HomeMy WebLinkAboutSuWa223sec12-6ptAAlaska Resources Library & Information Services
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document
ARLIS Uniform Cover Page
Title:
Aesthetic resources study, Study plan Section 12.6 : Initial study report --
Part A: Sections 1-6, 8-10
SuWa 223
Author(s) – Personal:
Author(s) – Corporate:
URS Corporation
AEA-identified category, if specified:
Initial study report
AEA-identified series, if specified:
Series (ARLIS-assigned report number):
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project document number 223
Existing numbers on document:
Published by:
[Anchorage : Alaska Energy Authority, 2014]
Date published:
June 2014
Published for:
Alaska Energy Authority
Date or date range of report:
Volume and/or Part numbers:
Final or Draft status, as indicated:
Document type:
Pagination:
v, 79 p.
Related work(s):
The following parts of Section 12.6 appear in separate files:
Part A ; Part A Appendices ; Part B ; Part C.
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 Study
Study Plan Section 12.6
Initial Study Report
Part A: Sections 1-6, 8-10
Prepared for
Alaska Energy Authority
Prepared by
URS Corporation
June 2014
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page i June 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1
2. Study Objectives .................................................................................................................... 1
3. Study Area .............................................................................................................................. 2
4. Methods and Variances in 2013 ............................................................................................ 2
4.1. Viewshed Modeling ....................................................................................................... 3
4.1.1. Variances................................................................................................................. 3
4.2. Identification of Analysis Locations .............................................................................. 3
4.2.1. Variances................................................................................................................. 4
4.3. Baseline Data Collection ................................................................................................ 4
4.3.1. Variances................................................................................................................. 5
4.4. Photosimulations ............................................................................................................ 5
4.4.1. Variances................................................................................................................. 5
4.5. Soundscape Analysis ...................................................................................................... 6
4.5.1. Review Documentation ........................................................................................... 6
4.5.2. Seasonal Surveys of Ambient Sound Levels .......................................................... 6
4.5.3. Modeling of Project Sound Levels ......................................................................... 6
4.5.4. Variances................................................................................................................. 7
4.6. GIS Maps and Figures .................................................................................................... 7
4.6.1. Variances................................................................................................................. 7
4.7. Assessment of Downriver Study Area ........................................................................... 7
4.7.1. Variances................................................................................................................. 7
5. Results ..................................................................................................................................... 7
5.1. Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................... 8
5.1.1. Viewshed Modeling ................................................................................................ 8
5.1.2. Comprehensive Plan Review ................................................................................ 11
5.1.3. Landscape Character Types .................................................................................. 15
5.1.4. Field Investigation ................................................................................................ 17
5.1.5. Selection of Analysis Locations............................................................................ 18
5.1.6. Summary of Analysis Locations ........................................................................... 22
5.1.7. Baseline Data Collection....................................................................................... 32
5.1.8. Photosimulations ................................................................................................... 33
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page ii June 2014
5.2. Soundscape ................................................................................................................... 33
5.2.1. Review Documentation and Develop Data Needs ................................................ 33
5.2.2. Seasonal Surveys of Ambient Sound Levels ........................................................ 34
5.3. Modeling of Project Sound Levels ............................................................................... 35
5.4. Assessment of Downriver Study Area ......................................................................... 36
6. Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 37
6.1. Aesthetic Resources ..................................................................................................... 37
6.1.1. Adequacy of Analysis Locations to Meet Objectives of the Study Plan .............. 37
6.2. Soundscape ................................................................................................................... 41
6.2.1. Quantifying Existing Soundscape Data ................................................................ 41
6.2.2. Determining Consistency of Existing Soundscape with Management Objectives
Pertaining to Sound ............................................................................................... 42
6.2.3. Identifying Anticipated Changes in Soundscape .................................................. 42
6.2.4. Noise from Future Recreation Use and Demand Due to the Project .................... 42
6.3. Evaluation of Downriver Extent of Study Area ........................................................... 43
7. Completing the Study .......................................................................................................... 43
7.1. Plans for 2014 .............................................................................................................. 43
7.1.1. Modifications to Study Plans ................................................................................ 43
7.1.2. Decision Points from Study Plan .......................................................................... 43
7.2. Schedule ....................................................................................................................... 43
7.3. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 43
8. Literature Cited ................................................................................................................... 43
9. Tables .................................................................................................................................... 48
10. Figures .................................................................................................................................. 63
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page iii June 2014
LIST OF TABLES
Table 5.1-1.Viewshed Area Breakdown by Distance Zone and Land Status1 (Draft 1/10/2014) 48
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3- 1. Aesthetics Resources Study Area .............................................................................. 64
