HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.4 Grant Lk RecVis Final Report June 2014 FINAL
Recreational and Visual Resources Study
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212)
Prepared for:
Kenai Hydro, LLC
Prepared by:
D. Adams and K. Graham
USKH Inc.
June 2014
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 i June 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................1
2 Goals and Objectives ...............................................................................................................1
3 Scope of Work ..........................................................................................................................2
4 Methods .....................................................................................................................................2
5 Study Overview ........................................................................................................................3
5.1 Study Boundaries .................................................................................................................4
5.2 General Project Components ...............................................................................................5
6 Component 1 – Recreation Resources..................................................................................12
6.1 Management Plans -- Goals and Intents ............................................................................12
6.1.1 Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan ................................................ 12
6.1.2 Kenai Area Plan ................................................................................................. 12
6.1.3 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan ................................................. 13
6.2 Recreation Users ................................................................................................................14
6.2.1 Existing Observed Winter Use ........................................................................... 16
6.2.2 Existing Observed Summer Use ........................................................................ 18
6.3 INHT ..................................................................................................................................19
6.4 Sight-Seeing Flights (Aircraft) ..........................................................................................19
6.5 Hunting and Fishing ...........................................................................................................20
6.5.1 Hunting .............................................................................................................. 20
6.5.2 Fishing................................................................................................................ 22
6.6 Recreation Impacts and Potential Mitigation Opportunities ..............................................22
6.6.1 Winter Use ......................................................................................................... 22
6.6.2 Summer Use ....................................................................................................... 23
6.6.3 INHT .................................................................................................................. 23
6.6.4 Sight-Seeing Flights (Aircraft) .......................................................................... 23
6.6.5 Hunting and Fishing ........................................................................................... 23
6.6.6 Noise .................................................................................................................. 24
6.6.7 Construction ....................................................................................................... 24
6.6.8 Compliance with Current Management Plans ................................................... 24
6.6.9 Recreational Opportunities ................................................................................ 25
7 Component 2 – Visual Resources .........................................................................................25
7.1 Ecological Units .................................................................................................................26
7.2 Viewers ..............................................................................................................................27
7.3 Visual Character .................................................................................................................28
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 ii June 2014
7.3.1 Landscape Visibility .......................................................................................... 28
7.3.2 Distance Zones, Viewer Exposure, and Seasonal Variations ............................ 29
7.3.3 Scenic Attractiveness ......................................................................................... 30
7.3.4 Scenic Classes .................................................................................................... 31
7.4 Landscape Analysis Discussion .........................................................................................31
7.4.1 Unit 1: Trail Lakes Valley ................................................................................. 31
7.4.2 Unit 2: Grant Lake West .................................................................................... 34
7.4.3 Unit 3: Grant Lake East ..................................................................................... 36
7.5 Views .................................................................................................................................38
7.5.1 Key View 1: Access Road from Seward Highway ............................................ 39
7.5.2 Key View 2: View of Intake Structure and Lake Shoreline .............................. 40
7.5.3 Key View 3: View of Facilities from Seward Highway .................................... 42
7.5.4 Key View 4: Access Road or Powerhouse from the Right-of-Way for the
Proposed INHT .............................................................................................................. 43
7.6 Visual Impacts and Potential Mitigation Opportunities .....................................................44
7.7 Project Effects ....................................................................................................................45
7.7.1 Project Components ........................................................................................... 45
7.7.2 Potential Mitigation Opportunities .................................................................... 47
8 References ...............................................................................................................................47
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 iii June 2014
List of Tables
Table 4.1-1. Survey schedule. .........................................................................................................3
Table 5.2-1. Grant Lake Project features. .......................................................................................9
Table 6.5-1. Harvest within Game Management Unit 7 (ADF&G 2013). ...................................22
Table 7.1-1. Unit key matrix. ........................................................................................................27
Table 7.2-1. Viewer group and expected values for the viewshed. ..............................................27
Table 7.3-1. Distance zones (USFS 1995). ...................................................................................29
Table 7.3-2. Viewer groups and exposure period. ........................................................................30
Table 7.3-3. Attractiveness classes and description (USFS 1995). ..............................................31
Table 7.3-4. Scenic class matrix (USFS 1995). ............................................................................31
List of Figures
Figure 5.0-1. Project location..........................................................................................................4
Figure 5.1-1. Study area boundary. .................................................................................................5
Figure 5.2-1. Natural resources study area. ....................................................................................7
Figure 6.1-1. Kenai Area Plan map, enlargement of Grant Lake designation.. ............................13
Figure 6.2-1. Recreation resources map. ......................................................................................15
Figure 6.2-2. Trail Lake. ...............................................................................................................17
Figure 6.2-3. Vagt Lake trailhead. ................................................................................................17
Figure 6.2-4. Trail near north end of Vagt Lake. ..........................................................................17
Figure 6.2-5. Grant Lake trail. ......................................................................................................18
Figure 6.2-6. Grant Lake Trail through meadow. ..........................................................................18
Figure 6.4-1. Floatplane tie up, Trail Lake. ..................................................................................20
Figure 6.5-1. Game Management Unit 7 map. .............................................................................21
Figure 7.1-1. Unit key map. ..........................................................................................................26
Figure 7.4-1. Looking south across Trail Lakes toward Kenai Lake. ...........................................32
Figure 7.4-2. Unit Map 1: Trail Lakes Valley. .............................................................................33
Figure 7.4-3. Looking south across Grant Lake from Grant Creek Trail. ....................................34
Figure 7.4-4. Unit Map 2: Grant Lake west. .................................................................................35
Figure 7.4-5. Looking west across Grant Lake. ............................................................................36
Figure 7.4-6. Unit Map 3: Grant Lake east. ..................................................................................37
Figure 7.5-1. Location of key views. ............................................................................................39
Figure 7.5-2. Key View 1: before. ................................................................................................39
Figure 7.5-3. Key View 1: after. ...................................................................................................40
Figure 7.5-4. Key View 2: before. ................................................................................................41
Figure 7.5-5. Key View 2: after. ...................................................................................................41
Figure 7.5-6. Key View 3: before. ................................................................................................42
Figure 7.5-7. Key View 3: after. ...................................................................................................43
Figure 7.5-8. Key View 4: before and after. .................................................................................44
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 iv June 2014
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish & Game
ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources
ADOT&PF Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
ATV all-terrain vehicle
dB decibels
DLA Draft License Application
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FPA Federal Power Act
GIS Geographic Information System
GPS Global Positioning System
INHT Iditarod National Historic Trail
KHL Kenai Hydro, LLC
KRSMA Kenai River Special Management Area
LA License Application
MP milepost
MW megawatt
NAVD 88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988
NGVD 29 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
NOI Notice of Intent
PAD Pre-Application Document
PM&E protection, mitigation and enhancement
Project Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project
TLP Traditional Licensing Process
USFS U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 1 June 2014
Recreation and Visual Resources Study
Final Report
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 13212)
1 INTRODUCTION
On August 6, 2009, Kenai Hydro, LLC (KHL) filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; KHL
2009), along with a Notice of Intent (NOI) to file an application for an original license, for a
combined Grant Lake/Falls Creek Project (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] No.
13211/13212 [“Project” or “Grant Lake Project”]) under Part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA).
On September 15, 2009, FERC approved the use of the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) for
development of the License Application (LA) and supporting materials. Per the TLP, KHL
underwent consultation with the requisite stakeholders in relation to the development of a series
of natural resource studies that were completed in 2013. One of these was the Recreation and
Visual Resources Study. Recreation and visual resources are important attributes that are highly
valued by the public as important considerations for any project. This report seeks to record,
analyze, and document current features and the potential effects of the Grant Lake Project on
these resources.
The proposed Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project would be located near the community of Moose
Pass, Alaska (population 206), approximately 25 miles north of Seward, Alaska (population
3,016), just east of the Seward Highway (State Route 9); this highway connects Anchorage
(population 279,671) to Seward. The Alaska Railroad parallels the route of the Seward Highway,
and is also adjacent to the Project area. The community of Cooper Landing (population 369) is
located 24 miles to the northwest and is accessible via the Sterling Highway (State Route 1)
which connects to the Seward Highway approximately 10 miles northwest of Moose Pass. The
proposed Project location is in the mountainous terrain of the Kenai Mountain Range.
2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goal of this study was to identify recreational and visual resources that may be affected by
the construction and operation of the proposed Project, identify both positive and negative effects
to those resources created by the Project, and to suggest measures that could be implemented to
mitigate potential impacts. The specific objectives of the study were to:
Determine availability of recreation resources and the quality of those resources.
Determine quality of the scenic environment.
Evaluate impacts of:
o Project construction and operation on distribution of local and tourist recreational
use, access and recreational experience on Grant Lake, Grant Creek, and Vagt
Lake.
o Project construction and operation on the distribution and abundance of fish and
wildlife for anglers and hunters.
o Project construction and operation (including roads and facilities) on visual
quality in the area.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 2 June 2014
o Project roads and transmission line corridors (if not buried in road grade) on
aesthetic and visual resources (including impacts on Scenic Byway viewpoints
and views from existing recreational trails and use areas).
o Project construction and operation on local and regional recreation resources.
o Project facilities and operation (including road access, safety, and use) on local
residential land use on Grant Creek and along the road corridor.
o Project construction and operation on quality of life characteristics of the area
(i.e., noise, changed access to remote area, light pollution).
