dense vegetation. At 

this distance, people can distinguish individual tree forms, large boulders, flower 

fields, small openings in the forest, and small rock outcrops. Tree forms typically 

stand out vividly in silhouetted situations. Form, texture, and color remain 

dominant and pattern becomes more visible (from 0.5 to 4 miles). 

• Background – At a background distance, people can distinguish groves or stands 

of trees, large openings in a forest, and large rock outcrops. Texture has 

disappeared and color has flattened, but large patterns of vegetation or rock are 

still distinguishable, and landform ridgelines and horizon lines are the dominant 

visual characteristic (from 4 miles to the horizon). 

The SMS process uses particular ecosystems as the environmental context for 

aesthetics. Ecosystem management broadens understandings of environments by its 

holistic consideration of the physical, biological, and social dimensions of ecosystems. 

The social dimension has many aspects, but one of importance for public lands is 

recreation. A key attribute of recreation is aesthetics. During the inventory process, the 

SMS uses interdisciplinary collaborative knowledge to discuss constituent input, 

landscape character, scenic attractiveness, existing scenic integrity, place attachment, 

concern levels, distance zones, and scenic classes to develop alternatives and achieve 

landscape character goals (SMS, pg. 5-2). 

1.2 Visual Management System

The VMS is used by NFs that have not yet converted to the SMS, such as the CaribouTarghee and Sawtooth NFs. The VMS provides a framework for establishing the visual 

landscape as a basic resource and to treat it as an essential part of the basic quality of 

the land. The Visual Management System identifies a desired level of scenic quality 

and diversity of natural features based on physical and sociological characteristics of an 

area, referred to as Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs). A given VQO quantifies the 

degree of acceptable alterations of the characteristic landscape. A VQO is determined 

by comparing the variety class with the sensitivity level (Bacon 1974). These terms are 

described below. 

• Characteristic Landscape is the naturally established landscape being viewed. 

It visually represents the basic vegetative patterns landforms, rock formations, 

and water forms which are in view. 

• Variety Class designates those landscapes which are most important and those 

which are of lesser value from the standpoint of scenic quality. The classification 

is based on the premise that all landscapes have some value, but those with the 

most variety and diversity have the greatest potential for high scenic quality. 

There are three variety classes: 1) Class A–Distinctive, 2) Class B–Common, 

and 3) Class C–Minimal. 

• Sensitivity Level is a measure of people’s concern for the scenic quality of an 

NF. Sensitivity levels are determined for land areas used by those traveling 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-5 

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

through the forest on developed roads and trails and those using areas such as 

campgrounds, visitor centers, and other recreation areas. There are three 

sensitivity levels: Level I–Highest Sensitivity, Level 2–Average Sensitivity, and 

Level 3–Lowest Sensitivity.

• Distance Zones are divisions of a particular landscape being viewed. The three 

distance zones are: foreground (the area from 0.25 to 0.5 mile from the 

observer), middleground (the area from foreground to 3 to 5 miles from the 

observer), and background (from middleground to infinity).

The VQOs represent the visual resource objectives under the Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plan). The objectives of each VQO classification are listed 

below:

• Preservation – Management activities are generally not allowed in this setting. 

The landscape is allowed to evolve naturally.

• Retention – Management activities are not evident to the casual Forest visitor.

• Partial Retention – Management activities may be evident but are subordinate to 

the characteristic landscape.

• Modification – Management activities may dominate the characteristic landscape 

but will, at the same time, use naturally established form, line, color, and texture. 

It should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed as middleground.

• Maximum Modification – Management activities may dominate the characteristic 

landscape, but should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed as 

background.

2 PROJECT FEATURES AFFECTING THE VISUAL ENVIRONMENT 

2.1 Facility Components 

The Gateway West Project facility components that would affect the visual environment 

include:

• A total of 1,103 miles of transmission lines and associated support structures to 

be constructed, along with 71 miles to be re-conductored. Of this total:

o Approximately 252 miles (1,880 structures) would be single-circuit 230-

kilovolt (kV) steel H-frame structures between 60 and 90 feet tall with a 

700-foot average distance between structures. 

o Approximately 5.5 miles (25 structures) would be single-circuit 345-kV 

steel H-frame structures between 70 and 110 feet tall with a 700-foot 

average distance between structures.

o Approximately 499 miles (2,228 structures) would be single-circuit 500-kV 

lattice steel structures between 145 and 180 feet tall with a 1,200- to 

1,300-foot average distance between structures. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-6 

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

o Approximately 346 miles (1,506 towers) would be double-circuit 500-kV 

lattice structures between 160 and 190 feet tall with a 1,200- to 1,300-foot 

average spans for the Proposed Action. 

o For the Design Variation, approximately 3,012 single-circuit structures 

would be used, replacing 1,506 double-circuit structures.

• The Project would connect 12 substations, 3 of which are new substations to be 

built for this Project. 

• Ancillary facilities such as up to 16-foot-wide construction roads and 8-foot-wide 

service roads would be necessary along the transmission line routes. Temporary 

construction staging areas, regeneration stations, power supply to new 

substations, and other similar facilities would also be visible in the construction 

and operations phases of the Project. 

• The Proponents propose to acquire a ROW up to 300 feet wide for construction 

and operation of the double-circuit 500-kV sections of the Project, a 250-footwide ROW for the 500-kV single-circuit sections of the Project, and a 125-footwide ROW for the 230-kV single-circuit sections of the Project.

• The Proponents have proposed a Design Variation that involves two single 

circuits instead of one double circuit for Segments 2, 3, and 4.

• The Proponents have proposed a Structure Variation that involves a single-circuit 

guyed structure in place of the self-supporting lattice structure in areas where 

directional changes could result in lateral forces requiring the additional 

directional support of guy wires. 

Table 2.1-1 describes aspects of the primary proposed structures that would affect the 

visual environment. 

Within the Medicine Bow-Routt NFs, the proposed transmission line and an alternative 

route cross an area with an Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) of Moderate. Within the 

Caribou-Targhee NF, the proposed transmission line crosses areas with Retention and 

Partial Retention VQOs. Within the Sawtooth NF, alternative routes for the transmission 

line cross areas with Partial Retention VQOs. The presence of the transmission line in 

sensitive visual classes is inconsistent with Forest Plan visual management objectives. 

Therefore, locations with incursions into these sensitive visual classes were identified as 

areas of inconsistencies (AOIs).

This appendix reviews each of the AOIs: one in Medicine Bow-Routt NFs, one in 

Caribou-Targhee NF, and three in Sawtooth NF. It provides background such as the 

justification for the route location, reasons the route cannot avoid the sensitive visual 

class, and other features that may be affected if the line were placed in a different 

location. Visual analyses were conducted at each AOI to estimate the area of impact. 

These analyses can be used to assist the NFs in identifying actions that would be 

necessary to bring the transmission line project into conformance with their Forest 

Plans. Best management practices (BMPs) for tower design and locations would be 

applied to reduce Forest Plan inconsistencies as much as possible.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-7 

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

Table 2.1-1. Primary Transmission Structures – Visual Description

Project Facility Description

Transmission Line Segments

Transmission Line Features 

Common to All Proposed 500-

kV Segments

 

Example single- and doublecircuit structures 

• Conductors: Bundled with three subconductors per phase. 

Non-specular (dull) finish rather than a shiny finish.

• Estimated subconductor diameter: 1.504 inches.

• Bundle spacing: Distance between subconductors is 18 

inches and 25 inches.

• Typical ground clearance: 35 feet.

• Structure types: lattice steel single and double circuit 

structures. Dulled galvanized steel finish.

• Structure heights: Single-circuit structure varies between 

145 and 180 feet. Average height of 156 feet.

• Structure heights: Double-circuit structure varies between 

160 and 190 feet. Average height of 170 feet.

• Approximate distance between structures: 1,200 to 1,300 

feet.

• ROW width for double-circuit: 300 feet, ROW width for 

single-circuit: 250 feet.

Transmission Line Features 

Common to All Proposed 230-

kV Segments

Example single-circuit 

structure

• Conductors: Bundled with two subconductors per phase. 

Non-specular finish.

• Estimated subconductor diameter: 1.196 inches.

• Bundle spacing: 18 inches vertical.

• Typical ground clearance: 28 feet.

• Structure types: steel H-frame structures.

• Above-ground structure heights: varies between 60 and 90 

feet.

• Approximate distance between structures: 700 feet.

