HomeMy WebLinkAboutSuWa29Alaska Resources Library & Information Services
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document
ARLIS Uniform Cover Page
Title:
Aesthetic resources
SuWa 29
Author(s) – Personal:
Author(s) – Corporate:
Prepared by URS Corporation
AEA-identified category, if specified:
2012 Environmental Studies
AEA-identified series, if specified:
Series (ARLIS-assigned report number):
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project document number 29
Existing numbers on document:
Published by:
[Anchorage, Alaska : Alaska Energy Authority, 2013]
Date published:
February 2013
Published for:
Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority
Date or date range of report:
Volume and/or Part numbers:
Final or Draft status, as indicated:
Final
Document type:
Pagination:
iv, 41 p.
Related work(s):
Pages added/changed by ARLIS:
Notes:
All reports in the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document series include an ARLIS-
produced cover page and an ARLIS-assigned number for uniformity and citability. All reports
are posted online at http://www.arlis.org/resources/susitna-watana/
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
(FERC No. 14241)
Aesthetic Resources
Prepared for
Alaska Energy Authority
Prepared by
URS Corporation
February 2013
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page i February 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
2. Study Objectives ...................................................................................................................1
3. Study Area ............................................................................................................................1
4. Methods .................................................................................................................................2
4.1. Deviations from Study Plan ..........................................................................................2
4.2. Aesthetic Resources Data Review ................................................................................2
4.2.1. Baseline Aesthetic Resources Data Review .................................................... 2
4.2.2. Field Review of Existing Aesthetic Resources Data ....................................... 2
4.3. Preliminary Analysis Locations ....................................................................................3
4.4. Preliminary Project-Level Sensitivity Analysis............................................................3
5. Results ...................................................................................................................................4
5.1. 2012 Aesthetic Resources Study Area ..........................................................................4
5.2. Regulatory and Plan Review ........................................................................................5
Federal Regulations and Plans ..................................................................................... 5
State Plans .................................................................................................................... 5
Local Plans ................................................................................................................... 5
5.3. Baseline Aesthetic Resource Data Review ...................................................................6
5.3.1. Visual Resource Inventory Data ...................................................................... 6
5.3.2. Field Review of 1985 Aesthetic Resources Study Data .................................. 6
5.4. Preliminary Visual Sensitivity Analysis .......................................................................8
5.4.1. Assessment of Coarse-Level Visual Sensitivity .............................................. 8
5.5. Preliminary Analysis Locations ....................................................................................9
5.5.1. Preliminary Analysis Locations – 2012 Reconnaissance ................................ 9
KOP #1: Stephan Lake Uplands .................................................................................. 9
KOP #2: Susitna Upland Terrace west of the Fog Lakes ............................................ 9
KOP #3: Susitna Upland Terrace at the Proposed Dam Site ....................................... 9
KOP #4: Susitna River, upriver of Proposed Dam Site ............................................. 10
KOP #5: Susitna River, view upriver from Susitna Upland Terrace ......................... 10
KOP #6: Susitna River, view upriver from Susitna Upland Terrace ......................... 10
KOP #7: Susitna River at Proposed Dam Site (indicated on map as a star) .............. 10
5.6. Preliminary Analysis Locations ..................................................................................10
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ii February 2013
5.6.1. Visual Resources ........................................................................................... 10
5.6.2. Soundscape .................................................................................................... 11
5.7. Interdisciplinary Coordination ....................................................................................12
6. Discussion and Conclusion ................................................................................................12
7. References ...........................................................................................................................12
7.1. Map References ..........................................................................................................14
8. Tables ...................................................................................................................................15
9. Figures .................................................................................................................................27
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.4-1. Sensitivity level rating criteria (BLM 1986) ............................................................ 15
Table 5.3-1. Information on the Visual Resource Inventory completed for the BLM
East Alaska Planning Area .................................................................................................... 15
Table 5.3-2. Potential nexus between the proposed project and aesthetic resources of the
Study Area (under development). ......................................................................................... 16
Table 5.4-3. Preliminary sensitivity level analysis of the Project area ......................................... 18
Table 5.5-1. Landscape character elements of the Susitna Upland Terrace (KOP #1) ............... 19
Table 5.5-2. Landscape character elements of the Susitna Upland Terrace (KOP #2) ............... 19
Table 5.5-3. Landscape character elements of the Susitna Upland Terrace at the proposed
dam site (KOP #3) ................................................................................................................ 20
Table 5.5-4. Landscape character elements of the Susitna River basin approximately 1 mile
upriver from the proposed dam site (KOP #4) ...................................................................... 20
Table 5.5-5. Landscape character elements of the Susitna Upland Terrace at the proposed
dam site (KOP #5) ................................................................................................................ 21
Table 5.5-6. Landscape character elements of the Susitna River basin, facing upriver
(KOP #6) ............................................................................................................................... 21
Table 5.5-7. Landscape character elements of the river canyon, facing upriver (KOP #7) ......... 22
Table 5.5-8. Preliminary Recommendations for analysis locations ............................................. 22
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 5.1-1. Aesthetic resources study area ............................................................................... 28
Figure 5.1-2. Viewshed of the Susitna River, from approximately 5 miles downriver of the
proposed dam site, to 5 miles above the upper terminus of the inundation zone ................. 29
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page iii February 2013
Figure 5.1-3. Viewshed from a 2200 ft. elevation ...................................................................... 30
Figure 5.1-4. Viewshed of a 2200 ft. elevation reservoir study area, including place
names and landscape features ............................................................................................... 31
Figure 5.3-1. Landscape character types within the aesthetic resources study area
(Source: AEA 2011) ............................................................................................................. 32
Figure 5.3-2. Devils Canyon ......................................................................................................... 33
Figure 5.3-3. Stephan Lake ........................................................................................................... 33
Figure 5.3-4. Deadman Creek Falls .............................................................................................. 34
Figure 5.3-5. Fog Lakes ................................................................................................................ 34
Figure 5.5-1. Preliminary KOPs established as part of the 2012 Aesthetics Study ..................... 35
Figure 5.5-2. View from KOP #1 toward the northeast ............................................................... 36
Figure 5.5-3. View from KOP #1 toward the northwest. Note white-capped peaks of the
Talkeetna Mountains and Denali in background .................................................................. 36
Figure 5.5-4. Existing 2-track trail located west of the Fog Lakes. Note trail in lower left of
image, and cabin in center ................................................................................................... 37
Figure 5.5-5. Landscape character elements of the Susitna Upland Terrace: view from
KOP #2 toward the proposed Project site ............................................................................. 37
Figure 5.5-6. View upriver from the Susitna Upland Terrace at proposed dam site (KOP #3) ... 38
Figure 5.5-7. The Susitna River, looking downriver from KOP #4 ............................................ 38
Figure 5.5-8. View downriver at the location of KOP #4 at an elevation of 2,050 feet .............. 39
Figure 5.5-9. View from KOP #5, looking east up the Susitna River valley from river right ..... 39
Figure 5.5-10. The Susitna River valley, looking upriver from KOP #6..................................... 40
Figure 5.5-11. The Susitna River valley, looking upriver from KOP #6 at an elevation
of 2,050 feet .......................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 5.5-12. View upriver from the proposed dam site (KOP #7) ............................................ 41
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page iv February 2013
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND SCIENTIFIC LABELS
Abbreviation Definition
ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
BLM Bureau of Land Management
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DSM Digital Surface Model
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act
GPS Global Positioning System
IFSAR DSM Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar Digital Surface Model
ILP Integrated Licensing Process
KOP Key Observation Point
LCP Landscape Character Point
m meter
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHT National Historic Trail
NPS National Park Service
OA Observation Area
OC Observation Corridor
OP Observation Point
PAD Pre-Application Document
Project Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
RM River Mile(s) referencing those of the 1980s APA Project.
ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
RSP Revised Study Plan
SCORP Statewide Comprehensive Recreation Plan
SLRU Sensitivity Level Rating Units
SPreAD System for the Prediction of Acoustic Detectability
SQRU Scenic Quality Rating Unit
TBD To be Determined
U.S.C. United States Code
USGS United States Geological Survey
VRI Visual Resource Inventory
VRM Visual Resource Management
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page v February 2013
SUMMARY
The 2012 Aesthetic Resources Study involved research, inventory, and compilation of
descriptions of visual and auditory resources in the Project area.
Study Purpose
The purposes of the 2012 Aesthetic Resources Study Program were to define the study area,
review existing data, identify potential Key Observation Points (KOPs) and measurement
stations, initiate preliminary sensitivity analysis, and develop an understanding of potential effect
mechanisms regarding aesthetic resources—including noise/soundscape and lighting—that may
result from the proposed Project. Insight gained from this effort was used to finalize
development of the Revised Study Plan (RSP) for 2013–2014.