Figure 5.1- 1. Denali Corridor Modeled Viewshed ...................................................................... 65
Figure 5.1- 2. Gold Creek Corridor Modeled Viewshed .............................................................. 66
Figure 5.1- 3. Chulitna Corridor Modeled Viewshed ................................................................... 67
Figure 5.1- 4. Dam and Reservoir Modeled Viewshed ................................................................. 68
Figure 5.1- 5. Susitna River Five Miles Downstream of Dam Modeled Viewshed ..................... 69
Figure 5.1- 6. Analysis Locations and Land Status ...................................................................... 70
Figure 5.1- 7. Visual Resource Inventory & Management Classes .............................................. 71
Figure 5.1- 8. Planning Areas ....................................................................................................... 72
Figure 5.1- 9. Landscape Character Types ................................................................................... 73
Figure 5.1- 10. Visual Distance Zones .......................................................................................... 74
Figure 5.1- 11. Scenic Quality Rating ........................................................................................... 75
Figure 5.1- 12. Sensitivity Level Rating ....................................................................................... 76
Figure 5.2- 1. 2013 Soundscape Locations – Long Term ............................................................. 77
Figure 5.2- 2. 2013 Soundscape Locations – Short Term ............................................................. 78
Figure 6.2- 1. 2013 Analysis Locations and ROS......................................................................... 79
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Aesthetics Analysis Location Map Set
Appendix B: Analysis Locations Narratives
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page iv June 2014
LIST OF ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS
Abbreviation Definition
ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
AL Analysis Location
AR audio recording
BLM Bureau of Land Management
CADNA/A Computer Aided Noise Abatement
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CIRWG Cook Inlet Region Working Group
dBA a-weighted decibel
DEM Digital Elevation Model
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
IfSAR Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar
ISR Initial Study Report
KOP Key Observation Point
LCP Landscape Character Points
LCT Landscape Characteristic Type
L90 Sound Level Exceeded for 90% of time under Consideration
Ldn Day-night Sound Level
Leq Equivalent Continuous Noise Level
LT long-term
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NPS National Park Service
NSR noise-sensitive receivers
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page v June 2014
Abbreviation Definition
OA Observation Area
OC Observation Corridor
OHV off-highway vehicle
OP Observation Point
ORV Outstanding Remarkable Values
OS operational scenario
PAD Preliminary Application Document
SPreAD System for Prediction of Acoustic Detectability
RMP Resource Management Plan
ROS Recreational Opportunity Spectrum
ROW right-of-way
RS recreation sites
RSP Revised Study Plan
SLA Sensitivity Level Analysis
SLM sound level meter
SPL sound pressure level
ST short-term
USC United States Code
VRI Visual Resource Inventory
VRM Visual Resource Management
WALROS Water and Land Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 1 June 2014
1. INTRODUCTION
On December 14, 2012, Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) its Revised Study Plan (RSP) for the Susitna-
Watana Hydroelectric No. 14241 (Project), which included 58 individual study plans (AEA
2012). Included within the RSP was the Aesthetic Resources Study, Section 12.6. RSP Section
12.6 focuses on inventorying and documenting baseline aesthetic conditions within the Aesthetic
Resources Study Area and evaluating the potential effects to aesthetic resources that may result
from construction and operation of the proposed Project. RSP Section 12.6 provided goals,
objectives, and proposed methods for aesthetic resources data collection and analysis.
On February 1, 2013, FERC staff issued its study plan determination (February 1 SPD) for 44 of
the 58 studies, approving 31 studies as filed and 13 with modifications. RSP Section 12.6 was
one of the 13 approved with modifications. In its February 1 SPD, FERC recommended the
following:
We recommend that AEA modify the Aesthetic Resources Study Plan as follows:
• Conduct surveys of ambient sound levels in all four seasons.
• Include in the initial study report any proposed modifications to the study plan
based on the first year’s data on the lower river uses, hydrology, and ice
processes.
In accordance with the February 1 SPD, AEA has adopted the FERC requested modifications.
Following the first study season, FERC’s regulations for the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP)
require AEA to “prepare and file with the Commission an initial study report describing its
overall progress in implementing the study plan and schedule and the data collected, including an
explanation of any variance from the study plan and schedule” (18 CFR 5.15(c)(1)). This Initial
Study Report (ISR) on Aesthetic Resources Study has been prepared in accordance with FERC’s
ILP regulations and details AEA’s status in implementing the study, as set forth in the FERC-
approved RSP and as modified by FERC’s February 1 SPD (referred to herein as the “Study
Plan”).
2. STUDY OBJECTIVES
The study objectives are established in RSP Section 12.6.1. The goals and objectives for the
Aesthetic Resources Study are to inventory and document baseline aesthetic (e.g., visual,
auditory) conditions within the Aesthetic Resources Study area and evaluate the potential effects
to aesthetic resources that may result from construction and operation of the proposed Project.
The analysis will focus on assessing these potential impacts and will help identify potential
design and other mitigation options.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 2 June 2014
3. STUDY AREA
As established by RSP Section 12.6.3, the Aesthetic Resources Study area is shown in Figure 3-
1. The study area was designed to be sufficient in size to address likely established indicators of
change, including potential direct and indirect effects to recreation, cultural resources,
subsistence, socioeconomics, geomorphology/ice processes, and riparian vegetation.
The Aesthetic Resources Study area was divided into primary and secondary study areas. The
primary study area was defined by a 30-mile radius surrounding all Project components,
including: the proposed dam and camp facilities including construction sites, the reservoir,
transmission corridors, access road corridors, borrow sites, and rail sidings. The primary study
area was defined in Q1 2013 using viewshed models generated from the most current Project
design information at a resolution of a 10m DEM. At present, the analysis is focused on the
following broadly defined viewer areas:
• The Susitna River corridor, downstream of Devils Canyon to Talkeetna
• The Susitna River corridor, from Devils Canyon to the proposed dam site
• The Susitna River, upstream of the proposed dam site to the upriver extent of the
inundation zone
• Upland areas adjacent to the Susitna River, with emphasis on those areas within the
viewshed of the inundation zone, proposed access roads, and proposed transmission
corridors
• Common air transportation routes used for transportation and recreational air tours
The secondary study area for this study includes all lands located between the Denali Highway,
south to the Glenn Highway and from the Richardson Highway, east to the mouth of the Susitna
River (RSP Figure 12.6.2). This area will be evaluated using existing information and used to
understand the distribution of on aesthetic resources within a larger geographic context.