3 SCOPE OF WORK
The research and fieldwork associated with the scope of work for this Recreational and Visual
Resources Study was conducted in the summer of 2013. The study was conducted according to
the approach described in the Recreational and Visual Resources Study Plan (KHL 2013). The
specific work tasks included;
Continuation of work that was completed in 2010
In-office reviews of existing conditions
(1) Winter site and (1) Summer visits for data collection of existing use and on-site
observations
(1) Sight-seeing flight for recreational and visual impact analysis
Creation of (4) visual simulations of key observation points showing Project impacts
Consultation of land management agencies and stakeholders regarding recreation and
visual resources
Evaluation of an alternative route of the Iditarod National Historic Trail (INHT)
4 METHODS
On-foot site visits in conjunction with a small aircraft flight were the primary sources of
observations. These were performed in 2013.
An initial winter survey was conducted by Kim Graham on March 3, 2013. This site visit was
conducted on snow shoes and with access to Trail Lake narrows provided via the Vagt Lake trail.
This winter survey observed winter recreation activities and recorded; any evidence of other trail
usage, existing noise levels, and potential winter viewsheds. Waypoints were recorded with a
Global Positioning System (GPS) unit, and transferred with notes and decibel readings into a
Geographic Information System (GIS) shapefile. On May 31, 2013, Dwayne Adams and Kim
Graham, studied the Project site (on foot) and marked an alternative route for the INHT. This re-
route was recorded with GPS waypoints, and then transferred to a GIS shapefile with collected
notes. A separate summer survey was conducted on July 12, 2013, by Kim Graham, using the
same instruments and recording information in a similar fashion. A final aircraft survey was
conducted on August 25, 2013, by Kim Graham, recording viewsheds from a typical sight-seeing
flight using a digital camera. Table 4.1-1 documents the entirety of the survey schedule.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 3 June 2014
Table 4.1-1. Survey schedule.
Site Visit Purpose Date Instruments Data Collected Staff
Winter Survey March 3, 2013 Camera, GPS unit,
Decibel reader
Winter use, winter
viewsheds, field
observations
Kim Graham
INHT reroute May 31, 2013 Camera, GPS unit,
Decibel reader
Alternative trail
reroute, trail
viewpoints
Dwayne Adams
and Kim Graham
Summer Survey July 12, 2013 Camera, GPS unit,
Decibel reader
Summer use,
summer viewsheds,
field observations
Kim Graham
Aircraft flight August 25, 2013 Camera Sight-seeing route,
aerial viewsheds
Kim Graham
Under the guidance of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS) document
Landscape Aesthetics, A handbook for Scenery Management, viewer groups were identified and
were the basis for discussion of potential impacts of the Project (USFS 1995). These viewer
groups were then used, in conjunction with the collected information and the outlined scope of
work, to identify key observation points from which users would be able to see the Project.
These points were developed into full visual simulations through computer programs including
Photoshop, Sketchup, and Indesign. Impacts were further discussed and combined with potential
mitigation measures.
5 STUDY OVERVIEW
The Project is located near Moose Pass, Alaska, a small community located on the Kenai
Peninsula of Alaska. The area is heavily dominated by mountains, low density populations, and
diverse ecosystems. The overall landscape character is natural, with diverse topography, large
lakes, fast moving rivers, alpine tundra, and taiga forest. It is home to long-standing trail
systems to the west and ancient ice-fields to the east. Figure 5.0-1 displays the Project’s general
geographic location.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 4 June 2014
Figure 5.0-1. Project location.
The area has a long standing history of hydroelectric power, dating back to the early 1900s.
Other hydroelectric projects in the area include the Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project,
approximately 20 miles away, near the community of Cooper Landing, as well as as Bradley
Lake near Homer, Eklutna north of Anchorage, and Marathon Creek in Seward which provided
power to Seward General Hospital in the past.
The Project location is also subject to a large volume of people passing through the area, many of
whom are tourists and most of whom are traveling for scenic enjoyment. The Seward Highway,
connecting Anchorage to Seward, is used by travelers either driving to Anchorage for supplies or
to Seward for recreation. This highway is one of the most used highways in the state, and holds
the honor of being a Scenic Byway. Its value as being a scenic resource is well established.
5.1 Study Boundaries
General boundaries for the Recreation and Visual Resources Study were approximately five
radial miles around the Project area. These boundaries extend from Moose Pass, to the top of the
ridgelines around Grant Lake itself, south around Lower Trail Lake, north along the highway
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 5 June 2014
corridor, and back to Moose Pass (Figure 5.1-1). The Project area was defined by mountain
ridges which provide a distinct separation of the Project area from other adjacent uses.
For the purposes of this report, the recreation resources will be discussed as Component 1, and
the visual resources will be Component 2. Each component shares the same study boundaries
but is discussed separately.
Figure 5.1-1. Study area boundary.
5.2 General Project Components
The Project components are concentrated around the outlet of Grant Lake and the bottom of the
canyon reach (Reach 4/5 break) near the mid-point of Grant Creek. Figure 5.2-1 displays the
global natural resources study area for the efforts undertaken in 2013 and 2014 along with the
likely location of Project infrastructure and detail related to land ownership in and near the
Project area.
The proposed Project would be composed of an intake structure at the outlet to Grant Lake, a
tunnel, a surge tank, a penstock, and a powerhouse. It would also include a tailrace detention
pond, a switchyard with disconnect switch and step-up transformer, and an overhead or
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 6 June 2014
underground transmission line. The preferred alternative would use approximately 15,900 acre-
feet of water storage during operations between pool elevations of approximately 692 and up to
703 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)1.
An intake structure would be constructed approximately 500 feet east of the natural outlet of
Grant Lake. An approximate 3,200-foot-long, 10-foot diameter horseshoe tunnel would convey
water from the intake to directly above the powerhouse at about elevation 628 feet NAVD 88.
At the outlet to the tunnel a 360-foot-long section of penstock will convey water to the
powerhouse located at about elevation 531 feet NAVD 88. An off-stream detention pond will be
created to provide a storage reservoir for flows generated during the rare instance when the units
being used for emergency spinning reserve are needed to provide full load at maximum ramping
rates. The tailrace would be located in order to minimize impacts to fish habitat by returning
flows to Grant Creek upstream of the most productive fish habitat.
Two concepts are currently being evaluated for water control at the outlet of Grant Lake. The
first option would consist of a natural lake outlet that would provide control of flows out of
Grant Lake. A new low level outlet would be constructed on the south side of the natural outlet
to release any required environmental flows when the lake is drawdown below the natural outlet
level. The outlet works would consist of a 48-inch diameter pipe extending back into Grant
Lake, a gate house, regulating gate, controls and associated monitoring equipment. The outlet
would discharge into Grant Creek immediately below the natural lake outlet.
In the second option, a concrete gravity diversion structure would be constructed near the outlet
of Grant Lake. The gravity diversion structure would raise the pool level by a maximum height
of approximately 2 feet (from 703 to 705 feet NAVD 88), and the structure would have an
overall width of approximately 120 feet. The center 60 feet of the structure would have an
uncontrolled spillway section with a crest elevation at approximately 705 feet NAVD 88.
Similar to the first option, a low level outlet would be constructed on the south side of the natural
outlet to release any required environmental flows when the lake is drawn down below the
natural outlet level. The outlet works would consist of a 48-inch diameter pipe extending back
into Grant Lake, a gate house a regulating gate, controls, and associated monitoring equipment.
The outlet would discharge into Grant Creek immediately below the diversion structure.
Further discussions related to specifics of the aforementioned Project infrastructure along with
the need and/or feasibility of the diversion dam will take place with stakeholders in 2014
concurrent with the engineering feasibility work for the Project. Refined Project design
information will be detailed in both the Draft License Application (DLA) and any other ancillary
engineering documents related to Project development. The current design includes two Francis
turbine generators with a combined rated capacity of approximately 5.0 megawatts (MW) with a
total design flow of 385 cubic feet per second. Additional information about the Project can be
found on the Project website: http://www.kenaihydro.com/index.php.
1 The elevations provided in previous licensing and source documents are referenced to feet mean sea level in
NGVD 29 [National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929] datum, a historical survey datum. The elevations presented
in the Grant Lake natural resources study reports are referenced to feet NAVD 88 datum, which results in an
approximate +5-foot conversion to the NGVD 29 elevation values.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 9 June 2014
Project features as currently envisioned are summarized in Table 5.2-1.
Table 5.2-1. Grant Lake Project features.