The study included the following tasks:
Identification of an aesthetic resources study area;
Review of pertinent planning documents and assessment of management framework;
Review and field-verification of baseline aesthetics resource data;
Identification of potential Analysis Locations, or KOPs;
Evaluation of existing soundscapes and refinement of soundscape analysis plan;
Initiation of interdisciplinary coordination; and,
Completion of a preliminary Project-level Sensitivity Analysis.
2012 Accomplishments
Baseline aesthetic resources data review that included: (1) Review of existing Visual
Resource Inventory data (VRI), including scenic quality, visual sensitivity, and distance
zones; and (2) Review of data collected as part of the 1985 Aesthetics Resource Study
(APA 1985).
Field review of existing aesthetic resource data, including an evaluation of landscape
character, ranking of aesthetic value and visual absorption capability, and identification
of notable landscape features.
A preliminary list of analysis locations was developed prior to implementing field work.
The purpose of this list was to develop target locations to guide field reconnaissance
during the 2012 study year.
Developed a preliminary viewshed analysis of the Susitna River to determine the extent
visual impacts from the proposed project.
Interdisciplinary coordination was initiated with resource area study leads to assist in the
identification of aesthetic resources.
A preliminary sensitivity level analysis was implemented by evaluating the BLM’s five
indicators of public concern (Type of Users, Amount of Use, Public Interest, Adjacent
Land Use, and Special Areas).
The 2012 reconnaissance work for sound modeling focused on developing a baseline
understanding of the existing soundscape through observation of perceived and
identifiable sources of noise contributing to the ambient sound environment, and the
conditions during which they occur.
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1 February 2013
1. INTRODUCTION
This report provides the results of the 2012 Aesthetics Resources Study, based on the work
outlined in the 2012 Recreation and Aesthetic Resources Study plan (AEA 2012).
The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is preparing a License Application that will be submitted to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project (Project) using the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). The Project is located on the
Susitna River, an approximately 300-mile-long river in Southcentral Alaska. The Project’s dam
site would be located at river mile (RM) 184.
This study provided information to inform the 2013–2014 licensing study program, Exhibit E of
the License Application, and FERC’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis for
the Project license.
2. STUDY OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the 2012 Aesthetic Resources Study Program were to define the study area,
review existing data, identify potential key observation points (KOPs) and measurement stations,
initiate preliminary sensitivity analysis, and develop an understanding of potential effects to
aesthetic resources—including noise/soundscape and lighting—that may result from the
proposed Project. Insight gained from this effort was used to finalize development of the
Revised Study Plan (RSP) for 2013–2014.
The study included the following tasks:
Establishment of the aesthetic resources study area;
Review of pertinent planning documents and assessment of management framework;
Review and field-verification of baseline aesthetic resources data;
Identification of potential analysis locations, including soundscape monitoring locations
and KOPs;
Evaluation of existing soundscapes and refinement of soundscape analysis plan;
Initiation of interdisciplinary coordination with other resource study leads;
Completion of a preliminary Project-level visual sensitivity analysis; and
Development of questions to include in survey instruments to better understand visual
sensitivity within the Project area.
3. STUDY AREA
The aesthetic resources study area was determined through a combination of viewshed modeling,
Project area reconnaissance, agency feedback, and input from other resource studies. Viewshed
models were completed for the existing river corridor upstream of the proposed Project and the
proposed reservoir. The viewshed of the existing river was calculated using points established at
1/4-mile intervals using the Susitna River miles from the 1980s. The area sampled extended
from 5 miles below the proposed dam site, to 5 miles upstream of the potential reservoir.
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2 February 2013
The viewshed of the proposed reservoir was calculated at an elevation of 2,200 feet, using
contour data from the Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar Digital Surface Model (IFSAR
DSM). Viewpoints were exported from the 2,200 feet elevation polygon at a 1-square-mile grid.
Points above 2,200 feet elevation were removed and arbitrary points were added in grid cells that
were missed. A total of 65 points were used.
4. METHODS
4.1. Deviations from Study Plan
Work completed during 2012 included a literature review to support preliminary development of
survey and executive interview questions included in the Recreation Resources, River Recreation
Flow and Access, and Subsistence Resources studies. This work was not included in the original
study plan but was necessary to develop questions for the draft survey instruments to support the
project level sensitivity level analysis.
Likewise, no soundscape data were collected as part of the 2012 reconnaissance effort. Work
completed in 2012 focused on identifying suitable locations to use to collect soundscape data
during the 2013-2014 study seasons.
4.2. Aesthetic Resources Data Review
The baseline study for aesthetic resources included (1) review of existing Visual Resource
Inventory data (VRI), including scenic quality, visual sensitivity, and distance zones; and (2)
review of data collected as part of the 1985 Aesthetics Resource Study (APA 1985).
4.2.1. Baseline Aesthetic Resources Data Review
As part of the East Alaska Regional Management Plan development process, the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) completed a VRI of BLM-administered lands within the Project area (BLM
2006). The VRI data consist of three components: scenic quality, visual sensitivity, and visual
distance zone data. The BLM defines scenic quality as the visual appeal of a tract of land, while
visual sensitivity is defined as a measure of public concern for scenic quality (BLM 1986).
Distance zones represent the distance from which the landscape is most commonly viewed, and
were established by buffering common travel routes and viewer locations at distances of 3 miles,
5 miles, and 15 miles (BLM 1986).
This information can be used to understand existing visual (aesthetic) resources at a planning
level, and can be refined where necessary to better convey Project-level information. As part of
the 2012 work, each component was assessed to determine its applicability to the proposed
Project.
4.2.2. Field Review of Existing Aesthetic Resources Data
As part of the Aesthetic Resources Study completed for the 1985 Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Application for License for Major Project (APA 1985), an evaluation of existing aesthetic
resources was completed. The evaluation included a description of landscape character, ranking
of aesthetic value and visual absorption capability, and identification of notable landscape
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3 February 2013
features. Landscape Character Types and absorption capability ratings were field-verified. The
nexus between each landscape character type and the proposed project was re-assessed to help
inform the identification of analysis locations and indicators to be used in the impact analysis.
Additional information pertaining to views (i.e., change in access to views), cultural
modification, lighting, and soundscapes was also collected.
4.3. Preliminary Analysis Locations
A preliminary list of analysis locations was developed prior to implementing fieldwork. The
purpose of this list was to develop target locations to guide field reconnaissance during the 2012
study year. This list was developed by overlaying the viewshed maps on United States
Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps indicating locations of towns, travel routes
(including trails), recreation destinations, and other important landmarks.
At each analysis location, existing landforms and vegetation were described and Global
Positioning System (GPS) coordinates recorded. Photographs were obtained using camera
specifications suitable for producing simulations of the proposed Project. Additional information
necessary to describe access, existing lighting, noise, and movement was also recorded.
Using data collected from the field review of existing aesthetic resources and the evaluation of
reconnaissance-level KOPs, recommendations for analysis locations for the 2013–2014 Study
were developed. Analysis locations were distributed across identified landscape character areas,
and included potentially sensitive land management areas (i.e., Denali State Park).
Initiate Interdisciplinary Coordination
Interdisciplinary coordination was initiated with the following resource area study leads to assist
in the identification of aesthetic resources:
Recreation
Socioeconomics
Subsistence
Vegetation
Hydrology
Ice Processes
Geomorphology
Water Quality
Air Quality
Coordination was a two-step process: (1) review of 2012 and 2013–2014 Study Plans for each
resource listed above, and (2) direct consultation with several resource leads. Study Plans were
reviewed to determine areas where a direct nexus existed with aesthetic resources.
4.4. Preliminary Project-Level Sensitivity Analysis
A preliminary sensitivity level analysis was implemented by evaluating the BLM’s five
indicators of public concern (Type of Users, Amount of Use, Public Interest, Adjacent Land Use,
and Special Areas). This analysis was cursory, and intended only to provide a basic
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4 February 2013
understanding of the amount of readily available data to support this analysis. Each criterion was
evaluated and ranked using a general classification defined in Table 4.4-1.
The 2012 reconnaissance work for sound modeling focused on developing a baseline
understanding of the existing soundscape through observation of perceived and identifiable
sources of noise contributing to the ambient sound environment, and the conditions during which
they occur.
5. RESULTS
5.1. 2012 Aesthetic Resources Study Area
The 2012 aesthetic resources study area for 2012 was defined in the course of the analysis and it
extended from the Denali Highway, south to the Glenn Highway, and from the Richardson
Highway, east to George Parks Highway (Figure 5.1-1). This area includes the following
broadly defined viewer areas:
The Susitna River basin corridor, downstream of Devils Canyon to Talkeetna;
The Susitna River basin at Devils Canyon, and upriver to the proposed dam site;
The Susitna River, upstream of the proposed dam site to the upriver extent of the
inundation zone; and
Upland areas adjacent to the Susitna River, with emphasis on those areas within the
anticipated viewshed of the inundation zone, proposed access roads, and proposed
transmission corridors.