The Study Plan noted that the aesthetics resource study area could be adjusted during the next
study year to include areas within the river corridor located downriver of Talkeetna if 2013
studies in the lower reach indicate a possible Project-related effect on aesthetic resources in this
area.
4. METHODS AND VARIANCES IN 2013
AEA implemented the methods described in the Study Plan with no variances. Baseline data
collection was implemented across the primary and secondary study area. The primary study area
was evaluated using a combination of desktop and field-based observations. The secondary study
area was evaluated using desktop analyses and existing information. Data collection and analysis
was completed across all four seasons. Components of the study addressed in this study include
Viewshed Modeling, Interdisciplinary Coordination, Identification of Analysis Locations (AL),
and Baseline Data Collection.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 3 June 2014
4.1. Viewshed Modeling
AEA implemented viewshed modeling per methods described in the Study Plan with no
variances. Though access restrictions prohibited baseline data collection for both visual and
soundscape on lands owned by members of the Cook Inlet Region Working Group (CIRWG),
plans to evaluate baseline conditions in these areas will be implemented during the second study
year, provided access is granted.
Viewshed models were generated for major Project features, including the proposed reservoir,
and proposed access roads and transmission lines associated with the Denali, Chulitna, and Gold
Creek Corridor. Viewshed models were also developed for pre-Project conditions of the Susitna
River in order to understand expected changes in viewshed areas (i.e., creation of new views,
loss of others). Site-specific viewshed models were created for ALs described below in order to
better understand the theoretical extent of views from these locations. Maps displaying the
viewsheds were created, and used to direct the identification of important views and vistas
considered in the analysis.
4.1.1. Variances
No variances occurred in the methods for implementing viewshed models for Project
components during 2013.
4.2. Identification of Analysis Locations
AEA identified ALs per methods described in the Study Plan with no variances.
Standard ALs were established to represent: (1) common and/or sensitive views within the
Aesthetic Resources Study area, and (2) 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 locations were used to evaluate baseline aesthetic values
(including visual resources and soundscape), and will be carried forward through the impact
analysis.
KOPs were categorized as follows:
• Observation Points (OPs): Observation Points represent specific locations or viewpoints,
such as private lodges within the study area. The viewer experience at these locations is
typically stationary and from a single vantage point. 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 due to dispersed recreation and/or
subsistence use. The likelihood of viewers standing in the same spot during repeated
visits is low. Observation areas are common due to the low density of trails in much of
the study area.
• Observation Corridors (OCs): Observation Corridors, also called “linear KOPs”,
represent linear viewing experiences, in which scenic attributes are experienced as a
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 4 June 2014
continuum. They may be focal (i.e., leading toward a noteworthy natural feature; entrance
way), and/or transient (i.e., passing through a landscape). An example of OCs within the
study area includes the Kesugi Ridge Trail, the Denali Highway, and existing networks of
unmaintained two-track trails.
• 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. An example of LCP within the study area
includes those placed at noteworthy natural features, such as Vee canyon or Big and
Deadman Lake.
Each AL is targeted to address potential impacts (beneficial or adverse) to aesthetic resources,
and is based largely on the anticipated nexus between the proposed Project and aesthetic
resources identified in 2012. Locations used to assess new access to views / viewer experience
that may result from access roads and/or transmission corridors were selected through review of
topographic maps and viewshed modeling. ALs differ by landscape analysis factors (i.e.,
distance from the Project, predominant angle of observation, dominant use), and could be
applicable to one or more seasons. Input from agencies and stakeholders on ALs was sought
through TWG meetings held on February 27, April 3, August 8, and September 20 of 2013. At
each TWG meeting, proposed ALs were displayed graphically and discussed with participants.
Input was addressed as an action item, and reported on at the next TWG meeting. Final draft
target ALs were selected and mapped.
4.2.1. Variances
No variances occurred in methods used to identify analysis locations during the 2013 study year.
Table 12.6-1 of RSP Section 12.6 indicates preliminary recommendations for ALs. Baseline
conditions were not assessed at locations contemplated in this table where sited on lands owned
by members of the CIRWG due to access constraints. Provided access is granted, these areas will
be assessed during the next study year, thereby meeting study objectives.
4.3. Baseline Data Collection
AEA implemented baseline data collection per methods described in the Study Plan with no
variances. Baseline data collection included a combination of desktop (primary and secondary
study area) and field data collection (primary study area).
Desktop data collection included existing spatial and geospatial data describing aesthetic
attributes, including descriptions of scenic quality, visual distance zones, and visual sensitivity of
the primary and secondary study areas contained in the East Alaska management Plan (BLM
2006) and AEA’s PAD (AEA 2011).
Field data collection was implemented at ALs sited within the primary study area. Data on
scenic quality included a description of landscape character attributes described in a narrative
form, and including a breakdown of basic landscape components of form, line, color and texture,
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 5 June 2014
was included. Baseline photography to be use in development of photosimulations was obtained
at each AL.
Visual sensitivity was assessed through review of existing data collected during the Visual
Sensitivity Level Analysis (SLA) completed during the RMP planning process for the BLM Ring
of Fire and East Alaska RMP. A Project-specific analysis was completed through intercept
surveys, mail surveys, and executive interviews completed in coordination with recreation
resources, socioeconomics, and subsistence resources (see ISR Studies 12.5, 14.5, and 15.5).
Evaluation of these data is underway and will be used to inform participants and content of focus
groups planned for the next study year.