Number of Generating Units 2
Turbine Type Francis
Rated Generator Output
Unit 1 1.0 MW
Unit 2 4.0 MW
Maximum Rated Turbine Discharge
Unit 1 75 cfs
Unit 2 310 cfs
Turbine Centerline Elevation 526 ft NAVD 88
Normal Tailwater Elevation
Minimum 517 ft NAVD 88
Maximum 520 ft NAVD 88
Average Annual Energy 19,700 MWh
Normal Maximum Reservoir Elevation 703 ft NAVD 88
Normal Minimum Reservoir Elevation 692 ft NAVD 88
Gross Head 183 ft
Net Head at Maximum Rated Discharge 171.6 ft
Grant Lake
Drainage Area 44 mi2
Surface Area 1,790 ac
Active Storage Volume 15,900 ac-ft (Elevation 703 to 692 feet NAVD 88)
Average Annual Natural Outflow 139,650 ac-ft
Average Annual Natural Outflow 193 cfs
Grant Creek Diversion
Type (2 options under consideration) None (natural lake outlet) Concrete Gravity Dam
Maximum Height NA 2 ft
Overall Width NA 120 ft
Spillway Crest Length NA 60 ft
Crest Elevation 703 ft NAVD 88 705 ft NAVD 88
Water Conveyance
Intake Tower
Invert Elevation 660 ft NAVD 88
Lower Pressure Pipeline
Type Welded steel
Length 200 ft
Diameter 48 in
Pressure Tunnel
Type 10-ft horseshoe
Length 3,200 ft
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 10 June 2014
Velocity at Maximum Turbine Discharge 3.9 fps
Surge Tank
Diameter 96 in
Base Elevation (preliminary) 655 ft NAVD 88
Top Elevation (preliminary) 765 ft NAVD 88
Penstock
Type Welded steel
Length 360 ft
Diameter 72 in
Powerhouse
Approximate Dimensions 45 ft x 60 ft x 30 ft high
Finished Floor Elevation 531 ft NAVD 88
Tailrace Detention Pond
Approximate Acreage 5 ac
Approximate Capacity 15 ac-ft
Outlet Conveyance Length 300 ft
Tailrace
Type Open channel
Length 200 ft
Option 1
Transmission Line
Type Overhead or underground
Length Approximately 3.5 miles
Voltage 24.9 kV
Access Roads
Type Single lane gravel surfacing with turnouts
Length
Approximately 4.0 miles; including 3.0 miles to the
powerhouse and 1.0 mile to the intake (portions will
be new road)
Option 2
Transmission Line
Type Overhead or underground
Length Approximately 1.0 mile
Voltage 115 kV
Access Roads
Type Single lane gravel surfacing with turnouts
Length
Approximately 1.95 miles; including 1.0 mile to the
powerhouse and 0.95 mile to the intake (this will be
a new road)
The Project access would leave the Seward Highway at approximately milepost (MP) 26.9. This
route would travel eastward to cross Trail Lakes at the downstream end of the narrows between
Upper and Lower Trail lakes and then continue eastward to the powerhouse. This route would
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 11 June 2014
be approximately 1 mile long. It would cross Alaska Railroad tracks near an existing railroad
crossing for a private driveway. The road would cross the narrow channel connecting Upper and
Lower Trail lakes with an approximately 100-foot-long single lane bridge. This bridge is
proposed as a clear span with the west abutment located on bedrock and the east abutment on fill.
The proposed route would avoid cuts and travel along the base of some small hills on the south
side of Grant Creek to the Powerhouse. This proposed access road would have one 90-degree
crossing of the INHT.
The intake access road would be approximately one mile long, beginning at the powerhouse.
The road would ascend a 230-foot bluff to get to the top of the southern lip of the Grant Creek
canyon. The road would then generally follow the southern edge of the canyon until it descends
to Grant Lake.
The entire road complex would be gravel with a 14-foot top width. Maximum grade would be
16 percent. Periodic turnouts would be provided to allow construction traffic to pass. Fifty-foot
radius curves would be used to more closely contour around the small steep hills of bedrock to
limit the extent of the excavation and the height of the embankments.
The intake would direct water into a tunnel ending with the penstock and powerhouse at the base
of the slope. Once the water passes through the powerhouse, it would pass through a control
weir and then flow through an open channel approximately 200 feet long. This channel would
have an auxiliary detention pond that would provide supplementary water storage for emergency
spinning reserve. The rip-rap lined channel would end at the existing creek bed and the water
would be returned to Grant Creek.
The powerhouse would be located on the southern side of Grant Creek near the end of the
canyon section (Reach 4/5 break). The powerhouse would be approximately 45 feet by 60 feet
by 30 feet high and would have a finished floor elevation of 531 feet NAVD 88. The
powerhouse would be a pre-engineered metal building on a concrete foundation.
From the powerhouse, a transmission line would link with the existing overhead electrical
transmission lines located to the west of the Seward Highway. Both underground and overhead
transmission lines to deliver energy from the Project to the grid are being evaluated. In addition
to any overhead transmission structures, the facilities would include a switchyard at the
powerhouse consisting of a pad-mounted disconnect switch and a pad-mounted step-up
transformer. The transmission line would run from the powerhouse parallel to the access road
where it would intersect the City of Seward distribution line or Chugach Electric’s transmission
line depending on current engineering feasibility work and utility interconnect agreements made
with these electric utilities. The interconnection would have a pole mounted disconnect switch.
If used, the poles would be designed as tangent line structures on about 250-foot centers.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 12 June 2014
6 COMPONENT 1 – RECREATION RESOURCES
6.1 Management Plans -- Goals and Intents
For the Grant Lake area, there are a number of management plans that propose processes and
measures to protect and facilitate habitat, recreation, and visual resources. The following is a list
of affected management plans and a summary of relevant content.
6.1.1 Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan
The Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan (ADNR 1997) proposes that a number of
state parcels adjoining Trail Lakes and Trail River be incorporated into the Kenai River Special
Management Area (KRSMA) and proposes that these actions be accommodated within the Kenai
Area Plan. It also proposes a 200-foot vegetated buffer be provided along the shore of the lakes
and river. These proposals are provided to protect fish populations and resources of the Kenai
River.
6.1.2 Kenai Area Plan
From the Kenai Area Plan (ADNR 2001), public recreation and tourism presents goals of
keeping public areas open and available for use. This management plan supports recreation and
tourism activities such as backcountry skiing, hiking, snowmaching, and sightseeing.
Specifically from this plan, the INHT trail and trail corridor is to have a conveyance of a 1,000-
foot-wide easement to include a visual and sound buffer between the recreation corridor and
adjacent uses. No permanent structures or equipment are to be placed within the trail corridor.
In keeping with this management plan, the Project has provided an alternate route for the INHT
easement, keeping the 1,000-foot-wide corridor away from any permanent structures and
adjacent uses.
The Kenai Area plan has designated Grant Lake within region 2B, with the Grant Lake Project
area affected by Units 380G, 380F, and 381. Figure 6.1-1 illustrates where these units are
located with respect to Grant Lake. These particular areas have been identified for their Public
Recreation and Tourism uses and protection of existing habitat. They are recognized as being
strongly oriented toward recreation, particularly with respect to the trails and surrounding lakes.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 13 June 2014
Figure 6.1-1. Kenai Area Plan map, enlargement of Grant Lake designation..
6.1.3 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan
Most of the Project area is located on Kenai Peninsula Borough, State of Alaska and a minimal
amount of private land. Lands east of the western shore of Grant Lake lies within Chugach
National Forest. Those lands are managed in accordance with the Revised Land and Resource
Management Plan for Chugach National Forest (USFS 2002). The plan is currently being
updated. Until revisions are final the 2002 plan remains “current”. This management plan
provides guidance for all resource management activities on national forest land within the
Chugach National Forest.
The area in and around Grant Lake is managed as part of the Kenai Mountains Roadless Area,
encompassing 319,600 acres. It is managed to meet goals for improved and developed recreation
opportunities while maintaining landscape character and providing for timber management.
Grant Lake is designated within the 2002 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan with a
prescription for “Fish, Wildlife, and Recreation Management”. Areas north and east of the lake
are managed as “Backcountry”. “Fish, Wildlife, and Recreation Management” provides a
“desired future condition” of “ecological processes, moderately affected by human activity,
dominate…Evidence of resource management may be present.” “Backcountry” areas present a
desired future condition of “ecological processes, largely unaffected by human activity…provide
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 14 June 2014
excellent opportunities for solitude, tranquility, isolation, quiet, challenge, and a degree of risk
when traveling backcountry” (USFS 2002).
6.2 Recreation Users
The area surrounding Grant Lake provides numerous recreation resources. They vary in access
and usability throughout the seasons and by daily weather conditions. Recreational uses also vary
between motorized versus non-motorized use. Existing forms of recreation include (Figure 6.2-
1):
Hiking/Walking
Camping
Fishing
Boating
Hunting
Snowmachining
Snowshoeing
Cross Country Skiing
Ice fishing
Aerial Sight-Seeing
Driving for Pleasure
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 15 June 2014
Figure 6.2-1. Recreation resources map.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 16 June 2014
6.2.1 Existing Observed Winter Use
During the winter survey, snowmachine users were observed unloading and parking at the Vagt
Lake Trailhead and traveling northeast across Lower Trail Lake (Figure 6.2-2) to a partially
flagged route through the trees up to Vagt Lake. An alternative start point was in Moose Pass,
near an existing boat ramp. Other snowmachine users were observed traveling north-south along
the western shores of both Trail Lakes and beyond across Upper Trail Lake toward Johnson Pass.