Common air transportation routes used for recreational air tours
Preliminary viewshed models were prepared to demonstrate where the following areas are within
view (Figure 5.1-3) (i.e., “seen area”): (1) the segment of the Susitna River located 5 miles below
the proposed dam site to 5 miles above the upper terminus of the 2,200 foot elevation reservoir
study area (Figure 5.1-2), and (2) the 2,200 foot elevation reservoir study area . The proposed
reservoir elevation for the Project has been reduced since this model was prepared; consequently,
this model will be refined during the 2013–2014 analysis to be consistent with current project
specifications.
As anticipated, the geographical extent of the existing river corridor viewshed is more limited
than that which would result from the proposed reservoir. Views of the reservoir would be
accessible from areas as far north as the Denali Highway and in upland areas located south of the
existing river, adjacent to Fog and Stephan lakes.
Both pre- and post-Project viewshed models were completed using the following specifications:
Elevation data: 2010 Alaska IFSAR DSM, 5-meter (m) data resampled to 10 m using
ArcGIS 10 default resample method (nearest neighbor).
Viewer height of 1.6764 m, Radius of 48,280 m (30 miles) (curvature accounted for).
The post-Project viewshed was truncated to a radius of 30 miles based on the assumption that
Project features (notably, the reservoir) would not be detectable beyond this distance.
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5 February 2013
Additional viewshed models will be generated for the proposed access route and transmission
corridors using final routing for Project alternatives. Because final design data were not known
for the proposed access routes and transmission corridors, no viewshed was completed for these
features.
5.2. Regulatory and Plan Review
The following federal, tribal, state, and local regulatory and planning documents were reviewed
for relevant visual resource management standards, and scenic quality information relating to
sensitive viewsheds, open space, or areas identified for visual aesthetics:
Federal Regulations and Plans
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4371)
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA)
Bureau of Land Management – Land Use Planning Handbook
Bureau of Land Management – Visual Resource Management (VRM) System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (18 CFR 4.41)
State Plans
George Parks Highway Scenic Byway Master Interpretive Plan Draft. April 30, 2012.
Alaska Recreational Trails Plan. October 2000.
Alaska’s Outdoor Legacy. Statewide Comprehensive Recreation Plan (SCORP) 2009 –
2014. September 2009.
Recreation and Tourism in South-Central Alaska: Patterns and Prospects. 2002.
Cultural Resource Management Plan for the Denali Highway Lands, Central Alaska
Draft. September 2005.
Denali State Park Management Plan. 2006.
Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation. Ten-Year Strategic Plan 2007–2012. November
2006.
George Parks Highway Scenic Byway Corridor Partnership Plan. November 2008.
Local Plans
Chase Comprehensive Plan. 1993.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Tourism Infrastructure Needs Study. June 2008.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska Economic Development Strategic Plan. April 22,
2010.
George Parks Highways Visual Resource Inventory. 1981.
Denali National Park and Preserve Final South Denali Implementation Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement. April 2006.
Susitna Area Plan. June 1985.
Susitna Matanuska Area Plan Public Review Draft. February 2010.
Susitna Basin Recreation Rivers Management Plan. August 1991.
Talkeetna Comprehensive Plan. Adopted January 1998.
Feasibility Study for the South Denali Visitor Center. March 21, 2011.
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 6 February 2013
5.3. Baseline Aesthetic Resource Data Review
5.3.1. Visual Resource Inventory Data
To date, no spatial data or data forms have been located from the VRI completed for the East
Alaska planning area (BLM 2006). Information known about the VRI data is summarized in
Table 5.3-1.
5.3.2. Field Review of 1985 Aesthetic Resources Study Data
The 1985 Susitna Hydroelectric Project Application for License for Major Project (APA 1985)
included a detailed assessment of the aesthetic resources in the vicinity of the proposed Project.
This assessment included a description of landscape character types, notable natural features,
viewers and views, aesthetic value ratings, visual absorption capability, and composite ratings.
Each of these is described in more detail below.
As part of this 2012 reconnaissance, the results of this work were field-verified. The nexus
between the proposed Project and each landscape character area was evaluated. This information
will be used to inform the identification of indicators used in the analysis and the selection of
KOPs.
5.3.2.1. Landscape Character Types
A total of 13 landscape character types were identified during the 1985 Study (Figure 5.3-1).
These locations, listed below, proved suitable physiographic boundaries for use in the current
study.
Mid Susitna River Valley
Susitna River Near Devil Creek (Devils Canyon)
Susitna River
Vee (River) Canyon
Susitna Upland Wet Tundra Basin
Portage Lowlands
Chulitna Moist Tundra Uplands
Chulitna Mountains
Wet Upland Tundra
Talkeetna Uplands
Talkeetna Mountains
Susitna Upland Terrace
Susitna Upland
These areas will further provide quantitative bases by which to evaluate both the nexus of the
project with each landscape character area, and the geographic extent of potential project-related
effects relative to the overall size of each landscape character area. Information on the landscape
character areas visited during the reconnaissance effort is provided in Section 5.5.
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 7 February 2013
5.3.2.2. Notable Natural Features
Notable natural features that may serve as destinations for visitors and residents seeking
recreation opportunities were identified in the 1985 Preliminary Application Document (PAD)
(APA 1985). Descriptions of each notable natural feature described below are quoted directly
from text provided in the 1985 PAD (APA 1985).
Devils Canyon (Figure 5.3-2): Devils Canyon surrounds an 11-mile stretch of the Susitna River.
It begins just downstream of the mouth of Devil Creek and ends approximately 1.5 miles
upstream of Portage Creek.
Waterfalls on Devil Creek: Two large waterfalls pass through narrow gorges on Devil
Creek, just upstream of its confluence with the Susitna River. Vertical rock walls and
colorful vegetation punctuate the settings. This location was not visited as part of the
2012 reconnaissance.
Stephan Lake (Figure 5.3-3): Stephan Lake is a large water body located at the base of
the Talkeetna Mountains. There is a fishing/hunting lodge and several cabins along its
shore collectively known as Stephan Lake Lodge. Wetlands and gentle hills covered with
mixed woods and tundra comprise the lake’s natural shoreline. Stephan Lake is used as a
starting place for kayaking and rafting on the Talkeetna River.
Tsusena Creek Falls: A rocky canyon covered with mixed woods and tundra, and a
series of rapids and cataracts provide the backdrop for Tsusena Creek Falls. The falls are
located on Tsusena Creek, approximately 3 miles above its confluence with the Susitna
River. This location was not visited as part of the 2012 reconnaissance.
Tsusena Butte Lake: Located at the edge of the Chulitna Mountains, Tsusena Butte
Lake was created by a glacial moraine. The Tsusena Creek valley includes a large variety
of tundra landscapes and colorful rock formations. This location was not visited as part
of the 2012 reconnaissance.
Deadman Creek Falls (Figure 5.3-4): Similar to other tributary falls that flow into the
Susitna River, Deadman Creek Falls occurs in a steep, small-scale rocky canyon.
Fog Lakes (Figure 5.3-5): The Fog Lakes are a series of large, linear lakes on the south
side of the Susitna River. They occur in a gently rolling to flat landscape covered with
wetlands, mixed forest, and open tundra vegetation.
Big Lake and Deadman Lake: Big Lake and Deadman Lake are picturesquely set
between three large, tundra-covered buttes. Many outstanding views from the lakes into
the middle Susitna River basin exist. Two long lakes, surrounded by glaciated
mountains, are located in a narrow valley known as Caribou Pass. Wetlands and tundra
cover the valley floor where the middle fork of the Chulitna River has its headwaters.
This location was not visited as part of the 2012 reconnaissance.
Vee Canyon: Vee Canyon is a narrow, vertical, rocky canyon that encloses the Susitna
River for over a mile. Located upstream of the confluence with Jay Creek, the canyon
includes a double hairpin bend, a deeply cut channel, and a stretch of whitewater rapids.
The canyon’s steep ridges, varied coloration, and rock formations make it a visually
interesting feature. This location was not visited as part of the 2012 reconnaissance.
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 8 February 2013
5.3.2.3. Nexus between the Proposed Project and Aesthetic Resources
Preliminary insight on the potential nexus between the proposed Project and the aesthetic
resources of each landscape character or notable natural feature were assessed during the 2012
reconnaissance. The purpose of this assessment was to guide the placement of analysis location
targeted for the 2013/2014 study years. A project nexus was identified at locations where
aesthetic resources had the potential to be altered by the proposed project, or where new access
to aesthetic resources (i.e., noteworthy natural features) could be provided by proposed project
features (i.e., road and transmission corridor, reservoir). The potential nexus of the project with
several noteworthy natural features and landscape character areas were evaluated during the
2012 reconnaissance. This assessment was based on a preliminary understanding of project
features and siting, and results are subject to refinement as project design progresses. It is not
possible to make assumptions of project-related effects – beneficial or adverse – until the final
analysis is completed. Site-specific factors, such as topography and vegetation could reduce or
eliminate views of the project. Likewise, the degree to which the project components are
detectable on the landscape will depend on other analysis factors such as the distance of the
viewer, angle of observation, duration of view, and landscape absorption. Conversely, the degree
to which project features improve accessibility to views or areas identified as noteworthy natural
features will depend on final corridor selection and routing. For this reason, the identification of
potential project nexus should be regarded as preliminary, and used only to guide the focus of the
2013-2014 study. The initial analysis of potential Project nexus with aesthetic resources is
provided in Table 5.3-2.