• ROW width: 125 feet.

There are three likely scenarios available to the NFs. For some AOIs, the Forest Plan 

may be amended to make the Project consistent with the visual management class 

objectives. In other cases, an NF may grant a one-time exemption to the visual 

management requirements to construct the transmission line, knowing the Proponents 

will construct the line using the mitigation measures described in Section 2.2 to 

minimize visual effects, and understanding that many other environmental constraints 

were also analyzed in determining the location of the transmission line. Lastly, the NF 

may decide that the transmission line in an AOI is incompatible with visual objectives, 

and the visual resources are so valued that the National Environmental Policy Act 

environmental impact statement (EIS) process may be used to develop an alternative 

line location. 

2.2 Project-wide Visual Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Proponents 

The Proponents have incorporated three mitigation measures into the Project to reduce 

visual impacts: 

1. Transmission towers would be constructed of dulled galvanized steel. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-8 

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

2. Non-specular (dull appearance) transmission line conductors would be used. 

3. Self-weathering steel pole H-frame structures would be used in Segment 1 and in 

certain visually sensitive areas.

3 STUDY ASSUMPTIONS

It is assumed that AOIs in several areas may require an amendment to a Forest Plan to 

address the proposed Project’s nonconformance with visual class objectives. It is not 

expected that design elements and/or other mitigation measures intended to reduce 

impacts would reduce visual contrast to a level consistent with an area’s visual class.

For the purpose of this study, certain assumptions have been made as detailed below:

• Within the Medicine Bow-Routt NFs, the proposed transmission line and an 

alternative route would cross an area with an SIO of Moderate. The Project 

would be inconsistent with an SIO of Moderate. 

• Within the Caribou-Targhee NF, the proposed transmission line crosses areas 

with Retention and Partial Retention VQOs. The Project would be inconsistent 

with these VQOs. 

• Within the Sawtooth NF, alternative routes for the transmission line cross areas 

with Maximum Modification, Modification, and Partial Retention VQOs. A 

transmission line would be inconsistent with the Modification and Partial 

Retention VQOs. 

• Direction for considering visual resource values stated in Forest Plans was taken 

into consideration. Where absent or general in nature, the management direction 

provided in FSM 2380, Landscape Management, was considered. 

• The AOI analysis area covered up to 15 miles from either side of the centerline of 

the Proposed Route and Route Alternatives. 

4 PROJECT-WIDE ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT 

During transmission line siting, sensitive visual classifications were avoided where 

possible. When feasible, the routes also avoided historic trails and monuments, wildlife 

refuges, state or federal parks or monuments, prominent peaks, and populated areas 

where either the viewshed was either valued or lines were in view of large population 

centers. Ground disturbances necessary for construction would be reclaimed and 

restored to a natural condition as soon as possible. The use of guy wires was avoided 

where possible, with the exception of transmission line directional changes where forces 

would require additional directional support.

Constraints analyses have been used for the Gateway West Project to assist in siting 

the transmission line Proposed Route and Route Alternatives. In the initial phase, the 

Proponents attempted to locate the routes between required interconnection points 

(substations) using a comprehensive set of avoidance and opportunity criteria. Using 

this information, the Proponents initially identified, evaluated, and compared alternative 

corridors for each of the 10 segments. A Proposed Route was selected and alternative 

corridors were also evaluated for each segment. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-9 

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

Two general approaches were used to identify and evaluate alternative routes and 

select the Proposed Route and Route Alternatives carried forward for detailed study for 

each segment.

1. In proposed and established utility corridors1 such as the Section 368 Energy Act 

Draft West-wide Energy (WWE) corridor or Bureau of Land Management– (BLM) 

and Forest Service–designated utility corridors, and/or where existing 

transmission lines exist, analyses were completed to characterize the resources 

present in the areas crossed by the corridors and to determine if use of such 

corridors would result in significant environmental effects. A combination of 

constraint mapping, stakeholder input, and field reconnaissance was used to 

confirm the use of existing or planned corridors. In several cases, new routes 

deviating from the existing or planned corridors were proposed because of 

adjacent environmental constraints such as sage-grouse leks, historic features, 

raptor nests, and oil and gas wells.

2. Where no existing or planned corridors existed, a geographic information system 

(GIS) computer analysis (Linear Routing Tool [LRT]) was used to identify initial 

corridors for further evaluation. Using data from numerous public sources, the 

LRT was used to develop alternative transmission line corridors by considering 

both routing constraints and opportunities. Constraints are defined as resources 

or conditions that potentially limit transmission line routing because they 

negatively affect natural resource features or economic factors. Opportunities 

are defined as resources or conditions that are favorable to facility construction 

or operation because of their characteristics.

Opportunities included, but were not limited to, WWE corridors, BLM- or Forest Service–

designated utility corridors, and existing transmission lines energized to at least 230 kV. 

Many constraints were considered; the list included railroads, pipelines, major streets or 

highways, state and national parks, wildlife refuges, BLM Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern, Wilderness Study Areas, Department of Defense land, Bureau 

of Indian Affairs land or reservations, prime farmland, irrigated agriculture, confined 

animal feeding operations or dairies, airports, residences, cities and towns, oil and gas 

wells and leases, surface and underground mining, erodible soils, geologic hazards, 

steep slopes, paleontological or historical resources, and wetlands and floodplains. A 

wide variety of plant and animal concerns was also considered, including plant and 

animal species of concern, sensitive fisheries, sage-grouse leks and core areas, raptor 

nests, designated big game winter and parturition ranges, and wild horse and burro 

management areas. Visual considerations included Forest Service SIO Classes 

moderate, high and very high; Forest Service VQO classes Preservation, Retention, 

and Partial Retention; scenic overlooks; scenic highways; federally designated scenic 

areas; and state and local scenic byways. Following selection of Proposed and 

 

1 In order to achieve the capacity rating needed to serve present and future loads within the Companies’ service area, 

the Western Electricity Coordinating Council requires a minimum separation from existing transmission lines that 

serve substantially the same load as that served by each of the new Gateway West transmission segments. As 

described in the Plan of Development, that minimum separation depends on the purpose of the existing line, the load 

it now serves, and the remaining capacity of the rest of the grid to absorb the load if the several co-located lines fail at 

once. For the purposes of the initial siting study, the longest span was assumed to be 1,500 feet, thereby dictating the 

minimum distance between existing and proposed transmission lines serving the same load.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-10

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

Alternative Routes via the LRT process, the alternatives were further refined by 

reviewing aerial photography and topographic maps or on the basis of important input 

received from stakeholders, field reconnaissance, and other sources. The lead federal 

agency (BLM) evaluated the routes, made adjustments, and added additional routes to 

minimize impacts. Later cooperators and other stakeholders identified other routes, 

often to accomplish single-purpose objectives that did not include avoidance of sensitive 

visual classes. Taking all of the various constraints and opportunities into 

consideration, crossing of visually sensitive lands could not be completely avoided 

across the entire Project. Section 5 describes each AOI and provides 

recommendations for Forest Service action for the Project to remain consistent with 

Forest Service visual objectives.

5 AREAS OF INCONSISTENCY

This section of the report summarizes the conditions for each AOI. It is organized by 

NF and individual AOI. Each AOI discussion includes a summary of the applicable 

Forest Plan and any visual considerations described in the Plan. The route segments 

and alternatives are then described by location and include the opportunities and 

constraints used to determine the Proposed Route locations and the locations and 

justification for any Route Alternatives. Site maps are introduced showing the 

distribution of visual classes and a visual analysis conducted for an area within a 15-

mile radius of the AOI. The general discussion is followed by a summary of the existing 

landscape conditions that support the visual class designations. The last section of each 

AOI discussion is a consistency analysis describing the results of the analysis and the 

degree to which the AOI is consistent with or differs from the visual class objective. The 

consistency analysis also provides a recommendation for a Forest Service action 

(Forest Plan amendment or one-time exemption) to resolve each AOI.

The Gateway West Proposed Route or Route Alternatives would require Forest Service 

actions to account for visual impacts in areas within three different NFs. Transmission 

line Segments 1E and 1W of the Proposed Route and Alternative 1E-C (Figure 1-1) 

cross land within the Medicine Bow-Routt NFs. One AOI is located on Segments 1E 

and 1W and Alternative 1E-C. Segments 2 and 3 do not cross National Forest System 

(NFS) land. Segment 4 of the Proposed Route crosses the Caribou-Targhee NF and 

Alternatives 7H and 7I to the Segment 7 Proposed Route cross the Sawtooth NF. 