Users did not ride through the Narrows as the water was open and flowing quite strongly through
the area. This appears to be a normal phenomenon, keeping a portion of Lower Trail Lake open
during the winter months. Open water was also observed at the Alaska Railroad trestle, located
between Moose Pass and the rail line. Users traveled on the railroad tracks for passage around
these open water areas. The Alaska Railroad Corporation signs the tracks and considers this use
as trespassing.
Though there may be some use of Grant Lake for snowmachining, there was no evidence of
trails leading to Grant Lake from trails along the Trail Lakes shoreline. Terrain challenges and
the lack of a well-defined trail may limit the interest in snowmachining at the lake. However, it
is expected that the mine access road that is north of Grant Creek may provide access to Grant
Lake for snowmachining.
Baseline noise in the area measured consistently at 40 decibels (dB). Conditions during
measurement included a gentle wind and background road noise from the highway. At the time
snowmachine users passed by along the lake creating decibel readings that spiked to 75-80 dB.
Along the Vagt Lake Trail, local residents were observed hiking and snowshoeing as recreation.
Cross country ski tracks were also found leading from the Vagt Lake Trailhead to Vagt Lake
(Figures 6.2-3 and 6.2-4). Though it is difficult to identify the number of users, it appeared that
snow had fallen within 48 hours and numerous tracks were observed. No further winter use was
observed at the time of the survey.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 17 June 2014
Figure 6.2-2. Trail Lake.
Figure 6.2-3. Vagt Lake trailhead.
Figure 6.2-4. Trail near north end of Vagt
Lake.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 18 June 2014
6.2.2 Existing Observed Summer Use
Summer uses included hiking on Vagt Lake Trail, camping at Vagt Lake, fishing in Upper Trail
Lake, Lower Trail Lake, and Vagt Lake, some motorized all-terrain vehicle (ATV) activity on
Grant Lake Trail, and small aircraft takeoffs and landings at Trail Lake. Additionally, the team
providing fishery research for the Project noted approximately 12 anglers on Grant Creek, over
the entire summer and fall data gathering period.
Boaters from Vagt Lake trailhead were observed floating down Trail River to Kenai Lake as
well. Trail River does not provide the river experience nor the length of river to be a viable
commercial float experience though some floating of the river does take place as a recreation
activity.
Evidence of ATV use from Trail Lake to Grant Lake is shown in Figures 6.2-5 and 6.2-6. This
activity is presumed to be in connection with mining activities in the area. Again, it is difficult to
quantify the use but it is sufficient to maintain a clear and distinct trail.
Figure 6.2-5. Grant Lake trail.
Figure 6.2-6. Grant Lake Trail through
meadow.
.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 19 June 2014
At the time of the survey, noise levels ranged from 40 dB to 50 dB. No nearby motorized use
was occurring during the inspection. Noise was generated from highway traffic, and though the
Seward Highway had increased usage in comparison to the winter survey, noise levels did not
exceed 50 dB.
Driving for pleasure, as with tourism-related bus traffic, is a key recreation activity along the
Seward Highway corridor. Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
(ADOT&PF) reports a range of average annualized daily traffic count ranging between 1,568
vehicles per day in 2012 to 1,614 vehicles per day in 2010 (ADOT&PF 2011). In 2012, this
traffic had a highest “maximum average daily traffic count” of 3802 vehicles in July and a low
maximum average daily traffic count of 611 in January. Most of these drivers and passengers
are expected to be traveling partly to enjoy scenery, regardless of the primary reason for the trip.
6.3 INHT
The INHT is proposed within a dedicated easement inside of the Project area. In the effort to
reconnect the Seward-Girdwood portion, an easement of 1,000 foot width was issued by the
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) in August of 2004. This is more specifically
described in November of 2004 in the Final Finding and Decision, ADL 228890, Grant of Public
Easement, Iditarod National Historic Trail, Seward to Girdwood (ADNR 2004). According to
this document, the INHT will connect at MP 25, or the outlet for Lower Trail Lake and this
trailhead will be upgraded with a parking lot to hold up to 50 vehicles. The trail continues north
using the Vagt Lake Trail to the northeast tip of Upper Trail Lake where the trail crosses back
onto federal land. There is some light use of the trail to Vagt Lake and there have been trail
improvements from the south, to Vagt Lake, to accommodate this use. However, north of Vagt
Lake the trail is merely flagged and use appears to vary from occasional to non-existent.
6.4 Sight-Seeing Flights (Aircraft)
Small aircraft provide sight-seeing flights several times a day in the summer months. The typical
routes are from Moose Pass, over Grant Lake to Prince William Sound for viewing of the
glaciers and Harding Icefield, then back to Moose Pass by flying over Falls Creek. Aircraft are
typically float planes thast leave from Trail Lake (see Figure 6.4-1). These same aircraft are
utilized for hunting and fishing purposes in the area. It has been noted that Grant Lake is not
used as a fishing destination but is a drop-off location for hunting of mountain goats, caribou,
bear, and moose.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 20 June 2014
Figure 6.4-1. Floatplane tie up, Trail Lake.
6.5 Hunting and Fishing
6.5.1 Hunting
Under the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), Grant Lake is within Game
Management Unit 7 (Figure 6.5-1) which covers the eastern portion of the Kenai Peninsula. The
area is open for black bear, brown bear, caribou, Dall sheep, moose, mountain goat, wolf, and
wolverine. These hunts are permitted through the ADF&G, with regulations pertaining to
residents and non-residents alike, and vary according to season.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 21 June 2014
Figure 6.5-1. Game Management Unit 7 map.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 22 June 2014
Table 6.5-1 reflects the harvested quantities of the game species as recorded by ADF&G in 2012.
Table 6.5-1. Harvest within Game Management Unit 7 (ADF&G 2013).
Species Hunt Number Hunters Harvest
Black Bear General Season 6,129 1,469
Brown/Grizzly Bear RB300 389 25
Caribou DC001 89 24
Dall Sheep General Season 2,001 599
Moose General Season 19,202 3,758
Mountain Goat DG339 2 0
Although Table 6.5-1 encompasses a broader area than the study area. The amount of
backcountry area and the terrain that is represented by the Grant Lake study area relative to full
game management unit would suggest that the area is hunted for all or most of the game species
indicated.
6.5.2 Fishing
Vagt Lake is an ADF&G stocked lake, making it an enticing destination for recreationists. The
lake is a 2 mile walk from the Vagt Lake trailhead, allowing it to be a convenient and enjoyable
walk through the woods around Lower Trail Lake. Preliminary discussions have noted that
Grant Lake is not actively used for fishing as the only species known and/or documented to be in
the lake are sculpin and stickleback. Grant Creek is fished for rainbow trout and Dolly Varden
but is closed to the taking of salmon. During the seven month period of fish sampling conducted
by fisheries biologists for the Project, approximately 12 fishermen were observed on Grant
Creek.
6.6 Recreation Impacts and Potential Mitigation Opportunities
The Project is expected to have specific effects as described below.
6.6.1 Winter Use
With provision of road access to Grant Creek, it is expected that winter use will increase as a
result of the safe passage around/over Trail Lakes and the development of a roadway to Grant
Lake. Assuming KHL allows public access, it will be much easier for snowmachine users,
skiers, and hikers to navigate over or around Upper and Lower Trail Lakes without the risk
posed by open water. Dependent upon access provisions that are provided by the Project for
public use, including parking, it is possible that Grant Lake would provide snowmobiling and
ready access for those wanting to snowmobile on the lake and off into the headlands above the
lake. While this presents opportunities for motorized and non-motorized winter recreation, it
also expands the presence of humans and compromises the setting for those seeking quiet and
solitude.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 23 June 2014
While recreational opportunities will increase, the provision of access to the public is an issue
that will have to be negotiated between KHL and the USFS.
6.6.2 Summer Use
As with winter use, the summer use levels are expected to increase. If the establishment of a
fifty car parking lot at the Vagt Lake Trailhead as proposed by the Grant of Public Easement for
the INHT does occur, that alone will trigger an expanded use by user groups. Additionally, the
bridge across the narrows, if provided, will provide quick and easy access for summer recreation
around the Grant Lake area; something that is limited at present. Also, it may assist in lessening
trespass that occurs on the Alaska Railroad crossing of Lower Trail Lake. The issue of access is
an issue that will require coordination with management agencies as this ability to expand
recreation use has the same effect as with winter use; greater recreation opportunity but greater
presence of humans in an area that currently receives little use.
6.6.3 INHT
Currently, there is a conflict between the Project and the INHT with the powerhouse and
ancillary facilities being located within the easement. While the current access road alignment
limits crossings of the trail to one 90-degree crossing, under the current Project proposal, the
INHT would essentially run directly through the middle of the powerhouse. For the safety of the
public, it is expected that the Project may require security measures to prevent vandalism or
damage and the structures and fencing may not be in keeping with the setting appropriate for the
INHT.