5.4. Preliminary Visual Sensitivity Analysis
5.4.1. Assessment of Coarse-Level Visual Sensitivity
The planning-level sensitivity-level analysis data collected during the 2003 VRI for the East
Alaska Planning Area (BLM 2006) will be refined where possible to better convey Project-level
features. To prepare for this analysis, information on potential viewers’ areas was collected. For
the purpose of the 2012 reconnaissance, generalizations were made regarding sensitivity-level
indicators in ranking as high, medium, or low. Where possible, these assumptions will be
refined using available statistics, such as recreational use counts, to guide our understanding of
the level of use in each viewer area.
Within the aesthetic resources study area, a total of five broad areas of shared visual sensitivity
were identified through the 2012 reconnaissance. Views are primarily accessed through
recreational opportunities, tourism, and subsistence. The 1985 Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Application for License for Major Project identifies primary viewers as hunters, anglers, guides,
flyers, boaters, packrafters, motorists, and hikers (APA 1985). Viewer areas are described as
follows and preliminary visual sensitivity information is provided in Table 5.4-1:
The Susitna River basin corridor, downstream of Devils Canyon to Talkeetna;
The Susitna River basin, downstream of Talkeetna to the mouth of the river;
The Susitna River basin at Devils Canyon, and upriver to the proposed dam site;
The Susitna River, upstream of the proposed dam site to the upriver extent of the
inundation zone;
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 9 February 2013
Upland areas located north of the Susitna River; and
Upland areas located south of the Susitna River.
5.5. Preliminary Analysis Locations
5.5.1. Preliminary Analysis Locations – 2012 Reconnaissance
As part of the 2012 field reconnaissance, preliminary KOPs were established in four locations
within the Susitna River basin, located upriver of the proposed dam site, and three locations
situated in adjacent upland areas (Figure 5.5-1). One linear KOP was implemented along the
Talkeetna River, downstream from Devils Canyon.
At each KOP, information on landscape character, existing sources of light and glare, potential
views and viewer groups, and access to views was recorded. Observations on existing sources of
light and glare, and soundscape were recorded. Baseline photography was collected at each KOP
using photographic standards suitable for developing simulations.
Because specific information about the locations of proposed access roads and transmission line
corridors was not known at the time of the reconnaissance, no preliminary KOPs were
established to evaluate areas where access roads and transmission lines may be sited.
All photographs were collected as a series of photos in order to stitch together as a panoramic.
Information collected at each preliminary KOP is described below.
KOP #1: Stephan Lake Uplands
KOP #1 is located southwest of Stephan Lake, in areas used for dispersed hunting. This KOP is
representative of views experienced while engaged in dispersed recreation. The view from this
location is described as a broad panoramic (Figure 5.5-2). No existing sources of artificial light
are visible. Glare is limited to that created by the smooth, glossy and reflective surface of
isolated wetland ponds. Landscape character elements are described in Table 5.5-1.
KOP #2: Susitna Upland Terrace west of the Fog Lakes
KOP #2 is located to the west of the Fog Lakes, along an existing 2-track trail (Figure 5.5-4,
Figure 5.5-5). This KOP represents views of the Project area experienced by individuals
engaged in dispersed recreation and subsistence centered on existing travel ways. The landscape
is large in scale; however, the landscape appears enclosed by the Talkeetna Mountains to the
northeast. Landscape character elements are described in Table 5.5-2.
KOP #3: Susitna Upland Terrace at the Proposed Dam Site
KOP #3 located in the Susitna Upland Terrace, on river left above the proposed dam site. The
view is directed east, looking up the Susitna River valley (Figure 5.5-6). The purpose of KOP #3
was to evaluate the change in landscape character elements (i.e., waterform) as a result of
operation of the proposed Project. Landscape character elements are described in Table 5.5-3.
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 10 February 2013
KOP #4: Susitna River, upriver of Proposed Dam Site
KOP #4 is situated approximately 1 mile upriver of the proposed dam site. The purpose of this
KOP is to evaluate visible changes in landform following filling of the proposed Project, and the
creation of new views as a result of the proposed water surface elevation of the reservoir. Figure
5.5-7 illustrates views downstream from KOP #4. Landscape character elements are described in
Table 5.5-4.
The river valley at this location is characterized by steep canyon walls and prominent rock
outcroppings. It is anticipated that, following inundation of this reach, the surrounding
landforms would be characterized by broad, shallow rolling hills, similar to those observed in
upland areas. Figure 5.5-8 illustrates the view downriver at the location of KOP #4 at an
elevation of 2,050 feet. At this elevation, the valley would appear broader and views would be
expanded to include background distance zones.
KOP #5: Susitna River, view upriver from Susitna Upland Terrace
KOP #5 is located in the Susitna Upland Terrace, on river right above the proposed dam site.
The view is directed east, looking up the Susitna River valley (Figure 5.5-9). The purpose of
KOP #5 was to evaluate the change in landscape character elements (i.e., waterform) as a result
of operation of the proposed Project. Landscape character elements are described in Table 5.5-5.
KOP #6: Susitna River, view upriver from Susitna Upland Terrace
KOP #6 is located approximately 4 miles upriver of the proposed dam site. The purpose of this
KOP is to evaluate visible changes in landform following construction and operation of the
proposed Project, and the creation of new views as a result of the new base elevation of the
reservoir. Photographs were obtained for views facing upstream and downstream. Figure 5.5-10
illustrates views facing upriver from KOP #6. Landscape character elements are described in
Table 5.5-6.
The river valley at this location is characterized as broad. It is anticipated that following
inundation of this reach the surrounding background mountains would appear more prominent
and provide greater enclosure to the landscape, despite the expansive scale. Figure 5.5-11
illustrates the view upriver at the location of KOP #6 at an elevation of 2,050 feet.
KOP #7: Susitna River at Proposed Dam Site (indicated on map as a star)
KOP #7 is located below the proposed dam site (Figure 5.5-12). The purpose of KOP #7 was to
evaluate changes in scenic quality components at the location of the proposed dam site that may
result from construction and operation of the proposed Project. Landscape character elements
are described in Table 5.5-7.
5.6. Preliminary Analysis Locations
5.6.1. Visual Resources
Based on the 2012 reconnaissance, general analysis locationswere identified for consideration in
the 2013–2014 study (see Section 12.6.4 of the Revised Study Plan). Analysis locations were
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 11 February 2013
selected to represent common and/or sensitive views within the aesthetic resources study area,
and areas used to measure anticipated change in scenic quality, and/or new opportunities for
views, based on potential configuration of access roads/transmission corridors. These areas will
be used to evaluate baseline aesthetic values (including visual resources and soundscape), and
will be carried forward through the effects analysis. Analysis locations will differ by landscape
analysis factors (i.e., distance from the Project, predominant angle of observation, dominant use),
and may be applicable to one or more seasons.
KOPs will be categorized as follows:
Observation Points (OPs): Observation Points represent specific locations or stationary
viewpoints. Views experienced from OPs may be directional (i.e., a focal view) or not
(i.e., a 360-degree panoramic).
Observation Areas (OAs): Observation Areas represent large geographic areas where
views could be experienced from a variety of locations. Views are typically transient and
experienced by viewers moving through the area (i.e., dispersed recreation; subsistence).
The likelihood of viewers standing in the same spot during repeated visits is low. The
degree of variability of views experienced from OAs will depend on a variety of
landscape characteristics.
Observation Corridors (OCs): Observation Corridors, also called “linear KOPs”,
represent linear viewing experiences, in which scenic attributes are experienced as a
continuum. They may be focal (i.e., leading toward a noteworthy natural feature), and/or
transient (i.e., passing through a landscape).
Landscape Character Points (LCPs): Landscape Character Points will be established to
provide standardized locations in which to evaluate changes in scenic quality. These
locations are not tied to a particular viewer experience; however, they will provide
information regarding the change in the visual resource of the area (beneficial or adverse)
that may result from the proposed Project.
Recommended analysis locations are described in Table 5.5-8. Each location is targeted to
address potential impacts (beneficial or adverse) to aesthetic resources. Locations used to assess
new access to views/viewer experience that may result from access roads and/or transmission
corridors will be selected through review of topographic maps and viewshed modeling.
5.6.2. Soundscape
The 2012 reconnaissance work for sound modeling focused on developing a baseline
understanding of the existing soundscape through observation of perceived and identifiable
sources of noise contributing to the ambient sound environment and the conditions during which
they occur. Observations were limited due to limited field time and interference resulting from
the primary modes of transportation (e.g., helicopter and jet boat) used during the site visit.
