2021-05-03_REVISION - M1997054 (6)

Home Browse Search

Issues Analysis Chapter 3 Two additional KOPs were selected to analyze visual impacts related to the alternative Sale Area (Alternative C). Because Alternative C would shift the Sale Area to the east, including portions of the eastern slope of Cactus Mountain, travelers along Highway 9 would likely have a vantage point of the mining and reclamation activities that they would not have under Alternative A. Therefore, these two additional KOPs represent vantage points for travelers along Highway 9, and are analyzed under Alternative A (Figure 3.8-1, Appendix C): • KOP 6 was chosen for vehicles traveling south on Highway 9. The location of this KOP would likely provide commuters a vantage point of the alternate Sale Area, primarily on the western slope of Cactus Mountain. • KOP 7 was chosen for vehicles traveling north on Highway 9. The location of this KOP would likely provide commuters a vantage point of the alternate Sale Area, primarily on the western slope of Cactus Mountain. 3.8.2. Environmental Effects This section discusses project related impacts to visual resources resulting from Alternative A, Alternative B, and Alternative C. Primary issues related to visual resources include direct and indirect impacts associated with the change in landforms and degradation of views from KOPs in the vicinity of the project. All visual simulations used for the analysis for impacts to visual resources are provided in Appendix H. Each of the alternatives considered in this EIS were analyzed for its potential to result in impacts on visual resources. Visual impacts were analyzed using the methodology outlined in the BLM Handbook H8431-1, Visual Resource Contrast Rating (BLM 1986b), which analyze the levels of visual contrast created between a project and the existing, characteristic landscape. As noted previously, the management standards and allowable contrasts for the visual rehabilitation area are those of the management Class II objective. The following indicators were considered when analyzing the potential impacts that each alternative would have on visual resources: • Degree of consistency or conflicts with established BLM VRM class objectives; and • Change in the scenic quality of the existing characteristic landscape from KOPs due to visibility of components of Alternative A other alternatives to Alternative A. 3.8.2.1. Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative A Issue 1: What is the extent of impacts on sensitive visual receptors resulting from the change in landforms during operations and post-mining? The visual impacts would be greatest from KOP 5 because the proposed Sale Area would be in the immediate foreground. The strong form and sharp line of the proposed Sale Area would create a contrast compared to the existing landforms. All five mining phases would be visible from KOP 5; however, concurrent reclamation would be implemented as mining progresses, reducing Parkdale Quarry Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-64