Visual distance zones represent the distance from which the landscape is most commonly
viewed. These zones are established by buffering common travel routes and viewer locations at
distances of three miles, five miles, and 15 miles using GIS (BLM 1986). Existing visual
distance zones completed during the RMP planning process for the BLM Ring of Fire and East
Alaska RMP were used to inform baseline characteristics. Project-level visual distance zones
will be further developed through interdisciplinary coordination with the Recreation Resources
Study (Study 12.5) to better understand local travel routes, including those used for recreation
and tourism (i.e., the Susitna River corridor below Devils Canyon; flightseeing tours).
4.3.1. Variances
No variances occurred in the methods used in baseline data collection during 2013. As discussed
in Section 4.2.1 above, locations within the study area where baseline conditions were not
assessed due to access restrictions on CIRWG lands will be visited during the next study year,
thereby meeting study objectives.
4.4. Photosimulations
AEA implemented the methods for photosimulations described in the Study Plan with no
variances. Development of photosimulations was initiated in 2013, including the following
procedural steps:
• Collection of Photography: Photography was collected in a series of frames to
accurately represent a horizontal and vertical field of view typical to a human viewer at
each AL.
• Assembling Panoramic Photographs: Raw data files (NEFs) for each photograph were
color-corrected using Adobe Lightroom 5 such that each individual photograph for a
specific Analysis Location matched each other as closely as possible. Following color-
correction, each file was saved as a TIF and then the TIFs for each individual photograph
were stitched together using Adobe Photoshop CS 5 software using cylindrical mapping.
Final cropping and appropriate sizing to the original height of photos was applied and
files were saved in TIF and JPEG format for proofing, and management.
4.4.1. Variances
No variances occurred in the methods used in developing photosimulations during 2013.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 6 June 2014
4.5. Soundscape Analysis
AEA implemented the methods for the soundscape analysis described in the Study Plan with no
variances. Baseline data was collected to characterize the existing ambient sound environment in
the study area to provide baseline data for assessment of potential change to that baseline as a
result of construction and operational activities of the proposed Project.
4.5.1. Review Documentation
Relevant Project data contained in AEAs PAD (AEA 2011) was reviewed for information on
potential noise sources associated with construction and operating of the proposed Project. A
regulatory review was completed to determine relevant management framework with a nexus to
the proposed Project. Analysis locations were selected based on information gleaned from this
review, and through coordination with the visual resources assessment (Section 4.2 of this ISR),
Recreation Resources Study (Study 12.5), and the River Recreation Flow and Access Study
(Study 12.7).
4.5.2. Seasonal Surveys of Ambient Sound Levels
AEA implemented seasonal surveys of ambient sound levels per methods described in the Study
Plan with no variances.
Ambient sound level measurements were collected, with the goal of establishing baseline
soundscape data. ALs coincided with KOPs identified for the visual resource assessment,
including both viewer [receptor]-based (OPs, OAs, and OCs), and landscape-based (LCPs).
Where located on BLM-administered lands, baseline soundscape measurements were used to
assess conditions in area managed under certain ROS designations. Sound measurements
included: (1) unattended long-term (LT) monitors deployed for a minimum of 24 continuous
hours and up to a single week, and (2) attended short-term (ST) monitors deployed for 15-20
minutes duration each. Perceived and identifiable sources of sound, such as bird calls, aircraft, or
passing train or vehicle traffic, and the conditions during which they occur, were documented as
part of the baseline data collection effort. This survey was conducted across four discrete survey
periods corresponding with winter, spring, summer, and fall of 2013. Seasons were defined as
follows:
• Winter –December 21 to March 20
• Spring – March 20 to June 20
• Summer –20 June to September 01
• Fall – September 02 to December 21
To the extent practicable, the survey locations were the same for each surveyed season.
4.5.3. Modeling of Project Sound Levels
Up to three scenarios or alternatives of future Project operational sound levels will be estimated
with System for the Prediction of Acoustic Detectability (SPreAD) (Reed 2010). ) or Computer
Aided Noise Abatement (CADNA/A), an industry-accepted outdoor sound propagation modeling
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 7 June 2014
program, could also be used (Sound Advice Acoustics Ltd, 2012). Model development was
initiated during the 2013 study year though collection of baseline measurements and
development of model parameters. Model development will continue during the next study
season.
4.5.4. Variances
No variances occurred in the methods used in implanting the soundscape analysis during 2013.
4.6. GIS Maps and Figures
AEA implemented production of GIS maps and figures per methods described in the study with
no variances.
Project viewsheds, ALs and relevant land management areas were mapped using GIS following
Project geospatial standards. Visual features across the study area were photographed, and will
be used to produce visual simulations depicting the appearance of the proposed Project at a
subset of KOPs.
4.6.1. Variances
No variances occurred in the methods used in developing GIS maps and figures during 2013.
4.7. Assessment of Downriver Study Area
RSP Section 12.6.3 and the Commission’s February 11 SPD indicate that the aesthetics resource
study area could be adjusted in the next study year to include areas within the river corridor
located downriver of Talkeetna if 2013 studies in the lower reach indicate a possible Project-
related effect on aesthetic resources in this area. AEA implemented the assessment of the
downriver study area per methods described in the Study Plan with no variances. The
determination of the recommended downriver extent was based on interdisciplinary coordination
between the Fish and Aquatic Instream Flow Study (Study 8.5) and the Ice Processes in the
Susitna River Study (Study 7.6) leads, and a review of modeling completed as part of the
analysis of these resource.
4.7.1. Variances
No variances occurred in the methods used in implementing the soundscape analysis during
2013.