Based on coordination with the Recreation and Aesthetic Resource Study Leads, it was
determined that preliminary reconnaissance could focus on areas assessed during the 1985
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Application for License for Major Project (APA 1985). These
areas include the Mid-Susitna River valley, Susitna Upland Terrace, Susitna River near Devils
Canyon, and areas around Talkeetna including uplands and mountains.
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 12 February 2013
Coordination with the Aesthetics and Recreation Program Study Leads was initiated to identify
locations where both unattended long-term and attended short-term daytime and nighttime sound
measurements will occur. Preliminary information on the VRI indicated that this analysis was
completed in parallel with the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). Because the ROS
system specifies goals pertaining to the soundscape, it could serve as a suitable framework by
which to conduct the soundscape analysis and future modeling using the System for the
Prediction of Acoustic Detectability (SPreAD).
5.7. Interdisciplinary Coordination
Interdisciplinary coordination was initiated with other Project Study Leads focused on recreation,
cultural resources, subsistence, socioeconomics and transportation, geomorphology, ice
processes, water quality, and riparian vegetation. Coordination was focused on identifying how
other resources may facilitate identification of common, sensitive, or valued aesthetic resources
(i.e., KOPs), and/or areas to improve our understanding of where potential changes to
biophysical processes could affect scenery attributes within the primary study area.
6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The 2012 data review and field reconnaissance provided the necessary information to adequately
plan for the 2013–2014 study, both in terms of the technical aspects of the study and the
logistical aspects of field implementation. A key result of the 2012 work was the establishment
of interdisciplinary coordination to identify key resource implications for aesthetic resources.
This activity, along with consideration of potential Project facilities locations and operational
characteristics of the proposed Project, was instrumental in identifying preliminary analysis
locations to address potential effects. It is expected that ongoing interdisciplinary coordination
completed in 2013–2014 will further refine these areas, and inform the placement of soundscape
measurements.
7. REFERENCES
ADNR (Alaska Department of Natural Resources). 1981. Susitna Basin Planning Background
Report: Scenic Resources along the Parks Highway, Inventory and Management
Recommendations. George Parks Highways Visual Resource Inventory. Alaska
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Research and Development Land and
Resource Planning Section. Anchorage, AK.
—. 1985. Susitna Area Plan. June 1985.
—. 1991. Susitna Basin Recreation Rivers Management Plan. Alaska Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Land and Resources Section and Alaska Department of Fish &
Game. August 1991.
—. 2000. Alaska Recreational Trails Plan. October 2000.
—. 2005. Cultural Resource Management Plan for the Denali Highway Lands, Central Alaska
Draft. September 2005.
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 13 February 2013
—. 2006. Denali State Park Management Plan. Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Anchorage, AK.
—. 2006. Ten-Year Strategic Plan 2007-2012. Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Anchorage, AK. November 2006.
—. 2009. Alaska’s Outdoor Legacy. Statewide Comprehensive Recreation Plan (SCORP)
2009-2014. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor
Recreation. Anchorage, AK. September 2009.
—. 2010. Susitna Matanuska Area Plan Public Review Draft. Alaska Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water Resource Assessment & Development.
Anchorage, AK. February 2010.
ADOT&PF (Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities). 2012. George Parks
Highway Scenic byway master Interpretive Plan Draft. April 30, 2012.
—. 2008. George Parks Highway Scenic Byway Corridor Partnership Plan. November 2008.
AEA (Alaska Energy Authority). 2012. Aesthetic Resources Study. Revised Study Plan: Susitna-
Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241, Section 12.6. December 2012.
Prepared for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by the Alaska Energy
Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/12/07-RSP-Dec2012_7of8-Sec-11-12-BotanicalthroughRecreation-
v2.pdf.
APA (Alaska Power Authority ). 1985. Draft Application of License for Major Project, Susitna
Hydroelectric Project, Volume 13, Exhibit e, Chapters 7, 8 & 9. Harza-Ebasco Susitna
Joint Venture, November 1985.
—. 2011. Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Pre-Application Document. FERC Project
No. 14241.
BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1986. Visual Resource Management System. Published
online at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/Recreation/recreation_national/RMS.html
BLM 2005. Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1).
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ak/aktest/planning/planning_general.Par.65
225.File.dat/blm_lup_handbook.pdf.
BLM. 2006. East Alaska Resource Management Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Land Management. Glennallen Field Office.
Colt, Steven; Martin, Stephanie; Mieren, Jenna; and Tomeo, Martha. 2002. Recreation and
Tourism in South-Central Alaska: Patterns and Prospects.
Chase Citizen’s Planning Advisory Committee. 1993. Chase Comprehensive Plan.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB). 1998. Talkeetna Comprehensive Plan. Adopted January
1998, amended March 1999.
McDowell Group. 2008. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Tourism Infrastructure Needs Study. June
2008.
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 14 February 2013
NPS (National Park Service). 2006. Final South Denali Implementation Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Denali National Park
and Preserve, Denali Park, Alaska.
TIP Strategies, Inc. 2010. Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska Economic Development Strategic
Plan. April 22, 2010.
University of Alaska Anchorage Center for Economic Development. 2011. Feasibility Study for
the South Denali Visitor Center. March 21, 2011.
7.1. Map References
URS Alaska, 2012. AES_KEY_OBS_PTS - Key observation points
URS Alaska, 2012. AES_StudyArea: Aesthetics study area bound by Denali, Richardson, Glenn
and Parks Highways.
URS Alaska, 2012. AES_VS_Current.tif modeled from 2010 IFSAR Digital Terrain Model with
view points 1 mile spacing along the Susitna River 5 miles above to 5 miles below
project
URS Alaska, 2012. AES_VS_2200ft.tif modeled from 2010 IFSAR Digital Terrain Model with
1 mile sample points in project area at 2200 ft elevation
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 15 February 2013
8. TABLES
Table 4.4-1. Sensitivity level rating criteria (BLM 1986)
Sensitivity Level Indicator Sensitivity Level Rating Guidance
High Medium Low
Type of Users. Maintenance of
visual quality is: Major concern for most users Moderate concern for most users Low concern for most users
Amount of Use. Maintenance of
visual quality becomes more
important as the level of use
increases:
High level of use Moderate level of use Low level of use
Public Interest. Maintenance of
visual quality is a: Major public issue Moderate public issue Minor public issue
Adjacent Land Uses: Maintenance
of visual quality to sustain adjacent
land use objectives is:
Very important Moderately important Slightly important
Special Areas. Maintenance of
visual quality to sustain Special Area
management objectives is:
Very important Moderately important Slightly important
Table 5.3-1. Information on the Visual Resource Inventory completed for the BLM East Alaska Planning Area
Data Type Data
VRI Analyst Tom Dilts
Year Completed 2003
Metadata No metadata developed
Methodology
SQRU boundaries were first delineated using National Park Service, Alaska Support Office’s Ecoregion
coverage. Ecoregions for the state of Alaska were originally generated using data on climate, terrain,
soils, and vegetation. Ecoregions within Glennallen District were selected and were further subdivided
based upon factors listed above with emphasis on terrain. In some instances, Ecoregions were merged,
especially if they were small and located near the periphery of the district.
# of Scenic Quality Rating Units
(SQRUs) 22 SQRUs (15 contain BLM-administered lands)
Travel Routes
Alaska Railroad, Park Highway, Denali Highway, Valdez Creek Road, Delta River, Gulkana River,
Richardson Highway, Coal Mine Road, Tok-Cutoff Highway, Nabesna Road, Mentasta Spur Road, Glenn
Highway, Lake Louise Road, Klutina Lake Road, Old Edgerton Highway, New Edgerton Highway,
McCarthy Road, Old Copper River Railroad, Copper River Highway, Mineral Creek Road
Scenic Quality Rating Units
Malaspine Foreland, Bering Foreland, Copper River Delta, Eastern Prince William Sound, Chugach
Mountains, St. Elias Mountains, Wrangell Mountains, Kluane Mountains, Chitina River Valley, Copper
Basin, Tetlin Lowlands, Mentasta Mountains, Gakona River, Tangle Lakes, Clearwater, Alaska Range
Mountains, Monahan Flats, Northern Foothills, Chulitna Mountains, Talkeetna Mountains, Nelchina
Uplands, Cook Inlet Lowlands
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 16 February 2013
Table 5.3-2. Potential nexus between the proposed project and aesthetic resources of the Study Area (under development).
Landscape
Character Type
(Notable Natural
Feature)
Nexus between the Proposed Project and
Aesthetic Resources of the Landscape Character Type
Mid Susitna River
Valley
Change in the structure and composition of riparian vegetation communities may result from
changes in the existing hydrologic (flood) regime. Such changes could result in more
homogenous, even-aged, mature riparian vegetation communities that would alter the
existing mosaic of form, line, color and texture of vegetation.