The Project is in the process of proposing that the INHT be re-routed to the west, but still retain a
500-foot setback from the privately owned parcels located near the Trail Lake shoreline. This re-
routed section would provide the desired buffer for the trail while giving users a more enjoyable
views of the lakes. It also bypasses some marshy areas and exposes users to more distinctive
landforms, water characteristics, and areas of outstanding scenic quality KHL is currently
consulting with the requisite stakeholders related to this issue and a series of site visits and
meetings will be held during the remainder of 2013 and 2014 to collaboratively reach an
agreement on an acceptable re-route of the proposed trail around the single Project feature
currently acting as an impediment. All consultation and agreements reached will be
comprehensively documented in the FERC LA.
6.6.4 Sight-Seeing Flights (Aircraft)
It is not expected that sight-seeing flights will be affected by the Project. Although there will be
temporary construction activity and changes to the landscape as a result of the Project
infrastructure, sight-seeing users will still enjoy the lakes, rivers, mountains, and ice-fields that
surround Moose Pass.
6.6.5 Hunting and Fishing
Impacts to hunting as a result of the Project include a possible increase in hunting pressure as a
result of the proposed access road that would more easily facilitate access to Grant Lake.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 24 June 2014
Currently, most individuals are expected to gain access to hunted areas via float plane. A
roadway that would allow hunters to either unload a boat at Grant Lake, or to easily hike up the
road with a pack raft, would greatly increase the numbers of hunters that would hunt around
Grant Lake and the surrounding backcountry.
There would also likely be an increase in fishing activity on Grant Creek. Currently, Grant
Creek receives limited fishing activity due both to limited access and the lack of an open salmon
fishery. The availability of a roadway that facilitates creek access would open the opportunity
for trout and dolly varden fishing along the creek. While the fishery is assumed to be limited in
the future to non-anadromous species, the availability of a creek on the road system would
enable those fishermen who simply fish for the recreational experience and thus fishing pressure
on the creek would likely increase.
6.6.6 Noise
Noise sources would include vehicles that are traveling the access roadway to the powerhouse
and to the intake structure. However, the facility is proposed to operate remotely with access on
a monthly basis during normal operational periods. For those limited visits, sound levels at 50
feet from the source of pickup trucks and automobiles would range in the neighborhood of 70-
80dB (Reed 2010). Thus recreation users of the roadway or the INHT would be subjected to
short periods of noise above that of the ambient noise of 40dB in the winter and 40-50dB in the
summer.
The provision of a roadway may induce snowmachine traffic to the roadway and may also
induce an increase in use of Grant Lake and the surrounding areas. Snowmachines generate
sound levels as high as 83dBA at 50 feet from the source (Reed 2010) and the sound can be
detrimental to the experience of non-motorized users in an area. While this is a moderate to
major impact to that use, the use of Grant Lake by non-motorized users tends to be small to
absent in the winter in particular, thus the overall impact to existing conditions would be
relatively small.
6.6.7 Construction
Construction impacts would be temporary and would affect trail use and fishing along Grant
Creek. The presence of construction equipment and construction noise would provide a short-
term but major impact to the environment desired by those recreating along the creek.
Construction is planned to take place only in the summer months, thus noise and lighting impacts
during the winter months, would be limited. Noise impacts would be expected to some degree in
the summer though the construction site is generally removed from residences and visitor
destinations, depending on the individual part of the infrastructure that is being constructed.
6.6.8 Compliance with Current Management Plans
The proposed facilities will have a relatively minor effect to existing recreation use in the area.
Project facilities are located beyond the 200-foot buffer proposed by KRSMA. Because the
lands are retained in State ownership for purposes of habitat protection, there is no prescribed
200 foot buffer in the Kenai Area Plan. Still, the roadway and Project facilities would be
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 25 June 2014
located on State of Alaska land that is proposed for habitat protection and recreation uses.
Proposed facilities could enhance the ability to meet recreation goals with the provision of
increased access to trail and backcountry resources, though there would be some limited
compromise of habitat protection goals in order to provide for the road and transmission line.
This may not fully meet management intent of Chugach National Forest for lands that are
designated and managed as “backcountry”. These areas are available for non-motorized
recreation, however the provision of road access to Grant Lake may induce increased use of the
backcountry for snowmachining. While the numbers of non-motorized users is small, this may
not be in conformance with the management intention of the USFS.
6.6.9 Recreational Opportunities
The proposed Project provides an opportunity for increased recreation access to the area. The
access road could provide Grant Lake access that is currently difficult and unavailable to many
recreationists. Having the access could increase boating opportunities and access to backcountry
that provides spectacular views and wildlife viewing. The Project could also allow increased
access to hunters, allowing quicker access to background peak areas. The Project could provide
parking to facilitate use of both hiking to Grant Lake on the Project access roadway, and to the
INHT.
While the opportunity for increased recreation activity is provided, this has a negative aspect of
possibly increasing the evidence of humans within this area of forest and on Grant Lake.
Wilderness areas are managed for their pristine conditions and their lack of the evidence of
human disturbance. If an increase in recreational opportunities is undesirable, a gate could be
installed on the access road at any point to limit access to authorized personnel only. Close
coordination with agencies will be needed to determine how access will be managed to meet
agency goals.
7 COMPONENT 2 – VISUAL RESOURCES
The USFS document Landscape Aesthetics, A handbook for Scenery Management provides an
established guide for the analysis of landscapes, and furthermore, provides a useful framework
for review of scenic quality (USFS 1995). The process employs steps for the definition of
landscape units as “ecological units” and provides guidance for defining “viewer groups”,
“landscape character”, “scenic integrity”, and “scenic classes”. From this collected process, the
resulting information is used to determine the impacts to visual resources by the proposed
Project.
Landscape components are the physical elements that make up the visual environment, including
landform, water, vegetation, and man-made development. The general landscape setting of the
Project area is characterized by numerous mountains, rivers, lakes, alpine tundra, and taiga
forest. The area is strongly characterized as being a classic “U” shaped glacial valley, and the
junction of east-west and north-south drainages. The drainage flows north to south from Upper
Trail Lake into Kenai Lake and the Grant Lake drainage from its mountainous backdrop, east to
west to its connection to Trail Lake. The Project area landscape character ranges from the
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 26 June 2014
developed small road community of Moose Pass to primitive backcountry with pristine lakes and
serrated alpine peaks.
7.1 Ecological Units
To provide a framework for analyzing the visual environment, three landscape units have been
identified based on the interaction of existing land use patterns, topography, and distance from
the Project. Each unit is defined with respect to its scenic attractiveness and scenic integrity and
identification of these units is an important key to analyzing the visual effects of the Project. The
respective units and associated matrix are documented in Figure 7.1-1 and Table 7.1-1,
respectively.
Figure 7.1-1. Unit key map.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 27 June 2014
Table 7.1-1. Unit key matrix.
Unit Title Description Elevation
1 Trail Lakes Valley Corridor of Trail Lakes
valley from Moose Pass to
Lower Trail Lake bridge
Lake level to ~300 feet
above
2 Grant Lake West Western half of Grant Lake Lake level to ~300 feet
above
3 Grant Lake East Eastern half of Grant Lake Lake level to ~300 feet
above
7.2 Viewers
There are three major types of viewer groups or constituents in the Project area. The groups
were identified based on the existing land uses and travel routes. Table 7.2-1 identifies the
viewer groups and their expectations and values for the viewshed of the Project. These viewers
are described in terms of their “concern levels”. “Concern levels are a measure of public
importance placed on landscapes viewed from travelways and use areas.” (USFS 1995) There
are three concern levels, with high (1) denoting those viewers who would have high interest in
the surrounding landscape.
Table 7.2-1. Viewer group and expected values for the viewshed.
Viewer Group Expected Values
Residents Generally have a desire for protection of visual quality, including views from
roadways, waterways, and individual residences. Generally cautious concerning
changes to visual environment.
Recreationists/ Tourists Includes both road and rail traffic. Generally have high appreciation for visual
quality of an area and desire for undisturbed areas. Also share a desire for views
from roadways and waterways.
Aircraft High variability in visual values and the acceptance of changes to existing visual
conditions. Many are sight-seers with high degree of sensitivity to visual quality.
There are variations in the number of residents, recreationists, tourists, and viewers from aircraft
throughout the year. Summer months are typically characterized by a significant increase in
viewers, particularly as a result of tour travel, as well as fishing and hunting activities. This
visitor population drops drastically after these seasons have passed into the winter months. Both
numbers of on the ground viewers and the air traveler populations are much lower during winter
and early spring. Float planes, which are docked on Upper Trail Lake during the summer
months, are removed from the lake in the winter. There is little small aircraft traffic in the winter
compared to numbers of float plane takeoffs and landings that occur from May through
September. These visitors typically have a high level of appreciation for scenic values and
scenic integrity. In fact, it is these values that bring them to visit this area.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 28 June 2014
The population of Moose Pass is generally stable through the entirety of the year. The State of
Alaska Department of Labor and Work Force Development (2013) reports 219 residents in
Moose Pass in April of 2010, 240 residents in July of 2011, and 231 in July of 2012. This would
seem to indicate relative stability given that April is more indicative of winter conditions than
summer conditions in Moose Pass. The residents of Moose Pass can be characterized as
treasuring their “small town” culture and the environment in which they are located. They have
a high value for the setting in which the town is located and have a high level of value for scenic
integrity.