5. RESULTS
This Section contains the results of 2013 baseline data collection for aesthetic resources and
soundscape. Data developed in support of this study are available for download at
http://gis.suhydro.org/reports/isr.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 8 June 2014
5.1. Aesthetics
5.1.1. Viewshed Modeling
A viewshed analysis was completed to identify locations where Project components could
theoretically be seen and areas where components would be eclipsed by topography. This
analysis, completed using a GIS tool, determines Project visibility based on the relationship
between topography, height or area of Project components, and average eye height of the viewer.
The resulting viewshed represents the geographic area where one or more Project components
could theoretically be seen; however, it does not represent any measure of detectability of Project
features. The viewshed analysis was also used to assess the relationship between potential views
of the proposed Project and viewer experience. For example, travelers moving through the
landscape on a roadway or trail may experience intermittent views of a project where topography
is variable and more prolonged views where topography is flat.
5.1.1.1. Model Parameters
Viewshed models were generated for the access and transmission line corridors under
consideration (proposed Denali, Chulitna, and Gold Creek corridors), the dam, the reservoir at
capacity, and the Susitna River from the dam extending 5 miles downriver. The viewshed was
based on the configuration of Project features provided in AEA’s Pre-Application Document
(PAD) (AEA 2011). Where specific information on Project design was not fully developed,
conservative assumptions were made. For example, because specific tower heights could vary
based on site-specific conditions, the viewshed model was generated using the tallest tower
height being considered. This approach ensured that the resulting model was comprehensive and
reduced the likelihood that areas would be missed. It is expected that the viewshed area will be
reduced as Project specifications are refined. The Denali, Chulitna, and Gold Creek corridors
were assumed to contain both access roads and transmission lines. All viewsheds were truncated
to a distance of 30 miles.
Models were developed using a viewer height of 5.5 feet, and assuming bare ground. The
following input parameters were obtained from spatial data contained in the Watana Geodatabase
dated October 26, 2012:
• Dam height of 2,075 feet
• Reservoir pool maximum elevation of 2,050 feet, with viewshed measured from 100-200
randomized points across reservoir surface
• Transmission line and access road alignments centered on right-of-way (ROW) polygons
from October 26, 2012, specifications
• Elevation data obtained from a 10-meter resolution, resampled mosaic of Interferometric
Synthetic Aperture Radar (IfSAR) 5 meter digital surface model DSM
The following input parameters were obtained from AEA’s PAD (AEA 2011):
• 300-foot ROW width where transmission line and access roads could be co-located
• 100-foot ROW width where only transmission line or road is sited
• 32-foot road cross section
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 9 June 2014
The following assumptions were made regarding Project specifications of access and
transmission lines:
• 1-mile transmission tower spacing (span)
• 100-foot-tall transmission tower
5.1.1.2. Viewshed Model Results
A description of each modeled viewshed is provided below, including prevailing topographic
features that shape each polygon. Table 5.1-1 summarizes the area of each viewshed by distance
zone and land status.
5.1.1.2.1. Denali Corridor Viewshed
The Denali Corridor viewshed is the largest of all modeled viewsheds, measuring approximately
1,144 square miles. At a coarse scale, the viewshed appears large in scale large and broad, with
views extending to the background distance zone. Approximately 454 square miles (40%) are
within the foreground/middleground distance zone (0 – 5 miles), 388 square miles (34%) are
within the background distance zone (5 – 15 miles), and 301 square miles (26%) are within the
seldom seen distance zone (15+ miles)(Figure 5.1-1). The majority (76%) of this viewshed
includes lands managed by the State of Alaska (870.5 square miles). Smaller proportions are
managed by federal agencies (56.5 square miles, or 5%) or lands owned by members of the
CIRWG (216.5 acres, or 19%). The northernmost portion of the Corridor parallels the Denali
Highway in an east-west trajectory. The viewshed in this area is largely constrained to the
foreground-middleground distance zone by the topography of the Alaska Range to the north and
the Chulitna and Talkeetna Mountains to the south. Though largely discontinuous, the viewshed
of the northwest portion of the Corridor extends to the southwest along the foothills of the
Alaska Range, northwest of the Chulitna River. This portion of the viewshed is largely situated
in the background and seldom seen distance zones and is primarily confined to higher elevation
areas.
Where the Corridor runs north-south from the Denali Highway to the Susitna River, the
viewshed is constrained by the Chulitna Mountains to the west and higher elevation areas of the
Wet Upland Tundra to the east. Near the southern terminus of the Corridor, the viewshed extends
across the Chulitna Moist Upland Tundra and higher elevation areas of the Tsusena River
drainage to the background and seldom seen distance zones. To the south, the viewshed extends
across the Susitna River, where it is limited by the Talkeetna Mountains.
5.1.1.2.2. Gold Creek Corridor Viewshed
The Gold Creek Corridor viewshed encompasses approximately 628 square miles. The viewshed
appears large in scale, with enclosure provided by surrounding mountains. The majority (50%)
of the viewshed in within the foreground/middleground distance zone (0 – 5 miles) (312 square
miles). The remaining 220 square miles (35%) are within the background distance zone (5 – 15
miles), and 95 square miles (15%) are within the seldom seen distance zone (15+ miles) (Figure
5.1-2). Approximately 0.25 square miles (less than 1%) and 378 square miles (60%) of this
viewshed are located on federally administered and state-owned lands, respectively, with the
remaining 250 acres (40%) on lands owned by members of the CIRWG. To the north, the
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 10 June 2014
viewshed extent is primarily limited by the Chulitna Mountains. To the southeast, the viewshed
extends across Susitna Upland Terrace Landscape Characteristic Type (LCT) to the Talkeetna
Mountains, where higher elevations and topography create enclosure to this viewshed. To the
southwest, the viewshed extent is primarily limited to the foreground/middleground distance
zone due to the high-elevation and topography of Kesugi Ridge and Curry Ridge in Denali State
Park. Substantial portions of the eastern face of Kesugi Ridge and Curry Ridge, including small
portions of the Kesugi Ridge Trail, are within the viewshed. These ridges limit views of the
Corridor from other popular areas of the park, such as Byers Lake and Lower Troublesome
Creek Campground, located on the west side of the Park.