Segments 4 and 7 contain a total of four AOIs. Segments 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 do not 

cross NFS lands. Table 5-1 lists AOIs by Forest Plan and visual management class.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-11

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

Table 5-1. Forest Plan Areas of Inconsistency

Forest 

Plan Area AOI

Route Segment/Tower 

Height (feet)

SIO/VQO 

Crossed

Simulation 

(S) or 

Photos (P)

KOP 

No.

Medicine 

Bow 

Forest 

Plan

Medicine Bow MB-1 

Proposed Route 1E 

(90)

Proposed Route 1W(a) 

(90)

Proposed Route 1W(c) 

(90)

Alternative 1E-C (90)

Moderate Yes 1051/

Caribou 

Forest 

Plan

Caribou CB-1 Proposed Route 4 

(190)

Retention/ 

Partial 

Retention

Yes 1346

Sawtooth 

Forest 

Plan

Sublett 

Division ST-1 Alternative 7H (190)

Alternative 7I (190) Modification Yes 1273

Albion 

Mountain 

Division 

ST-2 Alternative 7H (190)

Modification/ 

Partial 

Retention

Yes 1234

Cassia 

Division ST-3 Alternative 7I (190)

Modification/ 

Partial 

Retention

Yes 1079

1/ Key observation point (KOP) is south of National Forest boundary. No KOP was established on the Forest due to 

lack of access.

AOI – Area of Inconsistency

SIO – Scenic Integrity Objective

VQO – Visual Quality Objective
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-12

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

5.1 Medicine Bow National Forest Plan

The Medicine Bow-Routt NFs maintain separate management plans for each 

proclaimed NF. The Medicine Bow Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

(2003) (Medicine Bow Forest Plan) provides direction for managing public lands under 

the jurisdiction of the Medicine Bow NF in southeast Wyoming. The Forest Plan guides 

activities on 1,084,390 acres within parts of Albany, Carbon, Converse, Laramie, and 

Platte Counties, Wyoming (see Figure 1.1-1). Route segments within the Medicine 

Bow-Routt NFs are 1E and 1W and Alternative 1E-C. The Forest Plan includes 

Scenery Management Standards and Guidelines, including the following:

Management Standards:

1. Apply the SMS to all NFS lands. Travel routes, use areas, and water bodies 

determined to be of primary importance are concern level 1, and appropriate 

scenic integrity objectives are established according to the SMS. 

2. Meet the SIO of Moderate within the foreground for all National Scenic and 

Recreation Trails. 

Guidelines:

1. When rehabilitating projects and areas that do not meet SIOs specified for 

each management area prescription, consider the following when setting 

priorities for rehabilitation: 

a. Relative importance of the area and the amount of deviation from the 

scenic integrity objectives.

b. Length of time it will take natural processes to reduce the scenic impacts 

so they meet the scenic integrity objective.

c. Length of time it will take rehabilitation measures to meet the scenic 

integrity objective.

d. Benefits to other resource management objectives to accomplish 

rehabilitation.

2. Meet the scenic integrity objectives of High and Moderate within 1 year after 

completion of a project. Meet the scenic integrity objective of Low within 3 

years after project completion. 

The Medicine Bow Forest Plan includes guidelines for utility corridors to minimize scenic 

impacts and plan for rehabilitation of existing impacts. These include: 

• Locate and design utility corridors and electronic sites to blend with the 

landscape and be compatible with SIOs in adjacent management areas.

• Crossing the Medicine Bow NF along a transmission corridor shall require the 

preparation of a vegetation management plan for the utility corridor to minimize 

scenic impacts and plan for rehabilitation of existing impacts. 

The NF has recommended the following measures to reduce contrast: feathering the 

edges on cleared areas to provide a more natural appearance, using towers similar to the 

existing structures, and using non-reflective materials for the towers. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-13

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

The Medicine Bow Forest Plan discusses the SMS as applying to all NFS lands. Travel 

routes, use areas, and waterbodies determined to be of primary importance are concern 

level 1 and appropriate SIOs are established according to the SMS. Guidelines also 

include meeting the SIO of Moderate within the foreground for all National Scenic and 

Recreation Trails. The Medicine Bow NF uses Geographic Areas to create focal points 

for implementing forest plan decisions based on ecological assessments at various 

levels in collaboration with other land managers. The Geographic Area on the western 

side of the NF crossed by proposed Project is managed as the Box Elder Geographic 

Area, which is considered remote and primitive. The Management Area (MA) 

prescription for this portion of the Box Elder Geographic Area is 3.31, Backcountry 

Recreation-Year-round Motorized, with the exception of the area adjacent to the existing 

230-kV transmission line, which is MA 8.3, Utility Corridor. 

The northern portions of Segments 1E and 1W consist of single-circuit 230-kV 

transmission lines between the existing Windstar Substation near the Dave Johnston 

Power Plant at Glenrock, Wyoming, and the planned Aeolus Substation near Hanna, 

Wyoming. Proposed Route 1W, a portion of Proposed Route 1E, and Alternative 1E-C 

parallel an existing transmission line. The Proponents proposed to rebuild the existing 

line (portions of Proposed Route Segment 1W[a] and Proposed Route Segment 1W[c]). 

The distance between the substations is approximately 75 to 80 miles. Certain factors, 

such as following the existing WWE corridor, minimizing the length of the lines, avoiding 

large population centers, and locating within favorable topography, were considerations 

for this area. Specific constraints within these three segments that affected the route 

locations included big game crucial winter range, National Historic Trails (NHTs), raptor 

nest sites, avoidance of sensitive visual resources, sage-grouse leks and sage-grouse 

core areas, oil and gas wells, large private landholders who placed high values on the 

natural scenery, and threatened or endangered plants and animals. 

Visual classifications in the Forest Plan would be affected by this Project. An area with 

a Moderate SIO would be crossed by the Proposed Routes of Segments 1E and 1W 

and Alternative 1E-C. The presence of additional transmission lines in this landscape 

would not meet the designated SIO. As a result, Forest Service action would be 

necessary to modify the visual classification or approve a one-time exemption in order 

for 1E or 1E-C and 1W(c) to be consistent with the Forest Plan. Figure 5.1-1 shows the 

location of the AOI described in Section 5.1.1 below.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-14

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.1-1. AOI Location for the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-15

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

5.1.1 AOI MB-1 Medicine Bow (Segments 1W[a],1W[c], 1E, and Alternative 1E-C)

AOI MB-1 is located approximately 30 to 35 miles south-southwest of the Windstar 

Substation near the Dave Johnston Power Plant at Glenrock, Wyoming. The three 

Project segments and one alternative cross approximately 2.3 miles of the NF, which is 

designated for management as SIO Moderate. Segment 1E is the easternmost 

segment. It travels southwest for about 1.8 miles, then turns to the southeast for 1 mile 

before leaving the NF. Segment 1W(c) is located west of Segment 1E within an existing 

transmission line corridor, separated from the other lines by approximately 1,500 feet, a 

distance selected to ensure reliability, as guided by the Western Electricity Coordinating 

Council. Segment 1W(c) does not turn and crosses the NF from northeast to 

southwest. Segment 1W(a), a rebuild of an existing transmission line in this location, 

parallels 1W(c) about 1,500 feet to the west, and Segment 1E-C parallels 1W(a) about 

1,500 feet to the west. Segments 1W(a) and 1W(c) are located within the WWE 

corridor. Segment 1E and Alternative 1E-C parallel the WWE corridor to the east and 

west, respectively.

Segments 1W(a) and 1W(c) would cross NFS land on the Medicine Bow-Routt NFs 

designated as MA 8.3, Utility Corridors and Electronic Sites. Crossing lengths are 2.3 

miles for each route. The utility corridor has an SIO of “compatible with adjacent 

management areas.” The adjacent area has an SIO of Moderate; therefore, a new 

transmission line within the WWE corridor would not be consistent with Forest Plan 

direction on scenery management. 

Segment 1E and Alternative 1E-C would cross NFS land designated as MA 3.31, 

Backcountry Recreation, Year-Round Motorized, which has an SIO of Moderate; 

therefore, neither of these routes would be consistent with Forest Plan direction. 

Crossing lengths are 2.8 and 1.3 miles, respectively. The objectives of MA 3.31 require 

the preparation of a vegetation management plan for the utility corridor to minimize 

scenic impacts and plan for rehabilitation of existing impacts. 