Seward, located approximately 25 miles south of Moose Pass, experienced approximately
355,000 visitors in the Summer of 2011 (McDowell 2011). Virtually all of these visitors pass
through Moose Pass by either road or rail. Rail passenger service is only available in the
summer. A majority of the road traffic passes through the community in the summer months as
well. In 2012, this traffic had a highest “maximum average daily traffic count” of 3802 vehicles
in July and a low maximum average daily traffic count of 611 in January (ADOT&PF 2013).
There are a number of recreationists who travel on the eastern side of the valley via trails or on
Trail Lakes in the winter. Most trail use is limited in the Vagt Lake area, to the south of the
Project components. Winter use within the Project area is generally confined to the Vagt Lake
area or is located on the Trail Lake frozen surface and includes snowmachiners, snowshoers and
skiers. There are a small number of fishermen who travel along the Grant Creek bank but the
number is quite limited as salmon fishing is restricted on the creek. There is evidence that some
residents/recreationists hike along Grant Creek though the size of the trails indicate that this use
is very limited. These recreationists typically have a high level of appreciation for the conduct of
their recreation activities and value the undisturbed setting.
Hikers typically gain access to Grant Lake via the Grant Lake trail which is located north of the
Project and provides access to a mine site located at the northern corner of the lake. There are
also known to be some recreationists who fly small boats or pack in rafts for traveling along the
shoreline of Grant Lake. Some of these include hunters trying to gain access to remote areas to
the north and west of Grant Lake. Both hikers and hunters value the setting of their recreation
pursuit and prefer an undisturbed landscape.
7.3 Visual Character
7.3.1 Landscape Visibility
Landscape visibility addresses the relative importance and sensitivity of what is seen and
perceived in the landscape. It consists of three elements:
Travel ways and use areas
Concern levels
Distance zones
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 29 June 2014
Landscape visibility is also a function of several other considerations, including:
Context of viewers
Duration of view
Degree of discernible detail
Seasonal variations
Number of viewers.
The first area of analysis involves determining whether the Project area can be seen from travel
ways and use areas. Travel ways represent linear concentrations of public viewing. Use areas are
specific locations that receive concentrated public viewing. For this Project, primary travel ways
and use areas include the road system running north-south along the western shores of Trail
Lakes. Secondary travel ways include the small aircraft sight-seeing routes from Upper Trail
Lake west to Prince William Sound and back.
As discussed in Section 7.2, viewer concern for their surroundings is an important part of the
analysis of the importance of visual quality impacts. As described, almost all viewers have a
high sensitivity to either the presence of undisturbed landscapes, or sensitivity to changes of the
landscape as viewed from their homes. Thus the concern level of almost all viewers of the
landscape is considered to be high, being a concern level of “1”.
7.3.2 Distance Zones, Viewer Exposure, and Seasonal Variations
Distance zones define the viewing distances of the viewer. The zones are noted as foreground,
middleground, and background. The viewing distances are based on the amount of details that
the observer can perceive. Distance zones help determine what portions of the landscape are
more critical to the visual character and what areas are more sensitive to change. For example,
travelers on the highway are more aware of changes to the foreground of the landscape than the
background, given the same level of change of the landscape. Table 7.3-1 better defines
distance zones.
Table 7.3-1. Distance zones (USFS 1995).
Distance Zones Distance Description Distance Zones Distance
Foreground (fg) 0 – 0.5 miles Distinguish
vegetative detail and
full use of senses
Foreground (fg) 0 – 0.5 miles
Middleground (mg) 0.5 – 4 miles Distinguish large
boulders, small
openings in the
forest
Middleground (mg) 0.5 – 4 miles
Background (bg) 4 miles to horizon Distinguish groves
of trees, large
openings in the
forest.
Background (bg) 4 miles to horizon
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 30 June 2014
This Project is dominated by Foreground and Middleground distance zones. Almost all views
are from the valley floor and the natural topography obscures views of most background areas
east or west of primary view areas. Views are available to background to the north and south,
but only to the tops of peaks to the east, east of Grant Lake.
Viewer exposure is a function of the type of view seen; the distance, perspective, and duration of
the view. The term exposure may also refer to the number of people exposed to a particular
view. It is expressed by the numbers, distance, duration, and speed of view for each of the
Viewer Groups. Table 7.3-2 outlines viewer groups and the associated exposure periods based
on observations of their use patterns and use periods.
Table 7.3-2. Viewer groups and exposure period.
Viewer Group Exposure Period
Residents Continual
Recreationists/ Tourists Varies-generally minutes, hours for fishermen on Grant
Lake and hunters in Grant Lake basin
Aircraft Varies-generally seconds or minutes
Seasonal variations are characterized by leaf loss within the Project area between summer and
winter conditions. Summer foliage tends to obscure views with restriction of views beyond a
distance of as much as several hundred feet for undisturbed areas. Also, the presence of foliage
tends to provide screening of some views from the Seward Highway across Trail Lake. These
views are extended to greater distances, across the lake, during winter months.
Winter months provide greater contrast of manmade disturbances since disturbed lands provide
planes or lines that are visible since a lack of vegetation provides a strong contrasting line or
plane within the landscape. This depends on whether vegetation between the viewer and
disturbance obscures or modifies the view.
7.3.3 Scenic Attractiveness
There are three values used to describe the scenic attractiveness of an area. These classes are
developed to determine the relative scenic value of landscapes. They measure the scenic
importance of a landscape based on human perceptions of intrinsic beauty of landform, water
characteristics, vegetation pattern, and cultural land use. Table 7.3-3 characterizes scenic
attractiveness classifications.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 31 June 2014
Table 7.3-3. Attractiveness classes and description (USFS 1995).
Class Title Description
A Distinctive Areas where landform, vegetative patterns, water characteristic and cultural features
combine to provide unusual, unique, or outstanding scenic quality. These landscapes
have strong positive attributes of variety, unity, vividness, mystery, intactness, order,
harmony, uniqueness, pattern, and balance.
B Typical Areas where landform, vegetative patterns, water characteristics, and cultural
features combine to provide ordinary or common scenic quality. These landscapes
have generally positive, yet common, attributes of variety, unity, vividness, mystery,
intactness, order harmony, uniqueness, pattern, and balance. Normally they would
form the basic matrix within the ecological unit.
C Indistinctive Areas where landform, vegetative patterns, water characteristics, and cultural land
use have low scenic quality. Often water and rockform of any consequence are
missing in class C landscapes. These landscapes have weak or missing attributes of
variety, unity, vividness, mystery, intactness, order, harmony, uniqueness, pattern,
and balance.
7.3.4 Scenic Classes
Scenic classes indicate the relative importance, or value, of discrete landscape areas having
similar characteristics of scenic attractiveness and landscape visibility. Scenic classes are
determined using the matrix in Table 7.3-4.
Table 7.3-4. Scenic class matrix (USFS 1995).
Scenic Attractiveness
Distance Zone and Concern Levels
Fg1 Mg1 Bg1
A 1 1 1
B 1 2 2
C 1 2 3
7.4 Landscape Analysis Discussion
7.4.1 Unit 1: Trail Lakes Valley
The Trail Lakes Unit includes almost all travel ways and viewers, except some of those traveling
by aircraft. It also includes recreationists using trails or fishing the shoreline of Grant Creek.
Further it would include those traveling on the frozen surface of Trail Lake in the winter.
Residents, recreationists, and aircraft have varying degrees of visibility for this unit, as their
exposure is fluctuating from a few seconds to continual. Their concern level and exposure
periods provide a high level of sensitivity to changes in the viewshed.
The area is characterized in Figure 7.4-1, with a long view to the south down Upper to Lower
Trail Lakes, with Kenai Lake far in the background. Travel patterns of viewers are shown in
Figure 7.4-2. Viewers are primarily residents of Moose Pass and travelers on the Alaska
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 32 June 2014
Railroad or Seward Highway. Viewers are afforded foreground views, and the area has a highly
distinctive scenic attractiveness, or Class A as defined in Table 7.3-3. Most views are
foreground due to the enclosed nature of the Trail Lake basin. Background views are
occasionally available with breaks in vegetation for those traveling on the Seward Highway or
the Alaska Railroad, or living in Moose Pass. Shoreline vegetation tends to be deciduous,
mixing with conifers with increasing elevation, turning to a primarily coniferous forest up to the
u-shaped valley crest. Views are provided to alpine settings in the background. The landscape is
typified by forest, dominant water features of high complexity and high level of order, and low
density development in Moose Pass that tends to be of small scale and complementary to the
landscape. The landforms, vegetative patterns, and water characteristics are intrinsically unique,
with the majority of the existing landscape well preserved.
Figure 7.4-1. Looking south across Trail Lakes toward Kenai Lake.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 33 June 2014
Figure 7.4-2. Unit Map 1: Trail Lakes Valley.
Project components within this area include the access roadway, the powerhouse, possibly
transmission lines, ancillary support structures including parking, fencing, rock-lined channel,
and the auxiliary detention pond.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 34 June 2014
The roadway entrance and a short portion of its length would be visible from the Seward
Highway and the Alaska Railroad. Other Project components would be visible to those who fish
Grant Creek and to the limited number of hikers who may on occasion follow the creek. The
natural topography of the unit does offer enough variation to allow some features to blend more,
or to be masked by the undulating landforms and density of the vegetation. This provides
screening of proposed Project components, which will be seemingly hidden or concealed within
the landscape for almost all viewers.