Changes in river flow and geomorphology (including sediment transport and ice processes)
could alter the appearance of the river corridor (flow, sandbars, islands)
Transmission and access routes being considered for the proposed project could be visible in
upland portions of the Mid Susitna River Valley. Although final route alternatives have not
been selected, construction and operation of these project components could introduce bold
lines that contrast the existing landscape. New sources of glare could result from
Transmission lines.
Access routes and transmission corridors could result in creation of new views of both the
Susitna River Basin, and the surrounding areas.
Susitna River Near
Devil Creek (Devils
Canyon)
Aesthetic qualities of views from the base of or within Devils Canyon, a notable natural
feature, could be affected by construction and operation of the proposed project if Chulitna
and/or Gold reek Corridor transmission or road facilities are visible from this area.
Change in flow regime could improve accessibility to this river reach, thereby creating new
viewing opportunities.
Transmission and access routes being considered for the proposed project could be visible
from locations within the Canyon. Transmission lines could introduce new sources of glare
not currently present under existing conditions.
Susitna River / Vee
(River) Canyon
Vee Canyon, and identified notable natural feature, would be impact ed by the proposed
project due to its location within the inundation zone.
The proposed dam structure and associated transmission lines and access routes could
impact aesthetic quality within the Susitna River through introduction of cultural
modifications.
Change in landform, waterforms (river, waterfalls) and vegetation, and levels of existing
cultural modification are expected to result from operation of the proposed project due to
inundation of the existing river canyon.
The proposed reservoir would be visible from locations >10 -25 miles away. Due to the high
value of water as a scenic attribute, views of this water feature could improve scenic quality
scores from certain locations.
Change in access to views is expected to result from operation of the proposed project.
Access roads and transmission corridors would provide opportunities for views to reach
currently remote areas of the Susitna River/Vee Canyon. Within the inundation zone,
viewers would be situated at a higher elevation than under existing conditions, and could
potentially experience views from a less mobile vantage point (depending on the type of
aquatic recreation engaged) due to loss of flowing river.
Transmission and access routes being considered for the proposed project could be visible
from locations within the Susitna River landscape character type. Transmission lines could
introduce new sources of glare not currently present under existing conditions.
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 17 February 2013
Landscape
Character Type
(Notable Natural
Feature)
Nexus between the Proposed Project and
Aesthetic Resources of the Landscape Character Type
Should levels of dust increase during periods of drawdown, visibility within the Susitna
River / Vee Canyon and adjacent areas may be affected.
Wet Upland Tundra Big / Deadman Lakes, identified notable natural features, could be affected by construction
and operation of the proposed project, particularly if transmission line and access roads were
sited within the Deadman Creek basin.
The Wetland Upland Tundra landscape character could be affected by construction and
operation of access roads and transmission corridors. Siting of these structures within this
landscape character area would introduce strong contrast ad new sources of glare to the area.
The Susitna River (Susitna Upland Wet Tundra Basin) could serve as an access point to the
reservoir.
Portions of this landscape character types will also be situated within the viewshed of the
inundation zone. New sources of light and glare associated with the dam structure could be
visible from this area.
Susitna Upland Wet
Tundra Basin
Deadman Creek (Wetland Upland Tundra) could serve as an access point to the reservoir.
Portions of this landscape character types will also be situated within the viewshed of the
inundation zone.
Portage Lowlands;
Chulitna Moist
Tundra Uplands
Change in access to views of the Portage lowlands could result from access roads and/or
transmission corridors. Transmission lines could introduce new sources of glare not
currently present under existing conditions.
The existing landscape character type could be affected by construction and operation of
access roads and/or transmission corridors.
Talkeetna Uplands Change in access to views of the Talkeetna Uplands could result from access roads and/or
transmission corridors
The existing viewshed of this landscape character type could be affected by construction and
operation of access roads and/or transmission corridors.
Cumulative impacts to scenic attributes of the Talkeetna Uplands landscape character type
could result from the addition of access roads and transmission corridors to existing areas of
cultural modification (gravel mine, existing transmission, railroad). Transmission lines
could introduce new sources of glare not currently present under existing conditions.
Talkeetna Mountains
/ Susitna Upland
Terrace
The aesthetic qualities of the Fog and Stephan Lakes, identified notable natural features,
could be affected by construction and operation of the propose project, including access
roads and transmission corridor.
Portions of the Talkeetna Mountain and Susitna Upland Terrace would be located within the
viewshed of the proposed reservoir. Views of this water feature may improve scenic quality
of views within this area.
The proposed dam, access roads and transmission corridor may be located within the
viewshed of the Talkeetna Mountains and Susitna Upland Terrace and could detract from
the scenic quality of this area due to introduction of contrasting features, and new sources of
light and glare.
Susitna Upland Portions of the Susitna Upland would be located within the viewshed of the proposed
reservoir. Views of this water feature may improve scenic quality of views within this area.
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 18 February 2013
Landscape
Character Type
(Notable Natural
Feature)
Nexus between the Proposed Project and
Aesthetic Resources of the Landscape Character Type
Chulitna Mountains Caribou Pass, a notable natural feature, could be affected by construction and operation of
access routes and transmission corridors, particularly if sited north of the Susitna River.
Viewsheds of high elevation areas of the Chulitna Mountains could be impacted by
construction and operation of the propo sed project, including access routes and transmission
corridors.
Table 5.4-3. Preliminary sensitivity level analysis of the Project area
SLRU 1 SLRU 2 SLRU 3 SLRU 4 SLRU 5 SLRU 6
Type of
User
Aquatic recreator
Subsistence
Tourist
Tour boat
operator
Resident / cabin
owner
Mine worker
Train operator
Local
Subsistence
Recreation
Transportation
Aquatic
Recreator
Aquatic recreator
Subsistence
Cabin owner
Hunting
Subsistence
fishing
Lodging
Hunting
Subsistence
Fishing
Lodging
Cabin owner
Amount
of Use
Variable – Highest
use among tourists
accessing area via
jetboat
TBD LOW LOW HIGH LOW
Public
Interest
High –
socioeconomic
value of tour boats;
tie to Talkeetna
TBD
High – notable
natural feature
recognized
beyond the
region
TBD TBD TBD
Adjacent
Land
Uses
Denali State Park
Susitna Flats
Game Refuge
Iditarod NHT*
Denali State
Park
N/A N/A N/A N/A
Special
Areas N/A
Susitna Flats
Game Refuge
Iditarod NHT
N/A N/A N/A N/A
*NHT = National Historic Trail
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 19 February 2013
Table 5.5-1. Landscape character elements of the Susitna Upland Terrace (KOP #1)
Landscape
Character Element Description
Landforms
Foreground views are characterized by the broad, gentle slopes of the foothills of the Talkeetna Mountains and
Susitna Upland Terrace. Adjacent mountains are rugged, with areas of exposed rock that appear rough against the
surrounding tundra. Middle ground views extend across the Susitna Upland Terrace to the upper ridgelines of the
Susitna River basin. Predominant lines appear horizontal, to shallow and diagonal. Background views are
characterized by the steep and rugged Talkeetna and Chulitna Mountains, and include focal landscape features,
such as Denali National Park to the northwest (Figure 5.5-3), and the expansiveness of Susitna River basin to the
north-northwest.
Waterforms Water forms are limited to isolated wetland ponds. These water forms appear discrete due to contrast of the
smooth and glossy texture of the water against the surrounding vegetation.
Vegetation Vegetation is characteristic of tundra. Spruce trees are apparent as darker green stippling across upland terraces.
Cultural Modification No cultural modification visible.
Views Broad panoramic, containing distinct landscape elements in foreground, middle ground, and background. Mt.
McKinley is considered focal to this view.
Artificial Light No sources of artificial light are present in this area.
Glare Sources of glare are limited to the natural reflectivity of wetland ponds.
Soundscape
Assumed to be natural; however, soundscape was not assessed due to presence of the helicopter and inability to
power down. It is possible that motorized recreation is audible during winter months; however, this use is expected
to be infrequent.
Table 5.5-2. Landscape character elements of the Susitna Upland Terrace (KOP #2)
Landscape
Character Element Description
Landforms Foreground–middle ground views are characterized by flat to gently sloped terrace. Background views are
characterized as bold and rugged.
Waterforms Numerous small lakes and wetlands appear oval to irregular/amorphous, flat, smooth and glossy. Grey-blue
color and reflective glare contrasts surrounding color and texture.
Vegetation Upland tundra; dark green, conical; dense. Patchiness created in areas where no conifers exist.
Cultural Modification Isolated cabins; appear cubic, small in scale; congruent with existing landscape character.
Views Large scale, but enclosed.
Artificial Light No artificial light observed.
Glare Sources of glare are limited to the natural reflectivity of ponds.
Soundscape
Assumed to be natural; however, soundscape was not assessed due to presence of the helicopter and inability
to power down. It is possible that motorized recreation is audible during winter months; however, this use is
expected to be infrequent.