The area is not visible from any developed recreation area or travelway. Existing roads 

are closed to the public. Any new roads would also be closed. The borders of the 

cleared right-of-way would be feathered to create a more natural-appearing line, as 

required by the Forest Plan. The towers would also be made of material that, over time, 

becomes non-reflective. New towers would be similar to the existing towers to reduce 

contrast. However, the portions of the Proposed Routes and one Route Alternative that 

are within the NF would still be inconsistent with the SIO of Moderate. 

Figure 5.1-3 shows the viewshed of the Medicine Bow AOI. The crossing of this AOI 

includes one parcel designated SIO Moderate comprising 5,814 acres.

5.1.1.1 Alternatives Considered

Several routes between Windstar and Aeolus were considered, including three 

proposed routes and four feasible alternatives. In the area of the AOI MB-1, the routes 

are in, or parallel to, the WWE corridor. Proposed Route 1E deviates from the WWE 

corridor for part of the route. Alternative 1E-C was developed to avoid a new 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-16

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

Greenfield2 route. Current Forest policy suggests that WWE corridor routes are often 

preferred utility routes, although other constraints may take precedence over the WWE 

corridor. Siting routes within corridors of existing routes can also be preferred locations 

although the environmental consequences from the reliability separation sometimes 

results in more effects than if a new route were selected. During the siting process, the 

Proponents attempted to follow the WWE corridor unless fewer environmental and other 

impacts would occur along an alternative route.

Several routes, including routes to the east of the Laramie Mountains and near the 

Thunder Basin National Grassland, were considered and eliminated by the Proponents 

because of scenic concerns and public opposition to development of a new Greenfield 

route. The remaining alternatives, for the most part, avoid mountainous areas but have 

remaining issues including avoidance of raptor nests and roosting areas near the North 

Platte and Medicine Bow Rivers, sage-grouse leks and sage-grouse core areas, historic 

Rock Creek to Fort Fetterman Road, active mining claims, and the Medicine Bow-Routt 

NFs.

5.1.1.2 Existing Landscape Conditions 

There is little development in the 15-mile area surrounding AOI MB-1 and much of the 

area is mountainous, containing the Laramie Mountains, Casper Mountain, and the 

Deer Creek Range. The topography flattens out southwest of the AOI, near Bates 

Creek Reservoir. There are many creeks throughout the 15-mile radius. Forests are 

found mostly in the more mountainous areas especially in the Medicine Bow-Routt NFs. 

State Route (SR) 487 is the most significant road in the area and the Old Casper 

Medicine Bow Highway crosses the area from northwest to southeast. An existing 230-

kV line crosses the area from northeast to southwest and a large strip mining area lies 

in the south-central portion of the area. Potential sensitive viewers include local 

residents, motorists, hikers, and visitors to local recreation areas and historic sites.

5.1.1.3 Analysis

Figure 5.1-3 shows the viewshed, AOI, and other features within the 15-mile radius 

study area used in evaluating the consistency of the proposed transmission facilities 

with the existing landscape and visual classification. Figure MB-1b in Attachment A is a 

simulation showing the transmission lines on the existing landscape.

Scenic views west of the Deer Creek Range and Reno Hill are important to sensitive 

viewers in this remote area of the Medicine Bow-Routt NFs. There were no Key 

Observation Points (KOPs) identified due to the remote nature of the area; however, 

views in the surrounding area range from the undulating valley to more dramatic rocky 

terrain with numerous mountain silhouettes. KOP 105 (Figures MB-1a and MB-1b in 

Attachment A) is located approximately 2.5 miles south of the Medicine Bow-Routt NFs 

boundary but represents views of the surrounding areas adjacent to the forest. KOP 

105 and other adjacent viewpoints exhibit diversity in form, line, color, and texture with 

 

2 “Greenfield” is defined herein to mean a geographic area where no transmission electric lines or other linear 

infrastructure such as major roads or pipelines, etc. oriented in the same direction of the proposed transmission line 

exist.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-17

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

few man-made features. The most visible man-made feature in the surrounding area is 

an existing 230-kV transmission line. This existing high-voltage transmission line is 

where the proposed Alternative 1W-C would be located. Proposed Route Segments 

1W(a), 1W(c), and 1E and Alternative 1E-C would be moderately visible and screening 

and other mitigation efforts would not be successful at lowering impacts to scenic 

resources in the surrounding area. With little man-made development in the area, the 

structures would have a moderate to high contrast due to backdropping effects offered 

by the high relief terrain. Many of the views in the surrounding area exhibit a high level 

of variety in form line, color, and texture, which would be contrasted by the addition of 

new man-made structures and access roads to the existing structures. Due to the new 

alignments paralleling an existing transmission line, it may be appropriate to widen the 

existing utility corridor and manage all three alignments as MA 8.3, Utility Corridor. An 

amendment would be needed to allow the Project to be built in an area with a Moderate 

SIO, as well as to change the management prescription to 8.3. Figure 5.1-3 shows the 

AOI and proposed amendment management action. The Project, if approved, would be 

constructed with mitigation measures and BMPs used to lower potential direct impacts 

to visual resources (see Table 2.7-1 in the Draft EIS).
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-18

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.1-2. AOI MB-1 Aerial View
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-19

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.1-3. AOI MB-1 Medicine Bow AOI Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-20

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

5.2 Caribou National Forest Plan

The Caribou-Targhee NF maintains separate management plans for each proclaimed 

NF. The Revised Forest Plan for the Caribou NF (2003; Caribou Forest Plan) provides 

direction for managing public lands under the jurisdiction of the Caribou NF in southeast 

Idaho. The Caribou NF encompasses nearly 1,000,000 acres (see Figure 1.1-1). The 

Forest Plan contains the following visual objective: “Objectives for scenery (either VQOs 

or SIOs) shall be met along Scenic or Historic Byways, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and 

other sensitive travel routes and special emphasis areas.”

Segment 4 is a 203-mile route for a double-circuit 500-kV line that originates at the 

Anticline 500-kV substation northeast of Rock Springs, Wyoming, and terminates at the 

Populus Substation in Bannock County, Idaho. This segment generally follows an 

existing transmission line corridor. A feasible alternative that is being considered would 

be two adjacent single-circuit 500-kV lines instead of the double circuit line. 

Where practical, the proposed double-circuit 500-kV line was routed to follow existing 

345-kV transmission lines (with a 1,500-foot centerline offset from the nearest existing 

line). Where the existing transmission corridor could not be followed due to resource 

concerns such as sage-grouse leks, oil and gas wells, raptor nests, and historic trails, 

deviations or refinements were incorporated into the alignments. Segment 4 contains 

six feasible Route Alternatives in southwest Wyoming and none in Idaho. The route 

location is restricted by the location of Populus Substation, and the Bear River and Bear 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). The primary siting opportunity in this area is the 

existing 345-kV transmission line corridor and the existing NF utility corridor. 

Constraints in this area include the community of Montpelier, the Bear Lake County 

airport, Bear Lake NWR, wetlands and waterbodies, agricultural lands, the Bear River, 

designated big game winter habitat, and local development, including residences.

As the east-west route crosses the Bear River Range, VQO Partial Retention and VQO 

Retention lands are crossed. The presence of a transmission line in these landscapes 

would not meet the designated VQOs. Because of the impact the Project would have 

on visual attributes of the Caribou NF, action would be necessary to modify the visual 

classification or approve a one-time exemption to be consistent with the Forest Plan. 

Figure 5.2-1 shows the location of the AOI and a description and management 

recommendation follow. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-21

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.2-1. Caribou-Targhee National Forest AOI Location
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-22

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

Below are photographs of existing transmission lines that cross the Caribou-Targhee 

NF. These lines are approximately 40 years old and lie roughly 1 mile south of the 

Proposed Route. These photographs demonstrate potential visual impacts from 

Gateway West as seen from foreground and middleground perspectives (Figures 5.2-2, 

5.2-3, and 5.2-4).