7.4.2 Unit 2: Grant Lake West
The Grant Lake West landscape unit is highly distinctive (Class A as defined in Table 7.3-3), and
virtually fully intact with little to no evidence of human presence, as shown in Figure 7.4-3. This
view is from the north, looking south towards the project features, specifically the outfall of the
lake. Figure 7.4-4 illustrates travel patterns for those who visit this unit. The area has few
viewers, no residents within the unit, and recreationists/tourists restricted to either those using
the limited amount of trail access or those viewing the area by aircraft. The viewer exposure
period ranges from hours for those traveling by trail or seconds/minutes for those traveling by
aircraft.
This unit is characterized by Grant Lake and the surrounding mountains. The limited number of
viewers located within the area would have foreground views. However, for most viewers, who
are located in Moose Pass or on the road/rail corridor, the area is unseen. Vegetation remains an
evergreen and deciduous forest around the lake and dissipates into alpine tundra with elevation.
Large openings provide a mix of perennial herbaceous plants, with numerous Alaskan
wildflowers.
Figure 7.4-3. Looking south across Grant Lake from Grant Creek Trail.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 35 June 2014
Figure 7.4-4. Unit Map 2: Grant Lake west.
Project components that would be located within the area would include the Project’s intake
structure and the access roadway, located at the southerly most portion of the lake, near the Grant
Lake outfall. These components would generally be unseen by those along the lake shore. The
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 36 June 2014
intake structure would be seen by boaters who currently gain access via packraft or plane. It
would be seen in the middleground for those who hike around the lake and can view the opening
of the lake to Grant Creek. Aircraft would be able to see the structures as well though the
exposure time would be limited.
7.4.3 Unit 3: Grant Lake East
Naturally obscured by the sharp easterly turn of Grant Lake, this eastern portion of Grant Lake is
a u-shaped valley that feeds to the previously discussed unit, separated by a thin neck of water.
The valley is entirely undisturbed as in evidence in Figure 7.4-5. The distance from this unit to
the Project is approximately 3-6 miles with no direct line of sight to Project components.
Viewer exposure is restricted to aircraft and the occasional recreationist and/or hunter who may
access the area by trail and possibly travel by packraft (Figure 7.4-6). Aircraft views are
typically from relatively high elevations and duration of the view changes dramatically
dependent upon altitude and weather. These groups may include hunters as well. Though the
area does not contain any Project components, proposed lake level changes may create a visual
variation that may be noticeable by those gaining access to the area. Seasonal flows currently
provide for some variations in lake levels thus an exposed shoreline does occur during the year.
The lower level attributed to the KHL would persist for more periods of time though the
character would be similar to that of historic patterns, perhaps slightly pronounced.
Figure 7.4-5. Looking west across Grant Lake.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 37 June 2014
Figure 7.4-6. Unit Map 3: Grant Lake east.
The scenic attractiveness of the viewshed remains distinctive, or Class A per Table 7.3-3. Peaks
provide a serrated skyline with a complex mix of snow, valleys, and well-patterned vegetation.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 38 June 2014
The area is a pristine wilderness with unique landforms and water features. Vegetation is sparse,
with forest surrounding the lake and covering the valley floor, with alpine tundra at upper
elevations.
7.5 Views
For the purposes of showing potential Project impacts, key views were selected and developed to
create visual simulations. The following key views were selected as having the most valuable
potential in showing Project components and visual impacts. The location of these key views is
indicated in Figure 7.5-1.
Key View 1: view of the Trail Lakes narrows access road crossing area from the Seward
Highway
Key View 2: view of the intake structure and lake shoreline
Key View 3: view of proposed facilities from the Seward Highway or Alaska Railroad
(winter)
Key View 4: view of the access road or powerhouse from the right-of-way for the
proposed INHT.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 39 June 2014
Figure 7.5-1. Location of key views.
7.5.1 Key View 1: Access Road from Seward Highway
Key view #1 is the view of the Project access road from the Seward Highway. The new access
road leaves the Seward Highway at approximately MP 26.9, crosses the Alaska Railroad tracks,
then continues east to the proposed bridge.
The highway corridor between Lower Trail Lake and Upper Trail Lake tends to be viewed as a
“closed forest” as the existing vegetation blocks the majority of viewing points along the road.
Moreover, the narrowness of the road leads the viewer’s eye forward until the vegetation recedes
at both Lower Trail Lake and Moose Pass itself.
This access road may become more visible with the winter months and loss of foliation;
however, the scale of the roadway would be similar to that of a driveway which is a common
feature along the highway. There is an existing driveway to private land approximately 100
yards south of the proposed new roadway. It is expected the existing roadway would be closed
and the old entrance maintained as a turnoff as shown in the before/after visual simulation in
Figures 7.5-1 and 7.5-2) One issue that could increase the visual presence of the road would be
an agency decision that would open the KHL Project access to wide public use. If public access
is desirable by agencies, the roadway could have an increased presence and be marked by road
signs and possibly the width of the roadway increased to offer vehicle turn lanes. Figures 7.5-2
and 7.5-3 display the current view and the likely view with the Project component (access road)
in place, respectively, with the assumption that the roadway will be non-public.
Figure 7.5-2. Key View 1: before.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 40 June 2014
Figure 7.5-3. Key View 1: after.
7.5.2 Key View 2: View of Intake Structure and Lake Shoreline
This key view simulation shows the small intake structure located at the southern shores of Grant
Lake, the diversion dam to the west, the remaining stream and stream bed once diverted, and the
small access road to the intake structure. Also with in this view is the powerhouse itself, the
detention pond, and the outlet diversion. Each Project component is linked by a small gravel
road, with the upper access road not maintained in the winter. The current Project design has the
level of the lake rising up to two feet above natural conditions , but as the edges of the lake are
quite steep, the effect will be less noticeable as the change does not widen but simply raises the
level of the lake in this area. Over time there may be a recognizable ring of vegetation as flooded
vegetation at the shoreline edge dies out and becomes evident. However, there are currently
natural seasonal fluctuations of the lake level that provide an exposed shoreline at low water
levels thus the new condition will be an small expansion of an existing condition that occurs on
the lake. While this will be discernible on the ground and may be noticeable, it will be less so, if
evident at all from the air. Figures 7.5-4 and 7.5-5 display the current view and the likely view
with the Project components (lake infrastructure) in place, respectively.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 41 June 2014
Figure 7.5-4. Key View 2: before.
Figure 7.5-5. Key View 2: after.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 42 June 2014
7.5.3 Key View 3: View of Facilities from Seward Highway
As the highway corridor is quite narrow, and the vegetation impedes most views, the only open
areas whereby a viewer from the Seward Highway would have a vantage point of the Project
would be near Lower Trail Lake. The bridge crossing, powerhouse, and primary access road will
not be visible to most viewers from the Seward Highway. The upper access road connecting the
powerhouse to the intake structure may be more visible, as it climbs in elevation, however most
vegetation is evergreen thus it is not expected that the roadway will be visible to most Seward
Highway viewers in the summer or winter. Figures 7.5-6 and 7.5-7 display the current view and
the likely view with the access road being slightly visible climbing the hillside in the right-center
of the photo, in the distance. The change would be negligible, particularly considering that
viewers at this location are traveling at a speed of approximately 50 miles per hour. Drivers are
focused on views down the road while passengers are focused on more visible landscape of the
lake and Crown Point Peak, more to the east, 45-90 degrees to the location that the access road
would be.
Figure 7.5-6. Key View 3: before.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 43 June 2014
Figure 7.5-7. Key View 3: after.
7.5.4 Key View 4: Access Road or Powerhouse from the Right-of-Way for the
Proposed INHT
The INHT trail will intersect with the powerhouse access road, intersecting south of Grant Creek
and east of Lower Trail Lake. This intersection would be a marked intersection that would
provide views to an opening in the forest allowing more visibility and exposure to the Project.
This intersection could serve as a trailhead in the future dependent on the desire of managing
agencies. Figure 7.5-8 displays the current view and the likely view with the Project component
(access road) in place respectively. In the simulation, the access road is illustrated at a crossing
of the INHT and assumes a gravel surface for both the trail and the road at this crossing location.
A sign would provide direction for hikers and other users.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 44 June 2014
Figure 7.5-8. Key View 4: before and after.
7.6 Visual Impacts and Potential Mitigation Opportunities
The Grant Lake Project area is a highly distinctive, well-seen, and valued area of the Kenai
Peninsula. Of particular note is that much of the landscape is undisturbed and much is little used
and is unseen by most people. Following is a summary of key observations.
Landscape Character: The landscape of the Project area is characterized by complex mountains
with serrated ridgelines and a highly ordered landscape. Water features are striking with
turquoise waters and clear streams that provide marked contrast with the colors and patterns of
the forest. Vegetation is typical of the area, primarily of a mixed deciduous/coniferous forest
that leads to high altitude alpine vegetation that is highly patterned and colorful, contrasting with
geological features and scree slopes. The community of Moose Pass is also distinctive, and is
small scale, in keeping with the landscape. The area is highly memorable.