5.1.1.2.3. Chulitna Corridor Viewshed
The Chulitna Corridor viewshed encompasses approximately 693 square miles. The viewshed
appear large in scale, with views extending across the broad terrain of the upland tundra.
Approximately 250 square miles (36%) are within the foreground/middleground distance zone (0
– 5 miles), 305 square miles (44%) are within the background distance zone (5 – 15 miles), and
138 square miles (20%) are within the seldom seen distance zone (15+ miles) (Figure 5.1-3).
Approximately 1.5 square miles (less than 1%) and 461 square miles (66%) of this viewshed are
located on federally administered and state-owned lands, respectively, with the remaining 231
square miles (33%) on CIRWG lands. To the north, the viewshed extent is limited by the
Chulitna Mountains. To the east, the viewshed extent is limited by the Gulkana Uplands, located
southeast of Watana Creek and north of the Susitna River. Remaining portions of the viewshed
located to the east are restricted to high-elevation. Views from the south are largely limited by
the high ridges on the south side of the Susitna River as well as the Talkeetna Mountains.
5.1.1.2.4. Dam and Reservoir Viewshed
The dam and reservoir viewshed encompasses approximately 414 square miles. Due to the
incised topography of the Susitna River drainage, the majority of the viewshed (248 square
miles, or 60%) is located within the foreground/middleground distance zone (0 – 5 miles).
Approximately 128 square miles (31%) are within the background distance zone (5 – 15 miles),
and 38 square miles (9%) are within the seldom seen distance zone (15+ miles) (Figure 5.1-4).
The majority of the viewshed is located on State of Alaska-owned lands (365 square miles, or
88%) The remaining 49 square miles (12%) is located on lands owned by members of the
CIRWG. There is less than 1 square mile of federally administered lands within the dam and
reservoir viewshed. Generally, the dam and reservoir viewshed extends on either side of the
inundation zone by approximately 2 to 8 miles, limited by the rolling terrain on either side of the
river. The viewshed does extend further to the north on the higher-elevation points of the Wet
Upland Tundra LCT and north and south on the higher-elevation points of the Talkeetna
Mountains. Views from the west are generally limited by the Chulitna Mountains and hills of the
Chulitna Moist Tundra Uplands, approximately 11 miles west of the western end of the reservoir.
5.1.1.2.5. Susitna River Viewshed
The modeled viewshed for the Susitna River, from the proposed dam site to 5 miles downstream,
encompasses approximately 13.7 square miles. Like upriver portions of the river, the majority of
the viewshed (11 square miles, or 65%) is within the foreground/middleground distance zone (0
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 11 June 2014
– 5 miles). Approximately 4 square miles (23%) are within the background distance zone (5 – 15
miles), and 2 square miles (12%) are within the seldom seen distance zone (+15 miles) (Figure
5.1-5). Approximately 4.9 square miles (36%) of this viewshed are located on state-owned lands,
with the remaining 8.8 square miles (64%) on lands owned by members of the CIRWG lands.
There are no federally administered lands within the dam and reservoir viewshed. The viewshed
is primarily centered on the river, extending approximately 1.5 miles from the river centerline as
a result of steep valley walls. Some areas of the Chulitna Wet Upland Tundra LCT to the north
and the Susitna Upland Terrace and Talkeetna Mountain LCTs to the south are also within the
viewshed; however these areas are discontinuous with the rest of the viewshed.
5.1.2. Comprehensive Plan Review
Lands within the primary and secondary study areas are owned and/or managed by federal, state,
and local agencies and jurisdictions, and lands owned by members of the CIRWG. A total of 30
planning documents/websites, listed below, were identified as having a nexus to the primary
and/or secondary study area.
Local
• City of Palmer Comprehensive Plan (City of Palmer 2006)
• City of Wasilla Comprehensive Plan (City of Wasilla 2011)
• Denali Borough Comprehensive Plan (Denali Borough 2009)
• Denali Borough Code Chapter 19 Zoning (Denali Borough 2013)
• Matanuska-Susitna Borough Code Title 17: Zoning (MSB 2013a)
• Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Component of the Asset Management Plan (MSB
2001)
• Mat-Su Trails and Parks Master Plan (MSTPF 2013)
• Economic Development Strategic Plan (MSB 2010)
• Matanuska-Susitna Borough Comprehensive Development Plan 2005 Update (MSB
2005a)
• Chase Comprehensive Plan (MSB 1999a)
• Chickaloon Comprehensive Plan (MSB 2008a)
• Core Area Comprehensive Plan, November 2007 Update (MSB 2007)
• Glacier View Comprehensive Plan 2008 Update (MSB 2008b)
• Glacier View Comprehensive Plan – Sheep Mountain Sub-District (MSB 2006)
• Sutton Comprehensive Plan, November 2009 Update (MSB 2009)
• Talkeetna Comprehensive Plan (MSB 1999b)
• Willow Area Comprehensive Plan (MSB 2013b)
• Y Community Council Area Comprehensive Plan: Taking Part in Our Future (MSB
2005b)
State
• State of Alaska. Municipal Government Structure Webpage (State of Alaska 2013)
• Susitna Area Plan (ADNR 1985)
• Susitna Matanuska Area Plan (ADNR 2011)
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 12 June 2014
• Cultural Resource Management Plan for the Denali Highway Lands, Central Alaska
(ADNR 2005)
• Susitna Basin Recreation Rivers Management Plan (ADNR 1991)
• Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (ADNR 2009)
• Ten-Year Strategic Plan, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation (ADNR 2006b)
• Scenic Resources along the Parks Highway: Inventory and Management
Recommendations
• Denali State Park Management Plan (ADNR 2006a)
• George Parks Highway Scenic Byway Master Interpretive Plan (ADNR 2012)
Federal
• Bureau of Land Management East Alaska Resource Management Plan (BLM 2006a)
• Bureau of Land Management Ring of Fire Management Plan (BLM 2006b)
• Final South Denali Implementation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (NPS
2006)
Standards and guidelines contained in federal and state management plans with a direct nexus to
areas within the modeled viewshed and the primary study area are summarized below.