Figure 5.2-2. Existing Transmission Lines in the Caribou NF, Viewed from Within the 

Right-of-Way (a distance of zero)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-23

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.2-3. Existing Transmission Lines in the Caribou-Targhee NF, Visible in the 

Foreground to Middleground (approximately 0.5 mile away)

Figure 5.2-4. Existing Transmission Lines in the Caribou-Targhee NF, Visible in the 

Middleground (less than 5 miles away)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-24

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

5.2.1 AOI CB-1 Caribou (Segment 4)

The Caribou AOI is located in the north-south trending Bear River Mountain Range, 

approximately 17 miles south of Soda Springs, Idaho. Segment 4 crosses the Bear 

River Valley from southeast to northwest, following the existing 345-kV transmission 

line. The route turns to the west to cross the Bear River Range. The lower slopes on 

the east and west side of the range are designated as VQO Partial Retention, and the 

route crosses a total of 8.0 miles in this visual classification. The central top of the 

range is designated as visual class VQO Retention, which the route crosses for 

1.3 miles. Figure 5.2-5 shows the location of the Caribou AOI. 

5.2.1.1 Alternatives Considered

Segment 4 has six Route Alternatives, almost entirely within the Kemmerer area in 

proximity to sensitive landscape elements such as the Cokeville Meadows NWR and 

Fossil Butte National Monument in Lincoln County, Wyoming. However, there are no 

route alternatives through the Caribou-Targhee NF. No small route adjustments were 

identified that would avoid the sensitive visual areas. Partial Retention and Retention 

land are found in the Bear River Range for several miles to the north and south of the 

Proposed Route. The Proponents selected a route that roughly follows the two existing 

345-kV lines near the designated utility corridor, which also cross the sensitive visual 

classes. The existing corridor is 315 feet wide, which is too narrow to also contain the 

proposed Gateway West transmission line. Other constraints include wetlands, NWRs, 

and residential development located in the Bear River Valley, east of the AOI.

5.2.1.2 Existing Landscape Conditions

The 15-mile study area for AOI CB-1 includes three groups of mountains running north 

to south separated by several valleys. The mountains include the Aspen and Pruess 

Ranges in the east, the Wassatch and Bear River Ranges in the central part of the area, 

and the Portneuf Range in the west. The Gem, Gentile, Bear Lake, Bear River, and 

Mound Valleys are found along the course of the Bear River. There is considerable 

agricultural land and farms in these valleys; the major roads U.S. Highway 30, U.S. 

Highway 89, and SR 34; and small communities including Grace in the northwest, 

Montpelier and Ovid in the southeast, Bern in the east, Thatcher in the southwest, and 

Georgetown in the northeast. Much of the mountainous areas are part of the Caribou 

and Cache NFs. There are also three east-west transmission line corridors and two 

north-south transmission lines that cross the analysis area. Sensitive viewing areas 

include the local communities, highways and roads, camping areas, hiking trails, the 

Oregon NHT, the Bear Lake NWR, and Bear Lake State Park.

5.2.1.3 Analysis

Figure 5.2-5 shows the viewshed, AOI, and other features within the 15-mile radius 

study area used in evaluating the consistency of the proposed 500-kV transmission 

facilities with the existing landscape and Class II VQOs. Figure CB-1b in Attachment A 

is a simulation showing the transmission lines on the existing landscape.

Scenic views of the Bear River and Wasatch Ranges are important to sensitive viewers 

hiking the Highline Trail in this primitive and remote area of the Caribou-Targhee NF. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-25

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

These sensitive views are represented by KOP 1346 (Figure CB-1a in Attachment A), 

which displays views ranging from undulating valleys to more dramatic rocky terrain and 

mountain silhouettes with dominant rugged, vertical vegetation. Views in the 

surrounding area exhibit diversity in form, line, color, and texture with man-made 

features adjacent to the view. Segment 4 of the proposed Project would be moderately 

to highly visible. Micrositing to take advantage of topographic and vegetative screening 

and other mitigation efforts would only slightly lower impacts to scenic resources in the 

surrounding area.

With little man-made development in close proximity to the Proposed Route, the 

structures would contrast highly with the surrounding dense vegetation. Figure CB-1b 

(Attachment A) shows a visual simulation of the proposed transmission facilities as 

viewed from KOP 1346. Many of the views in the surrounding area exhibit a high level 

of variety in form, line, color, and texture that would be contrasted by the addition of new 

man-made structures and access roads. These would draw the attention of the casual 

observer and thus not conform to the VQO of Retention or Partial Retention. The VQO 

for Retention and Partial Retention was identified to protect the scenic quality of the 

Highline Trail; however, three transmission lines currently cross through the Retention 

and Partial Retention areas. A Project-level plan amendment changing the land 

classification for the Project right-of-way to MA 8.1, Utility Corridor, is recommended. 

The Project would be permitted as a visually altering action without changing the VQO 

designation (see Figure 5.2-6). The Project, if approved, would be constructed with 

mitigation measures and BMPs used to lower potential direct impacts to visual 

resources (see Table 2.7-1 in the Draft EIS).
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-26

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.2-5. AOI CB-1 Caribou Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-27

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.2-6. AOI CB-1 Caribou AOI Aerial Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-28

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

5.3 Sawtooth National Forest

The Sawtooth National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (2003) 

(Sawtooth Forest Plan) provides direction for managing approximately 2.1 million acres 

of public lands under the jurisdiction of the Sawtooth NF (see Figure 1.1-1). The 

Sawtooth Forest Plan lists two decisions related to the management of the scenic 

environment. Decision SCST01 states: “All projects shall be designed to meet the 

adopted Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) as displayed on the Forest VQO map.” 

Decision SCST02 states: “When reducing VQOs, attempt to meet the next-highest 

objective at the closest viewer distance or most relevant distance given the probable 

sensitive viewer.”

The Segment 7 Proposed Route consists of 118.1 miles of single-circuit 500-kV 

transmission line. It leaves Populus Substation and proceeds northwest for about 15 

miles, following existing transmission lines and Segment 5 before turning due west and 

proceeding through about 103 miles of mainly private irrigated agriculture to the Cedar 

Hill Substation. There is significant local opposition to the Proposed Route due to its 

proximity to residences. There are also potential economic effects on local agricultural 

including loss of prime farmland and Conservation Reserve Program land, disruption to 

existing crops and surface irrigation patterns, interference with center pivot irrigation, 

and potential electrical effects on confined animal feeding operations. As a result, a 

multi-county task force consisting of residents, county officials, and state legislators has 

recommended alternatives well south of the Proposed Route, mainly on BLM-managed 

or NFS land. Constraints in the southern alternatives include high quality forested land, 

historic trails, wetlands, steep slopes, designated big game range, sage-grouse, and 

raptor nests.

The Segment 7 Proposed Route does not cross NFS land. However, two feasible 

alternatives, Alternative 7H and Alternative 7I/7J, would cross areas with a VQO of 

Modification and Partial Retention on NFS land.

Alternative 7H crosses two divisions of the Sawtooth NF, the Sublett and Albion 

Mountain Divisions, for a total distance of 11.4 miles. The Project also proposes to use 

existing roads that cross the northwestern edge of the Black Pine Division. This 

alternative crosses 7.2 miles of NFS lands allocated to MA 6.1, Restoration and 

Maintenance Emphasis within Shrubland and Grassland Landscapes; 2.7 miles of land 

allocated to MA 4.2, Roaded Recreation Emphasis; and 1.5 miles allocated to MA 5.1, 

Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Forested Landscapes. Alternative 7H 

would cross between the Mount Harrison and Cache Peak Inventoried Roadless Areas 

(IRAs). Siting opportunities in this area are limited due to Alternative 7H being located 

within a canyon access area bordered on the north and south by IRAs. The 

Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) for this area is listed as Roaded Natural

(RN), which is described as a natural-appearing setting that may have modifications 

ranging from being easily noticed to strongly dominant to observers within the area.

Alternative 7I/7J crosses two divisions of the Sawtooth NF, the Sublett Division and the 

western edge of the Cassia Division, for a total distance of 29.6 miles. As with 

Alternative 7H, the Project also proposes to use existing roads that cross the 

northwestern edge of the Black Pine Division. Alternatives 7H, 7I, and 7J share the 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-29

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

same alignment where they cross the Sublett Division and pass within 0.5 mile of the 

Black Pine Division. Alternative 7I crosses 25 miles of NFS lands allocated to the MA 

6.1, Restoration and Maintenance Emphasis within Shrubland and Grassland 

Landscapes, and 2.7 miles allocated to MA 4.2, Roaded Recreation Emphasis.