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 20 February 2013
Table 5.5-3. Landscape character elements of the Susitna Upland Terrace at the proposed dam site (KOP #3)
Landscape
Character Element Description
Landforms
Foreground view is characterized by the broad, flat to gently rolling landforms of the Susitna Upland Terrace.
The upper elevations of the steep canyon walls of the Susitna River and Deadman Creek drainages are
apparent. Background views are characterized by the rugged and angular Talkeetna Mountains.
Waterforms No water forms are currently visible from this location.
Vegetation
Vegetation appears dark green, cylindrical, and uniform, with distinct patches created from areas where spruce
are not visible. Patches appear brighter green due to the more vibrant color of the tundra vegetation
compared to the spruce.
Cultural Modification No cultural modification is visible from this location.
Views Views appear focal and directional. The eye is drawn upriver, following the path of the river.
Artificial Light No sources of artificial light are present in this area.
Glare No sources of glare are present in this area.
Soundscape
Assumed to be natural and dominated by the sound of wind, and movement of the river. However, soundscape
was not assessed due to presence of the helicopter and inability to power down. It is possible that motorized
recreation is audible during winter months; however, this use is expected to be infrequent.
Table 5.5-4. Landscape character elements of the Susitna River basin approximately 1 mile upriver from the proposed
dam site (KOP #4)
Landscape
Character Element Description
Landforms
The river valley is characterized by a steep V-shaped canyon. The topography of the basin creates prominent,
converging diagonal lines. Bold and rugged rock outcroppings are common; appear coarse in texture against
the surrounding vegetation.
Waterforms Flowing; broad and flat, interrupted only by scattered oval to round rocks; curvilinear, glossy to matte; beige
tones.
Vegetation Dense; contiguous; varying shades of green; soft.
Cultural Modification No cultural modification is visible from this location.
Views Views appear focal and directional. The eye is drawn downriver, following the path of the river.
Artificial Light No sources of artificial light are present in this area.
Glare No sources of glare are present in this area.
Soundscape Assumed to be natural and dominated by the sound of wind, and movement of the river. However, soundscape
was not assessed due to presence of the helicopter and inability to power down.
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 21 February 2013
Table 5.5-5. Landscape character elements of the Susitna Upland Terrace at the proposed dam site (KOP #5)
Landscape
Character Element Description
Landforms Landforms characterized by the expanse of the Susitna River basin, and the broad, flat and predominantly
horizontal lines of the upland terraces. Surrounding mountains appear simple and moderate in scale.
Waterforms The Susitna River appears focal and directional. The water appears luminescent, thereby creating a
contrasting curvilinear line that meanders through the basin.
Vegetation Vegetation appears as a contiguous expanse of spruce, characterized in areas as distinct dark green cylindrical
forms against patches of open tundra.
Cultural Modification No cultural modification is visible from this location.
Views Views appear focal and directional. The eye is drawn upriver, following the path of the river.
Artificial Light No sources of artificial light are present in this area.
Glare No sources of glare are present in this area.
Soundscape
Assumed to be natural and dominated by the sound of wind, and movement of the river. However, soundscape
was not assessed because the helicopter did not touch down at this location. It is possible that motorized
recreation is audible during winter months; however, this use is expected to be infrequent.
Table 5.5-6. Landscape character elements of the Susitna River basin, facing upriver (KOP #6)
Landscape
Character Element Description
Landforms
Broad, flat/gently sloping river valley; river’s edge characterized by moderately steep banks. Lines horizontal to
gently undulating; mountains in background appear prominent and distinct; moderately rugged. Sandbar
islands common due to shallow water depth. Sand appears smooth and fine textured, grading to coarse
patches of cobble.
Waterforms Flat, broad; shallow.
Vegetation Contiguous; dense; dark green, with patches of more vibrant green where deciduous vegetation exists.
Cultural Modification No cultural modification is visible from this location.
Views Views appear focal and directional. The eye is drawn upriver, following the path of the river.
Artificial Light No sources of artificial light are present in this area.
Glare No sources of glare are present in this area.
Soundscape Assumed to be natural and dominated by the sound of wind, and movement of the river. However, soundscape
was not assessed because the helicopter did not power down.
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 22 February 2013
Table 5.5-7. Landscape character elements of the river canyon, facing upriver (KOP #7)
Landscape
Character Element Description
Landforms River canyon appears steep, dominated by diagonal lines; v-shaped canyon; rock outcroppings appear cubic,
vertical and rough.
Waterforms Flat; curvilinear, glossy to matte; beige tones.
Vegetation Dense, cylindrical; vertical lines; contiguous; varying shades of green.
Cultural Modification No cultural modification is visible from this location.
Views Views appear focal and directional. The eye is drawn upriver, following the path of the river.
Artificial Light No sources of artificial light are present in this area.
Glare No sources of glare are present in this area. Reflectivity and glare in the water are minimized due to heavy silt
loading.
Soundscape Assumed to be natural and dominated by the sound of wind, and movement of the river. However, soundscape
was not assessed because we were not able to exit the helicopter.
Table 5.5-8. Preliminary Recommendations for analysis locations
Analysis Goal Locations Being Considered Outcome Mid Susitna River Valley Evaluate potential impacts
of transmission and
access routes to aesthetic
resources of the Mid
Susitna River Valley.
Include upland and river-based analysis locations,
including:
Susitna River, view downriver from perspective of
a boater
Susitna River, view upriver from perspective of a
boater (jetboat)
View from rail line
Upland, from perspective of existing trails
Upland, from dispersed recreation and/or
subsistence use areas
Aerial views, from common flight path used for
flightseeing
Understand landscape absorption
Identify changes in scenic quality
due to introduction of cultural
modification
Where possible, inform
engineering team to consider
potential design options
Evaluate new access to
views of both the Susitna
River basin and the
surrounding areas that
may be created from
access routes and
transmission corridors.
Evaluate each proposed
route to determine where
new views to focal or
large-scale panoramic
views would be
accessible. Use viewshed
modeling to support the
selection of analysis
locations.
Select locations on and adjacent to proposed access
routes and transmission line corridors.
Identify areas where increased
access to focal or panoramic views
may increase exposure to certain
viewsheds
Identify areas where access to
noteworthy natural features may
change
Use information to inform
understanding of post-Project
visual sensitivity
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 23 February 2013
Analysis Goal Locations Being Considered Outcome
Evaluate the change in
appearance of
downstream river
attributes as a result of the
proposed Project.
View downriver, from perspective of a boater.
Identify islands and/or riparian areas influenced by
hydrologic regimes (i.e., multi-aged stands/varied
vegetation communities)
View from existing winter trail toward ice bridge
(note that this analysis will be coordinated to the
outcome of the Ice Processes Study)
View from upland trail, and/or dispersed
recreation/subsistence use area
At transect locations for Ice
Processes/Geomorphology/Riparian Vegetation
studies
Define anticipated changes to
riparian vegetation and related
perceivable potential indirect
impacts to aesthetic resources
(i.e., increased enclosure,
potentially decreased
heterogeneity/contrast across
vegetation communities)
Characterize existing scenic quality
attributes of ice bridges, with a
focus on those areas where ice
bridge formation has been
recorded across multiple years;
evaluate anticipated change in
these attributes (spatially and/or
temporally) based on input from ice
processes work
Define anticipated change in
landscape character of the valley
View of river valley from upland area, i.e., locations
with existing view of the Mid Susitna River Basin
(i.e., Denali State Park, rail line; trails).
If determined to be detectable by
the study, define anticipated
changes to character of the river
that may result from operation of
the Project
Demonstrate differences in ability
to detect change as a function of
distance from the Project Devils Canyon Evaluate the change in the
appearance, if any, of river
flow within Devils Canyon
as a result of the proposed
Project.
View downriver from perspective of a low flying
aircraft.
Define anticipated change to
aesthetic attributes based on
possible change in flow regime
View upriver from perspective of a jetboat operator
(base of Devils Canyon).
Define anticipated change to
aesthetic attributes based on
change in flow regime
Evaluate potential impacts
of transmission and
access routes to aesthetic
resources of Devils
Canyon.
View from river canyon, south toward corridor
(visibility questionable).
Define impacts to scenic quality
attributes of Devils Canyon that
may result from access roads and
transmission lines
Evaluate new access to
views of Devils Canyon
due to access roads and
transmission corridors.
If determined that views would be accessible, select
locations on and adjacent to proposed access
routes.
Describe scenic quality attributes
of views accessed by roads and/or
transmission corridors Susitna River / Vee (River) Canyon Evaluate change in
mechanism of view(s)
within the inundation zone.
View upriver/downriver from within Susitna River
corridor (existing).
Disclose anticipated changes in
viewer experience due to formation
of the reservoir
Evaluate change in
landscape features
(landform, vegetation,
waterform, cultural
modification).