Scenic Attractiveness: The landscape remains a Class A, or distinctive landscape (as previously
defined in Table 7.3-3) throughout the Project area. The foreground, middleground, and
background each are unique and attractive to viewers.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 45 June 2014
Scenic Integrity: The majority of the Project area is intact and undisturbed, allowing for a high
level of scenic integrity. Currently, the only evidence of human presence is associated with the
road and rail corridor, including the community of Moose Pass. While these elements provide
evidence of human presence, the roadway, the railway, and the community of Moose Pass are
within scale and context of the setting.
Viewer Groups: Residents, recreationists/tourists, and aircraft are the primary viewers of the
Project area. Most views are constrained to the Seward Highway, the Alaska Railroad, and
residents of Moose Pass, and those who travel by snowmachine, skis, snowshoes, or on foot.
Landscape Visibility: The Project area is viewed by the viewer groups from all distance zones;
however, the natural topography of the area limits distance zones to the foreground for most
viewers.
Concern Levels: Concern levels are high, as the area is used and viewed by a wide range of
viewers, all of whom value the area for its high visual quality and intactness.
Scenic Class: The scenic class and the scenic attractiveness of the area remain at the highest
level of 1, due to the unique landforms, vegetative patterns, and outstanding topography, and
thee concern level of the viewers.
7.7 Project Effects
7.7.1 Project Components
Intake Structure: The intake structure would include a gravity diversion structure and intake
tower that would be approximately 15 feet above the lake surface. The structure would be
hidden for most viewers excepting the small number of those traveling along the shoreline by
boat, or by those traveling above the lake by aircraft. The structures would be minor elements in
the landscape. The concrete tower would contrast with the lake surface providing a striking light
color against the turquoise waters of the lake. However, the size of the structure relative to the
lake, as seen from the air provides a minor change to the landscape.
Shoreline Alteration: The change in lake level could provide evidence of vegetation die back
as the vegetation adapts to changing lake levels. This vegetation as it dies, or the remaining
shoreline as the lake level changes, would provide an expanded shoreline around the lake. While
this could occur, there are currently natural seasonal fluctuations at the shoreline edge and during
drought conditions the shoreline currently is visible as an exposed edge, thus the possible
shoreline expansion would be an increase to the visibility of the shoreline rock edge, not a new
condition. This will be visible to those traveling by foot but less conspicuous to those traveling
over the area by plane. This would be a minor change to the shoreline landscape.
Access Roadway: The access roadway would be visible from the Seward Highway, from the
Alaska Railroad tracks, and for those traveling by boat, raft, snowmachine, snowshoe, or skis on
Trail Lake. It would also be visible from the air. It would generally be unseen by residents of
Moose Pass. From the Seward Highway it would read as a side road or driveway intersecting the
highway, a common element along the roadway. The road would also be seen by those who
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 46 June 2014
would use the INHT at the time that construction takes place. At this point in time, the INHT is
a dedicated easement but not constructed. For those affected, the bridge crossing of the Trail
Lake narrows would be similar in scale and scope to that of the Alaska Railroad crossing that
currently exists. The roadway would continue into the forest and only several hundred feet
would be visible for users along Trail Lake. Thus the roadway would be a moderate change to
the landscape though generally unseen by most viewers.
Auxiliary Detention Basin: The detention basin would generally be unseen except from the air.
It would be seen from the INHT as mapped, though not constructed at this time. The basin
would generally be confined within an existing depression in the landscape. Thus, the form of
the feature would approximate that of the existing landscape. However, the fluctuating water
levels will change the nature of the vegetation as the vegetation adapts to growing conditions.
There would also be minor site structures that would be associated with the detention basin,
pipes, and infrastructure. These structures and the changes to the landscape would be moderate
changes to the landscape but would be largely unseen, depending on whether the INHT easement
is relocated or not.
Powerhouse/Ancillary Features: The powerhouse would be a visible, man-made structure in a
natural setting as would other components such as parking and associated channels and site
structures. They would not replicate the area’s landscape in form though the Project components
could be colored or painted to be complementary to the landscape. The components would be
unseen by most viewers excepting those hiking, skiing, snowshoeing, or fishing along Grant
Creek. It would also be evident to those hiking along the INHT, should it be constructed as
currently planned.
Powerlines: The proposed Project has yet to define whether powerlines would be above or
below grade. Currently, the only transmission lines within the Project area are those located
west of the community of Moose Pass, largely out of view of the casual observer. Underground
lines would generally be unseen, excepting where a powerline might tie to the existing
powerlines west of the Moose Pass community and the occasional ancillary facilities that are
assumed to be minor structures in keeping with the scale of the community. The construction of
powerlines above ground could possibly present an impact to visual resources, dependent on
their location. While other Project facilities would be screened by existing vegetation or
replicate existing visual features in the Project area, the powerlines would contrast with the
setting and visual resources.
Construction: Construction activities would have little impact to visual resources excepting
during the temporary construction activities associated with the roadway and bridging of Trail
Lake. The presence of construction equipment could be a minor to moderate impact to visual
resources during the construction period depending on how construction equipment was staged.
However, the location of almost all Project components is unseen from key viewpoints and most
viewers. The construction would generate noise that would be heard by recreationists as pilings
were driven, should pile or sheet driving be required. Further, lights may be needed for
construction that would be evident in mornings and evenings during winter construction, should
winter construction take place.
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 47 June 2014
Operations and Maintenance: Routine operations and maintenance will typically take place
monthly during normal operations. There will be dust generated on the gravel road and noise
generated by vehicles traveling on the roadway, but this activity is expected to be limited in
period and of little detriment to visual quality. During the winter months there would be lights
from the vehicles monthly but again, this would be of little consequence to visual quality. The
powerhouse itself would have security lighting that would be on through darkness on winter
nights. This lighting is expected to be very localized, only at the powerhouse. The lighting is
assumed to have cutoffs to ensure that there is little fugitive light. Given the density of the forest
at the powerhouse site, there should be little indication of lighting, if any, that would
compromise the dark skies visible from key view points or from any locations near Moose Pass.
7.7.2 Potential Mitigation Opportunities
The primary Project impacts would be localized and unseen by most viewers. For the hikers,
skiers, snowshoers, and fishermen who recreate along Grant Creek, or to future users of the
INHT (if constructed as planned), the impacts provide moderate though localized visual impacts.
Project components could be designed to provide some separation of Project facilities from
Grant Creek and could be designed to provide colors and textures that are complementary to the
landscape.
Construction could be staged such that equipment was kept on site, outside of views. Also, it
could be staged to limit pile or sheetpile driving and hours of construction and lighting limited to
prevent intrusion to dark skies and noise interjected to the community.
With respect to the INHT, an alternative route could be provided that would be a net benefit to
the trail user experience. The trail is located such that views are limited and the trail provides a
generally homogenous vegetation and terrain experience from the northward shore of Vagt Lake.
An alternative alignment could reduce the presence of Project components relative to the trail
location as planned and could provide enhanced views to Trail Lake and background peaks.
KHL is currently consulting with the requisite stakeholders related to this issue and a series of
site visits and meetings will be held during 2014 to collaboratively reach an agreement on an
acceptable re-route of the proposed trail around the single Project feature currently acting as an
impediment. All consultation and agreements reached will be comprehensively documented in
the FERC LA.
8 REFERENCES
ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 2013. Alaska Game Species.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=hunting.species
ADNR (Alaska Department of Natural Resources). 1997 Kenai River Comprehensive
Management Plan.
ADNR. 2001. Kenai Area Plan. .
FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES STUDY
Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro, LLC
FERC No. 13212 48 June 2014
ADNR. 2004. Final Finding and Decision, ADL 228890, Grant of Public Easement, Iditarod
National Historic Trail, Seward to Girdwood.
ADOT&PF (Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities). 2013. “Annual Traffic
Volume Report, 2010, 2011, 2012.
http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwdplng/mapping/trafficmaps/trafficdata_reports_cen/2012_
ATVR.pdf
Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development. 2011. Alaska Visitor Statistics
Program. Prepared by the McDowell Group.
KHL (Kenai Hydro, LLC). 2009. Pre-Application Document Grant Lake/Grant Creek and Falls
Creek Project (FERC No. 13211 and 13212). August 2009.
KHL. 2013. Recreational and Visual Resources Study Plan for the Grant Lake Hydroelectric
Project, FERC No. 13212. March 2013.
Reed et al. 2010. SPreAD-GIS: an ArcGIS toolbox for modeling the propagation of engine
noise in a wildland setting.
State of Alaska, Department of Labor and Workforce Development. 2013. Cities and Census
Designated Places, 2010-2012. http://labor.state.ak.us/research/pop/popest.htm
USFS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Chugach National Forest). 1995.
Landscape Aesthetics: A handbook for Scenery Management.
USFS. 2002. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan.
USFS. 2008. Final Finding and Decision, ADL 228890, Grant of Public Easement, Iditarod
National Historic Trail, Seward to Girdwood, Trail River Landscape Assessment:
Chugach National Forest.