5.1.2.1. Federal Land Management Plans
Approximately 1,600 square miles of land within the primary study area is under the federal
management/authority status of the BLM and National Park Service (NPS). The proposed
Project footprint would cover approximately 46.7 square miles of BLM-administered land (see
Figure 5.1-6) (BLM 2013). The modeled Project viewshed contains BLM-administered lands
managed by the East Alaska RMP (BLM 2006a) and the Ring of Fire Management Plan (BLM
2006b) and NPS-administered lands managed per the South Denali Implementation Plan (NPS
2006). The South Denali Implementation Plan focuses on views of Denali Peak; however, no
management objectives for visual resources are provided.
5.1.2.1.1. BLM –Administered Lands
Visual Resources
Visual resources on BLM-administered lands are managed per the Visual Resource Management
(VRM) System (BLM 1986). The VRM system provides the framework by which to manage
visual values by classifying all BLM-administered lands into one of four VRM Classes.
The proposed Project is located within lands managed per VRM Class II, III, and IV Objectives,
defined by the East Alaska RMP (BLM 2006a) and Ring of Fire RMP (BLM 2006b) (Figure 5.1-
7). The BLM VRM designations do not apply to private, state, or other public lands within these
planning areas. The majority of the BLM land within the proposed Project footprint is classified
as VRM Class IV, with the exception of lands surrounding the Denali and Chulitna Corridor,
where lands are classified as VRM II and III (Figure 5.1-7).
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 13 June 2014
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
The ROS is a classification system used to create and maintain different recreation experiences
suitable for a variety of land and visitor types. The majority of the area within the proposed
Project footprint (45.1 square miles) is classified as primitive in the ROS. This is followed by
Semi-Primitive Motorized, which covers approximately 27.2 square miles of the proposed
Project footprint. The remaining 3.6 square miles of BLM land within the Project footprint is
within the Roaded Natural, Remote Developed Lakeside, and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized
ROS Classes, respectively. Evidence of the “sights and sounds of man” could extend beyond the
Project footprint to include larger areas within Primitive, Semi-Primitive or other ROS classes.
5.1.2.2. State Land Management Plans
Approximately 8,200 square miles of land within the primary study area is under state
management/authority status. The proposed Project would occupy approximately 47.9 square
miles of state-owned lands (BLM 2013) (Figure 5.1-6). The State of Alaska Department of
Natural Resources (ADNR) manages the majority of lands within the primary study area under
the Susitna and the Susitna Matanuska Area Plans (ADNR 1985 and ADNR 2011, respectively).
Both area plans contain area-wide land management policies and policies applicable to specific
Management Units within each planning area. Area plans also contain land management goals.
Goals are the general condition the department is trying to achieve, whereas guidelines are
specific directives to be applied to land and water management decisions as resource use and
development occur (ADNR 1985). Additional management framework is provided for special
areas through specific Management Plans, typically designed to address congressionally
designated areas (i.e., recreational rivers).
Susitna Matanuska Area Plan
The Susitna Matanuska Area Plan identifies recreation and scenic resources as one of the 11
resource and land use categories with specific guidelines. The plan identifies a goal that includes
both developed and undeveloped lands for outdoor recreational opportunities, noting that the
protection of several resources, including visual resources, is important for recreation and
maintaining, where appropriate, the isolation and unique wilderness characteristics of the
planning area. This goal pertains to the planning area as a whole. The North Parks Highway
Region is the only land management unit within the modeled viewshed that has management
intent specific to scenic resources. This region includes most land immediately adjacent to the
George Parks Highway and Alaska Railroad from the Matanuska-Susitna Borough boundary at
Broad Pass near Cantwell, south to the railroad bridge over the Susitna River downstream of
Devils Canyon (see Figure 5.1-8). Most state land in this region is managed for its wildlife
habitat, settlement, and for multiple uses. Within the North Parks Highway Region, there are
three tracts of land totaling approximately 3,104 acres located just east of the railroad near the
western terminus of the proposed Chulitna Corridor, for which the management intent is to
protect and maintain fish and wildlife habitat, associated hydrologic values, and scenic values.
Susitna Area Plan
The Susitna Area Plan (ADNR 1985) is a regional-level land use plan that covers approximately
15.8 million acres and provides guidance for the use and management of state-owned land within
the “Susitna Area.” This plan contains broad goals, management guidelines, and implementation
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 14 June 2014
procedures to ensure the future vision for lands within the study area is executed. The Susitna
Area Plan recognizes the economic driver for the community is based on its proximity to many
recreational/open space and remote wilderness areas. Much of the Susitna Area Plan was
replaced by the Susitna-Matanuska Area Plan, except for the Denali Highway Area (Figure 5.1-
8). Goals and management guidelines with a visual resource aspect are summarized below.