Should either Alternative 7H, 7I, or 7J be approved, the transmission line would affect 

AOIs that are managed as VQO Modification and VQO Partial Retention. As a result, 

Forest Service action would be necessary to modify the visual classification or approve 

a one-time allowance to be consistent with the Forest Plan. The AOIs are shown in 

Figure 5.3-1 and described in Sections 5.3.1 through 5.3.3, below. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-30

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.3-1. Overview Map of AOI Locations on Sawtooth National Forest Land
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-31

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

5.3.1 AOI ST-1 Sublett (Alternative 7H, Alternative 7I, and Alternative 7J)

AOI ST-1 is located in the southwest corner of Power County, Idaho. Alternatives 7H, 

7I, and 7J are coincident for the first 57 miles of their alignment. At milepost 37.9, the 

routes enter the Sublett portion of the Sawtooth NF, turning to the southwest. This 

results in the alternatives crossing approximately 4.0 miles of NFS land managed as 

VQO Modification. The presence of the proposed transmission line in these landscapes 

would not meet the designated VQOs. As a result, Forest Service action would be 

necessary to modify the visual classification or approve a one-time allowance to be 

consistent with the Forest Plan. 

5.3.1.1 Existing Landscape Conditions

A large percentage of the area around AOI ST-1 is undeveloped. In the northeast lie 

the Deep Creek Mountains, in the central part of the area is the Sublett Range, and the 

Black Pine Mountains are in the southwest. Farms and farmland are found in the Raft 

River Valley to the west, Juniper Valley to the south, and Rockland Valley to the east. 

Forests are found in the more mountainous areas, especially in the Sawtooth NF. 

Interstate 84, the primary road in the 15-mile area around AOI ST-1, extends northwest 

to southeast in the southwest portion of the study area. Another highway in the area is 

SR 37, which is a north-south road in the east passing through Rockland Valley. There 

are no sizable communities in the area, although Rockland and Holbrook are situated 

just beyond 15 miles. In addition to the local roads, highways, and residences, there 

are sensitive viewing areas such as campgrounds and trails in the National Park, the 

Curlew National Grasslands, and Minidoka Forest State Bird Sanctuary. As viewed 

from KOP 1273 (Attachment A, Figure ST-1a), the landscape in the vicinity of AOI ST-1 

is mountainous with a mixture of open areas and deciduous and evergreen forests with 

little in the way of man-made modifications.

5.3.1.2 Analysis

Figure 5.3-2 shows the viewshed, AOI, and other features within the 15-mile radius 

study area used to evaluate the consistency of the proposed 500-kV facilities with the 

existing landscape and VQOs. Figure ST-1b (in Attachment A) is a simulation showing 

the lattice tower transmission lines on the existing landscape. Figure ST-1c in 

Attachment A is a simulation showing the H-frame structure on the existing landscape.

Scenic views of the Sublett Range south of Hartley Peak are important to sensitive 

viewers hiking the historic Hudspeth Cutoff Trail in this primitive and remote area of the 

Sawtooth NF. These sensitive viewers are represented by KOP 1273 with views 

ranging from undulating valleys to more dramatic rocky terrain with mountain 

silhouettes, such as Quaking Asp Mountain in the background, and dominant rugged, 

vertical, and contrasting vegetation. Views in the surrounding area exhibit diversity in 

form, line, color, and texture with few man-made features adjacent to the view. 

Alternatives 7H, 7I, or 7J of the proposed Project would be at least partially screened 

and backdropped by existing vegetation and topography, resulting in moderate visibility. 

Micrositing and other mitigation efforts may further lower impacts to scenic resources in 

the surrounding area. With little man-made development in the vicinity of the proposed 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-32

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

alignment, the structures would contrast sharply with the surrounding landscape. Figure 

ST-1b (Attachment A) shows a visual simulation of what the transmission structures 

would look like from KOP 1273. 

Views from KOP 1273 represent the views of recreational users looking south on 

Heaydlauff Canyon Road in the Sawtooth NF. Open, panoramic views of the rolling to 

rugged terrain have high scenic quality due to the numerous aesthetic landscape 

elements in the middleground and background views. The view is considered a natural 

characteristic landscape with a landscape variety class of A, or distinctive. Viewers 

traveling on this roadway would have a level 2 (average) sensitivity to changes in the 

characteristic landscape. Level 2-sensitivity recreational viewers would have a high 

level of Project visibility 0.3 mile from Alternative 7I. The viewer would have an open 

and elevated view toward the alignment, which would not parallel any existing 

alignments or linear features and may span the rugged terrain in the middleground and 

background. The resulting contrast levels are anticipated to be high. The area is 

managed for Maximum Modification by the Sawtooth NF, which allows for vegetative 

and landform alterations that may dominate the characteristic landscape. When viewed 

as foreground, the Project may not appear to completely borrow from naturally 

established form, color, line, or texture. Alterations may also be out of scale or contain 

detail that is incongruent with natural occurrences as seen in the foreground. The ROS 

for this area is listed as both RN and Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM). Potential visual 

impacts on recreational users from this KOP and in the general vicinity are expected to 

be high because the alternative would create a new linear feature in a landscape with 

little existing visible disturbance, high contrast, and landscape variety class of A. 

Alternative 7I would conform to the Forest Service Maximum Modification classification 

as well as the ROS of RN, but not SPM where structures are supposed to be rare and 

isolated.

The new transmission structures, ROW clearing, and access roads would draw the 

attention of the casual observer and thus not conform to the VQO of Modification, which 

allows management activities to dominate the characteristic landscape while using 

naturally established form, line, color, and texture. It should appear as a natural 

occurrence when viewed as middleground. This would not occur from KOP 1273 

because the vegetation removal and large vertical structures would not appear natural. 

If this route were selected, a plan amendment would need to be approved by the Forest 

Service. It is recommended that this amendment be a project-level plan amendment to 

permit a one-time allowance for the Project in areas with Modification VQO. Figure 5.3-

3 shows the location of the Sublett AOI with the existing VQO, Alternative route, and 

amendment recommendation. Alternative 7H, 7I, or 7J, if approved, would be 

constructed with appropriate mitigation measures and BMPs to lower potential impacts 

to visual resources (see Table 2.7-1 in in the Draft EIS). 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-33

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.3-2. AOI ST-1 Visual Analysis

Sublett
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-34

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.3-3. AOI ST-1 Aerial Map

Sublett
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-35

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

 

5.3.2 AOI ST-2 Albion Mountain (Alternative 7H) 

AOI ST-2 is located along Alternative 7H in Cassia County, approximately 8 miles east 

of Oakley, Idaho, and passing just north of the Jim Sage Mountains and Elba, Idaho, 

near Cassia Creek. The route continues west, entering the narrowest portion of the 

Albion Division of the Sawtooth NF. At this point, the route is within Cold Spring Creek 

Valley between Cache Peak to the south and Mt. Harrison to the north, the two highest 

peaks within the Albion Mountain Range. As a result, the alternative crosses 2.9 miles 

of land managed as VQO Partial Retention and 1.5 miles in land with a VQO of 

Modification. The presence of the transmission line in these landscapes would not meet 

the designated VQOs. As a result, Forest Service action would be necessary to modify 

the visual classification or approve a one-time allowance to be consistent with the 

Forest Plan. Figure 5.3-4 shows the viewshed of the Sawtooth Central AOI. 

5.3.2.1 Existing Landscape Conditions

A large majority of the land around AOI ST-2 is undeveloped. Much of the land and 

forests are located in the Albion, Jim Sage, and Cotterel Mountains and are within the 

Sawtooth NF. There are many creeks and other drainages in the mountainous areas, 

and Lower Goose Creek Reservoir lies in the southeast. A large area of irrigated 

farmland and farms is located in the northwest east and west of SR 27. Smaller farm 

areas occur in the vicinity of Albion, east of Connor and in the Upper Raft River Valley. 

There are a number of small communities including Oakley, Albion, and Almo. SRs 77 

and 27 are the main highways in the northeast and northwest portions of the study area, 

and the only existing transmission lines are in the west. In addition to the local roads, 

highways, and communities, there are sensitive viewing areas such as campgrounds, 

picnic areas, trails, and the Pomerelle Ski Area, all in the Sawtooth NF.

As shown in Attachment A, Figure ST-2a, the landscape as viewed from KOP 1234 

ranges from flat with grasses and sagebrush in the foreground to mountains with large 

areas of forest in the background. Also in the foreground are various man-made 

modifications such as local roads and utility poles. Additionally, Figure ST-2d 

(Attachment A) shows the landscape as viewed from KOP 1435, a viewpoint on Mount 

Harrison. This KOP shows extensive views of mountainous terrain towards the south, 

with few man-made features and none dominating the view. 