View upriver / downriver from within Susitna River
corridor (existing), with analysis location established
at height of reservoir.
Identify change in scenic quality
attributes of landform, vegetation,
waterform, cultural modification
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 24 February 2013
Analysis Goal Locations Being Considered Outcome
Evaluate change in views
of the existing river
corridor (waterform)
following inundation and
formation of the reservoir.
Views of the river from existing access trails, and
upland areas used for dispersed recreation and/or
subsistence
Identify changes in scenic quality
attributes and associated scores
based on introduction of prominent
water feature in viewshed Susitna Upland Wet Tundra Basin Evaluate change in views
of the existing river
corridor (waterform)
following inundation and
formation of the reservoir.
Views of the river from existing access trails, and
upland areas used for dispersed recreation and/or
subsistence
Identify changes in scenic quality
attributes and associated scores
based on introduction of prominent
water feature in viewshed Portage Lowlands Evaluate change in
seasonal attributes of river
downstream of the
proposed dam site as a
result of varied flow
regimes.
Views from existing trail; views from mouth of creek.
Identify change in scenic quality
attributes of landform, vegetation,
waterform, cultural modification.
Consider focus on flow-based
aesthetic qualities
Evaluate potential impacts
to landscape character
that may result from
access roads and/or
transmission lines
Views from proposed access roads and transmission
lines.
Identify changes in scenic quality
attributes that may result from
introduction of roads and
transmission corridors
Use information gleaned from
analysis to inform engineering
design and design options
Evaluate new access to
views of Portage Lowlands
and Portage Creek due to
access roads and
transmission corridors.
Select locations on and adjacent to proposed access
routes and transmission line corridors.
Describe scenic quality attributes
of views accessed by roads and/or
transmission corridors
Evaluate potential impacts
to landscape character
that may result from
access roads and/or
transmission lines.
Views from existing trails; dispersed recreation
and/or subsistence use areas.
Identify changes in scenic quality
attributes that may result from
introduction of roads and
transmission corridors
Use information gleaned from
analysis to inform engineering
design options Chulitna Moist Tundra Uplands Evaluate new access to
views of Portage Lowlands
and Portage Creek, Devils
Canyon (noteworthy
natural feature), Devils
Creek Falls (noteworthy
natural feature), the dam
structure and reservoir
due to access roads and
transmission corridors.
Views from proposed access roads and transmission
corridors.
Describe scenic quality attributes
of views accessed by roads and/or
transmission corridors
Evaluate potential impacts
to landscape character
that may result from
access roads and/or
transmission lines.
Views from existing trails; dispersed recreation
and/or subsistence use areas
Views from Tsusena Butte / Lake
Views from Denali Highway, with emphasis on
existing pull-outs/established vistas
Identify changes in scenic quality
attributes that may result from
introduction of roads and
transmission corridors
Use information gleaned from
analysis to inform engineering
design options
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 25 February 2013
Analysis Goal Locations Being Considered Outcome Wet Upland Tundra Evaluate new access to
views of Deadman Creek,
the dam structure, and
reservoir due to access
roads and transmission
corridors.
Views from proposed access roads and
transmission corridors
Describe scenic quality attributes
of views accessed by roads and/or
transmission corridors
Evaluate potential impacts
to landscape character
that may result from
access roads and/or
transmission lines.
Views from the Susitna River
Views from rail line
Views from Sherman interpretive signs
Views from existing trails; dispersed recreation
and/or subsistence use areas
Identify changes in scenic quality
attributes that may result from
introduction of roads and
transmission corridors
Use information gleaned from
analysis to inform engineering
design options Talkeetna Uplands Evaluate new access to
views of Devils Canyon,
the Mid-Susitna River
valley due to access roads
and transmission
corridors, including
cumulative effects due to
existing transmission
corridor.
Views from proposed access roads and
transmission corridors
Describe scenic quality attributes
of views accessed by roads and/or
transmission corridors
Evaluate change in views
of the existing river
corridor (waterform)
following inundation and
formation of the reservoir.
Views of the river from existing access trails, and
upland areas used for dispersed recreation and/or
subsistence.
Identify changes in scenic quality
attributes and associated scores
based on introduction of prominent
water feature in viewshed Talkeetna Mountains Evaluate potential impacts
to landscape character
that may result from the
dam structure, access
roads, and/or transmission
lines.
Views from Fog Lakes
Views from Stephan Lake
Views from dispersed recreation and/or
subsistence use areas
Identify changes in scenic quality
attributes that may result from
introduction of roads and
transmission corridors
Use information gleaned from
analysis to inform design options
to enhance aesthetic attributes of
the Project Susitna Upland Terrace Evaluate change in views
of the existing river
corridor (waterform)
following inundation and
formation of the reservoir.
Views of the river from existing access trails, and
upland areas used for dispersed recreation and/or
subsistence.
Identify changes in scenic quality
attributes and associated scores
based on introduction of prominent
water feature in viewshed
Evaluate new access to
views of Devils Canyon,
the dam structure, and the
reservoir (including
Watana Creek) due to
access roads and
transmission corridors,
including any cumulative
effects due to existing
transmission corridor.
Views from proposed access roads and transmission
corridors.
Consider views of portions of the river located
directly downriver of the dam where ice formation
may change as a result of Project operations.
Describe scenic quality attributes
of views accessed by roads and/or
transmission corridors
Demonstrate open water area
below dam during winter
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 26 February 2013
Analysis Goal Locations Being Considered Outcome
Evaluate change in views
of the existing river
corridor (waterform)
following inundation and
formation of the reservoir.
Views of the river from existing access trails, and
upland areas used for dispersed recreation and/or
subsistence.
Identify changes in scenic quality
attributes and associated scores
based on introduction of prominent
water feature in viewshed (i.e.,
does this feature enhance or
distract) Susitna Upland Evaluate impacts to
landscape character when
viewed from the air.
Views from common flightseeing routes.
Identify changes in scenic quality
attributes that may result from
introduction of the reservoir, dam
facility, roads and transmission
corridors Air Tour Routes1 Evaluate change in scenic
attributes of the river as a
result of changes in flow
volume.
Montana Creek Recreation Site
Understanding of how specific
metrics of scenic quality related to
river flow could change as a result
of operation of the Project Susitna River, downstream of Talkeetna Evaluate potential
changes to aesthetic
attributes related to
changes in ice processes
and/or river flows; note
that the extent to which
these areas are evaluated
will depend on the
outcome of analysis of
modeling completed
relating to ice processes
and river flows.
Montana Creek Recreation Site
Winter Trail(s) at Delta Islands
Iditarod National Historic Trail (NHT) Winter Trail
from Yentna River
Identify potential changes to
aesthetic attributes related to
changes in ice processes and/or
river flows, if any
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 27 February 2013
9. FIGURES
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 28 February 2013
Figure 5.1-1. Aesthetic resources study area
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 29 February 2013
Figure 5.1-2. Viewshed of the Susitna River, from approximately 5 miles downriver of the proposed dam site, to 5 miles above the upper terminus of the
inundation zone
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 30 February 2013
Figure 5.1-3. Viewshed from a 2200 ft. elevation
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 31 February 2013
Figure 5.1-4. Viewshed of a 2200 ft. elevation reservoir study area, including place names and landscape features
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 32 February 2013
Figure 5.3-1. Landscape character types within the aesthetic resources study area (Source: AEA 2011)
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 33 February 2013
Figure 5.3-2. Devils Canyon
Figure 5.3-3. Stephan Lake
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 34 February 2013
Figure 5.3-4. Deadman Creek Falls
Figure 5.3-5. Fog Lakes
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 35 February 2013
Figure 5.5-1. Preliminary KOPs established as part of the 2012 Aesthetics Study
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 36 February 2013
Figure 5.5-2. View from KOP #1 toward the northeast
Figure 5.5-3. View from KOP #1 toward the northwest. Note white-capped peaks of the Talkeetna Mountains and
Denali in background
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 37 February 2013
Figure 5.5-4. Existing 2-track trail located west of the Fog Lakes. Note trail in lower left of image, and cabin
in center
Figure 5.5-5. Landscape character elements of the Susitna Upland Terrace: view from KOP #2 toward the
proposed Project site
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 38 February 2013
Figure 5.5-6. View upriver from the Susitna Upland Terrace at proposed dam site (KOP #3)
Figure 5.5-7. The Susitna River, looking downriver from KOP #4
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 39 February 2013
Figure 5.5-8. View downriver at the location of KOP #4 at an elevation of 2,050 feet
Figure 5.5-9. View from KOP #5, looking east up the Susitna River valley from river right
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 40 February 2013
Figure 5.5-10. The Susitna River valley, looking upriver from KOP #6
Figure 5.5-11. The Susitna River valley, looking upriver from KOP #6 at an elevation of 2 ,050 feet
FINAL REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 41 February 2013
Figure 5.5-12. View upriver from the proposed dam site (KOP #7)