5.3.2.2 Analysis

Figure 5.3-3 shows the viewshed, AOI, and other features within the 15-mile radius 

study area used in evaluating the consistency of the proposed transmission facilities 

with the existing landscape and VQOs. Figure ST-2b (Attachment A) is a simulation 

showing the proposed transmission line on the existing landscape as viewed from KOP 

1234. Figure ST-2c (Attachment A) is a simulation showing the proposed transmission 

line using H-frame tower structures from this KOP.

Scenic views of the Albion Mountains between Cache Peak and Mt. Harrison are 

important to sensitive viewers driving Forest Road 548, which is adjacent to Cold Spring 

Creek in this primitive area of the Sawtooth NF. These sensitive viewers are 

represented by KOP 1234 (Figure ST-2a in Attachment A). The existing view is of 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-36

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

undulating valleys and more dramatic rocky terrain with mountain silhouettes and 

rugged, clustered, and contrasting vegetation. Views of the surrounding area exhibit 

diversity in form, line, color, and texture with few man-made features. Alternative 7H 

would be highly visible due to few screening opportunities, little man-made 

development, and a high contrast with the existing landscape. Views of the surrounding 

area exhibit a high level of variety in form, line, color, and texture. 

Views from KOP 1234 represent the views from a recreational hiker at the marked New 

Canyon Trail in the Sawtooth NF looking east towards Clyde Flat. The view is 

considered a natural characteristic landscape with a landscape variety class of A, or 

distinctive, when compared to views in the surrounding region. Viewers traveling on this 

roadway would have a level 1 (highest) sensitivity to changes in the characteristic 

landscape. Open, panoramic views of the rolling to rugged terrain with mountainous 

silhouettes and snow-capped peaks are considered to have high scenic quality due to 

the numerous aesthetic landscape elements in the middleground and background views 

and few visible human-made alterations. High-sensitivity (level 1) recreational viewers 

at KOP 1234 would have a high level of Project visibility 73 feet from Alternative 7H, an 

immediate foreground view. The viewer would have an expansive, panoramic, and 

superior (high-elevation) view toward the alignment, which would not parallel any 

existing alignments or linear features and may skyline the mountainous terrain, resulting 

in contrast levels that are anticipated to be high. Potential visual impacts on 

recreational viewers from this KOP and in the general vicinity are expected to be high 

because the alternative would create a new linear feature in an undisturbed landscape 

with high scenic quality and high contrast. 

High-sensitivity recreational viewers at KOP 1435, on Mt. Harrison, would have a low 

level of Project visibility 3.8 miles from Alternative 7H. The viewer would have an 

expansive, panoramic, and superior (high-elevation) view toward the alignment, which 

would not parallel any existing alignments or linear features but will be backdropped by 

the mountainous terrain, resulting in contrast levels that are anticipated to be moderate 

(see Figure ST-2e,3 Attachment A ). The area is managed for Partial Retention by 

Sawtooth NF, which requires management activities remain visually subordinate to the 

characteristic landscape. Activities may repeat form, line, color, or texture common to 

the characteristic landscape but not changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, 

direction, and pattern. Alternative 7H may conform to the Forest Service Partial 

Retention classification from this viewpoint due to it being visually subordinate and the 

distance from the viewpoint to the transmission line. Additional impacts that may need 

to be considered are the cumulative effects of siting the line along the road. The road 

may be more noticeable from distant views, resulting in a contrast to the otherwise 

remote characteristics in the view.

 

3 This simulation was produced using an existing photograph from the Mt. Harrison viewpoint and GIS rendering of 

the viewed landscape to determine tower locations within the image. Tower heights were extruded from the elevation 

data at their geographic locations, creating "sticks" at the correct position and height for each tower. An overlay was 

then created in ArcGIS ArcScene and imported into Adobe Photoshop to guide placement and sizing of individual 

tower images onto the existing photograph background. Individual lattice tower renderings were created in Adobe 

Illustrator using assumed tower angle and positioning at each location, adding color and highlights to approximate 

light conditions present in the photograph.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-37

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

The area at the east and west ends of where the line crosses the Albion Division is 

managed for Modification by Sawtooth NF, which allows for activities that may visually 

dominate the original characteristic landscape. Activities that alter vegetation and 

landforms must borrow from naturally established form, line, color, or texture and 

structures must remain visually subordinate to the proposed composition. The central 

part of the crossing is managed as Partial Retention. The ROS for the majority of this 

area is listed as RN. The western 0.2 mile of the alignment would cross SPM. .

The addition of transmission structures, vegetation clearing in the ROW, and access 

roads would contrast with the existing landscape, draw the attention of the casual 

observer, and thus not conform to the VQOs of Modification or Partial Retention. 

Modification allows management activities to dominate the characteristic landscape 

while using naturally established form, line, color, and texture. Partial Retention 

requires activities to be subordinate in the characteristic landscape. From KOP 1234, 

the proposed 500-kV line would not appear as natural or subordinate. 

It is recommended that a project-level plan amendment be approved by the Forest 

Service to permit a one-time allowance for the Project in areas with Modification and 

Partial Retention VQOs (see Figure 5.3-5). Alternative 7H, if approved, would be 

constructed with appropriate mitigation measures and BMPs to lower potential impacts 

to visual resources (see Table 2.7-1 in the Draft EIS). Micrositing, such as positioning 

the line in valley areas or behind ridgelines, could lower the visual impact of the 

transmission line from important viewpoints; however, additional resources such as 

riparian habitat must also be considered in the final tower and road siting selections. 

Figures 5.3-6 and 5.3-7 show the topography of the area crossed by the Project and the 

proposed alignment of Alternative 7H through this area. 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-38

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.3-4. AOI ST-2 Sawtooth Central Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-39

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.3-5. AOI ST-2 Sawtooth Central Aerial Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-40

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.3-6. Western Portion of Alternative 7H through the Albion Division (ST-2)

Figure 5.3-7. Eastern Portion of Alternative 7H through the Albion Division (ST-2)
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-41

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

5.3.3 AOI ST-3 Cassia (Alternative 7I and Alternative 7J)

AOI ST-3 is located in Twin Falls County on the Idaho-Nevada border, approximately 40 

miles south of Twin Falls, Idaho. Alternatives 7I and 7J share the same alignment until 

milepost 137.3, at which point 7J continues in a northwest direction, while 7I proceeds 

north, through the Sawtooth NF. The joint route is partially located in Elko County, 

Nevada, staying just south of the Cassia Division of the Sawtooth NF. It then turns 

north-northwest at milepost 129.5, passing in and out of the western edge of the NF for 

a total distance of approximately 18 miles. As a result, Alternative 7I crosses 0.8 mile of 

land managed as VQO Partial Retention and 5.2 miles in VQO Modification. Alternative 

7J crosses 0.1 mile of land managed as VQO Partial Retention and 2.2 miles of land 

managed as VQO Modification. The presence of the transmission line in these 

landscapes would not meet the designated visual resource management objectives. As 

a result, Forest Service action would be necessary to modify the visual classification or 

approve a one-time allowance to be consistent with the Forest Plan. Figure 5.3-8 

shows viewshed of the Sawtooth West AOI. 

5.3.3.1 Existing Landscape Conditions

The 15-mile area around AOI ST-3, which is located in Idaho, Nevada, and Utah, has 

very little development. The development in the area is found in the northwest, where 

the terrain is flat to rolling and there are a number of agricultural areas. The primary 

road in the area is U.S. Highway 93. The Union Pacific Railroad runs through the area, 

and there are some small communities such as Rogerson and Hollister. The remainder 

of the area has ridges, mountains, and steep slopes with many drainages. Much of the 

mountainous area is situated in the Sawtooth NF. Sensitive viewing areas include U.S. 

Highway 93, local roads, residences, communities, and many campgrounds and trails in 

the NF.

As shown in Figure ST-3a (Attachment A), the existing landscape as viewed from KOP 

1079 is rolling topography with steep slopes, grasses, and sagebrush. There are no 

apparent man-made modifications seen from this KOP. 

5.3.3.2 Analysis

Figure 5.3-8 shows the viewshed, AOI, and other features within the 15-mile radius 

study area, taking into account the degree of consistency with the existing visual class. 

Figure ST-3b (Attachment A) is a simulation showing what the proposed transmission 

line would look like on the existing landscape.

Scenic views along Hopper Gulch south of North Cottonwood Ridge and west of Black 

Mountain and Mountain View Peak are important to sensitive viewers such as campers 

and hikers in this primitive and remote area of the Sawtooth NF. These sensitive 

viewers are represented by KOP 1079 (Attachment A, Figure ST-3a) with views ranging 

from undulating valleys to more dramatic mountainous landscapes in the background, 

and uniform and rugged vegetation. Alternative 7I of the proposed Project would be 

highly visible due to skylining, the close proximity of the Project, and lack of screening 

opportunities. With little man-made development adjacent to the proposed alignment, 

the structures would contrast highly with the surrounding scrub vegetation. Figure ST-3b 
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-42

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

(Attachment A) shows a visual simulation of how the transmission structures would 

appear as viewed from KOP 1079. Many of the views of the surrounding area exhibit a 

moderate level of variety in form, line, color, and texture which would contrast with the 

addition of new man-made structures, ROW clearing, and access roads. This 

transmission line would draw the attention of the casual observer and thus not conform 

to either the VQO of Modification, which allows management activities to dominate the 

characteristic landscape while using naturally established form, line, color, and texture, 

or Partial Retention, which requires activities to be subordinate in the characteristic 

landscape. 

Views from KOP 1079 represent the views of recreational users of the Sawtooth NF 

driving along Hoppers Gulch Road looking west toward the rolling terrain of Flatiron 

Butte adjacent to the Sawtooth NF. The view is considered a natural characteristic 

landscape with a landscape variety class of B, or common, when compared to views in 

the surrounding region. Viewers traveling on this roadway would have a level 2 

(average) sensitivity to changes in the characteristic landscape due to the distance from 

campgrounds and viewpoints. Open panoramic views of the rolling terrain are 

considered to have moderate scenic quality due to the lack of unique aesthetic 

landscape elements in the middleground and background views as well as few humanmade alterations. The visibility of Alternative 7I would be high for recreational viewers 

at KOP 1079, approximately 900 feet from this alignment. The viewers would have an 

open view toward the alignment, which would not parallel any existing linear features 

and may skyline when crossing the rolling terrain in the middleground and background, 

resulting in high contrast levels. The area is managed for Modification by the Sawtooth 

NF, which allows activities that may dominate the characteristic landscape but will, at 

the same time, use naturally established form, line, color, and texture. It should appear 

as a natural occurrence when viewed as middleground, which the Project would not 

conform to from this viewpoint. Potential visual impacts on recreational users from this 

KOP and in the general vicinity are expected to be high because the alternative would 

create a new linear feature in a landscape with little visible disturbance, high contrast, 

and a close view. Alternative 7I would not conform to the Forest Service Modification 

objectives.

If Alternative 7I or Alternative 7J is approved, it is recommended that a Project-level 

plan amendment be approved by the Forest Service that would permit a one-time 

allowance for the Project in areas with Modification and Partial Retention VQOs (see 

Figure 5.3-9). Alternative 7I or 7J, if approved, would be constructed with appropriate 

mitigation measures and BMPs to lower potential impacts to visual resources (see 

Table 2.7-1 in the Draft EIS).
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-43

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.3-8. AOI ST-3 Sawtooth West Visual Analysis
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-44

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

Figure 5.3-9. AOI ST-3 Sawtooth West Aerial Map
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service G.2-45

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

6 MITIGATION MEASURES

To minimize or avoid impacts on visual resources, the Proponents have committed to 

environmental protection measures that would be implemented Project-wide as outlined 

in this section and in Appendix C of the Draft EIS. 

The following measures were identified by the Sawtooth NF and are required on NFS 

lands. 

VIS-2 To minimize ground disturbance and/or reduce scarring (visual contrast) of 

the landscape, the alignment of any new access roads or cross-country 

routes will follow the landform contours in designated areas where 

practicable, providing that such alignment does not impact resource 

values additionally.

VIS-8 Site-specific “micrositing” will be required near certain sensitive areas, as 

identified by the agencies, where proposed transmission facilities would 

be present and could impact visual quality; these situations include:

• Crossings over major highways

• Crossings of high quality historic trails

• Crossings over the North Platte Snake Rivers 

• Crossing the Albion Mountains in the Sawtooth NF

• Sensitive travelways, use areas, residential areas, recreational 

facilities as identified by the agencies (including national recreation 

and scenic trails, campgrounds, recreation areas, and trailheads), 

and other areas identified by management plans

• Along Forest Service roads in forested areas

VIS-13 To reduce visual contrast in areas where overstory vegetation is removed 

for access, tower pads or conductor clearance, specific sections of the 

clearing edges on federal land will be feathered to give a natural 

appearance, where not in conflict with regulatory requirements (e.g., 

NERC, WECC, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

requirements). 

VIS-14 Crossing federal land along a transmission corridor shall require the 

preparation of a vegetation management plan for the utility corridor to 

minimize scenic impacts and plan for rehabilitation of impacts. This plan 

will be approved by the land management agency prior to vegetation 

clearing.

VIS-19 If any of Alternatives 7H, 7I, or 7I were to be constructed, H-frame singlecircuit structures would be required in the Sawtooth NF.
Gateway West Transmission Line Draft EIS 

Appendix G-2 – USDA Forest Service

Visual Resource Amendments Analysis

Attachment A

Existing Conditions and Photographic Simulations
G-2, Attachment A - Simulations 

List of Simulations by G-2 Sections

MB-1a.........................KOP 105............Existing Conditions

MB-1b.........................KOP 105............Photographic Simulation

CB-1a.........................KOP 1346..........Existing Conditions

CB-1b.........................KOP 1346..........Photographic Simulation

ST-1a.........................KOP 1273...........Existing Conditions

ST-1b.........................KOP 1273...........Photographic Simulation - lattice

ST-1c.........................KOP 1273...........Photographic Simulation - H-frame

ST-2a.........................KOP 1234...........Existing Conditions

ST-2b.........................KOP 1234...........Photographic Simulation - lattice

ST-2c.........................KOP 1234...........Photographic Simulation – H-frame

ST-2d.........................KOP 1435...........Existing Conditions

ST-2e.........................KOP 1435...........Photographic Simulation

ST-3a.........................KOP 1079...........Existing Conditions

ST-3b.........................KOP 1079...........Photographic Simulation
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-105.indd Export Date 06/181/11 Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-105.indd Export Date 06/181/11 Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1346.indd Export Date 06/181/11 Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1346.indd Export Date 06/181/11 Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layo 

uts\kop-1273.indd Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow.
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layo 

uts\kop-1273.indd Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow.
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1273.indd Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1234.indd 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow.
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1234.indd 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow.
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layout 

s\kop-1234.indd Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow.
l!

Legend_______________

l! Key Observation Point

Transmission Line Routes

Proposed

Alternative

Visual Quality Objective

R - Retention

PR - Partial Retention

M - Modification

MM - Maximum Modification

Surface Ownership

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

National Park Service

Private

State

U.S. Forest Service

Photograph Information

Time of Photograph: Unknown

Date of Photograph: Unknown

Weather condition: Clear

Viewing direction: South

Latitude: 42°18’32.39’’

Longitude:113°39’31.48’’

J 0 0.45 0.9 1.8 2.7

Miles

Sawtooth Central A01 Existing 

Conditions from Key 

Observation Point 1435

Figure ST-2d
! l

Legend_______________

! l

Key Observation Point

Transmission Line Routes

Proposed

Alternative

Visual Quality Objective

R - Retention

PR - Partial Retention

M - Modification

Surface Ownership

MM - Maximum Modification

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

National Park Service

Private

State

U.S. Forest Service

J

Photograph Information

Time of Photograph: Unknown

Date of Photograph: Unknown

Weather condition: Clear

Viewing direction: South

Latitude: 42°18’32.39’’

Longitude:113°39’31.48’’

0 0.45 0.9 1.8 2.7Miles

Sawtooth Central AOI 

Photographic Simulation from

Key Observation Point 1435

Figure ST-2e
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow. 

1079.indd Export Date 06/181/11
P:\ENVPLANNING\IdahoPower\22240030_Gateway_West\sims\layouts\kop-1079.indd Export Date 06/181/11 

Photograph is intended to be viewed 12 inches from viewer’s eyes when printed on 11x17 paper. The photograph below has been cropped top and bottom to show a wide angle of view with the above photograph’s area shown in yellow.