Recreation Opportunities
The plan does not identify any management guidelines specific to scenic resources; however the
protection of natural features, recreation areas, cultural and historical sites, fish and wildlife
habitat, and scenic areas is acknowledged as important to maintain recreation values over time
for future generations.
Dispersed Recreation Activities
The plan designates large areas to support dispersed recreation activities such as cross-country
skiing, hiking, tent camping, snowmobiling, and dog mushing. These areas also offer protection
for scenic vistas and aesthetic values, in part, through retention in public ownership of the
majority of state-owned land in the study area.
Settlement
The plan identifies management guidelines to retain public ownership of lands with unique
natural features and preserve public access to those sites. Additionally, any land disposal
offerings along popular sightseeing routes will be selected and designed to minimize impacts on
scenic vistas.
Transportation
The plan includes management guidelines to consult the Scenic Resources along the Parks
Highway (ADNR 1981) study during planning of any management activities that are likely to
result in significant changes to the visual quality along this route.
Talkeetna Mountains Subregion – Denali Highway Management Unit
The Denali Highway Management Unit is generally bounded on the south by the Susitna River
and generally extends on both the north and south sides of the Denali Highway. The protection
of scenic quality along the Denali Highway is one of the two major objectives for the
management unit.
Denali State Park Management Plan
The Denali State Park Management Plan (ADNR 2006a) provides guidance for management of
parklands and development of recreational facilities. The plan establishes goals and objectives
for the Park organized into four categories: environmental, cultural, recreational, and tourism.
Within various goals and policies, views of Denali and the Tokositna Glacier are considered
particularly key and linked to the importance of the Park. However, the protection of specific
views is not enforced through this plan.
Nelchina Public Use Area
The Nelchina Public Use Area comprises 2.5 million acres in the Talkeetna Mountains. The
Public Use Area was established in 1985 by the legislature (ADNR 2000). The area is committed
to public ownership and recognized to have outstanding opportunities for hunting, fishing,
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 15 June 2014
recreation, and mining. Although a management plan for the area has not yet been developed,
one of the reasons for its creation was to “perpetuate and enhance public enjoyment of fish and
wildlife and their habitat including fishing, hunting, trapping, viewing, photography.”
Scenic Byways
Additionally, there is one scenic byway, the George Parks Highway, within the primary study
area. Management and use of the George Parks Scenic Byway is guided by the George Parks
Highway Scenic Byway Corridor Partnership Plan (Alaska Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities 2008) and the George Parks Highway Scenic Byway Master Interpretive Plan
(ADNR 2012). These plans are not regulatory documents but provide recommendations and
guidance for preserving the visual qualities of the byway and promote its use. These plans are
not discussed further in this section as they do not hold any regulatory authority.
5.1.3. Landscape Character Types
Lands within the primary and secondary study areas were classified by LCT based on shared
attributes of landform, vegetation, water, and cultural modification. This classification provides a
framework to understand the relative abundance of coarse-level landscape attributes across the
study area. A total of 13 LCTs identified in the Susitna-Watana PAD (AEA 2011) were field-
validated in 2013. During this assessment, geographic boundaries of LCTs were refined, and
areas within the primary and secondary study areas that had not been identified in the PAD were
classified (Figure 5.1-9). A total of 31 LCTs have been identified. Assessment and refinement of
character attributes and geographic boundaries of identified LCTs is ongoing. The preliminary
LCTs classified within the primary and secondary study area are listed below:
• Chulitna – Nenana River Valley
• Portage Lowlands
• Kesugi-Curry Ridge
• Devils Canyon
• Talkeetna River Valley
• West Talkeetna Foothills
• Talkeetna Mountain High Peaks
• Susitna Upland Terrace
• Wet Upland Tundra
• East Talkeetna Foothills
• Upland West of Lakes
• Vee (River) Canyon
• Upland North
• Northeast Upland Hills
• Susitna Upland Wet Tundra Basin
• Southeast Wetland Plain
• Chulitna Mountains
• Chulitna Moist Tundra Uplands
• Mid Susitna River Valley
• Talkeetna Uplands
• Susitna River Valley
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 16 June 2014
• Southern River Valley
• Talkeetna River Mountain Valley
• Susitna River
• Talkeetna Mountains
• Uplands South of Talkeetna Mountains
• Susitna Uplands
• Susitna- Maclaren Lowlands
• North Wetland Lakes
• Northeast Forest Few Lakes
• Southeast Wetland Lakes
The distribution of Project components across LCTs was calculated to better understand the
relationship between Project siting and identified landscape attributes. This information,
combined with analysis goals specific to Project components, will inform the selection of ALs
chosen for photosimulations. The total acreage is based on the Project footprint and does not
include additional areas used for construction-related activities (i.e., staging, laydown, or
housing) or areas within the viewshed of the proposed Project. Likewise, these calculations do
not include potential viewshed extent for these components. The actual viewshed extent will be
determined based on the results of the impact analysis. The distribution of Project components
across LCTs is summarized below, and in Table 5.1-2.
5.1.3.1. Reservoir
The proposed reservoir would be sited primarily within LCT associated with the Susitna River,
with a relatively small portion of this project component extending to upland character types.
The footprint of the reservoir (at capacity) would occupy 16,513 acres, or 28% of the Susitna
River LCT, and 4,820 acres (22%) of the Susitna River Canyon LCT. The reservoir at capacity
would occupy approximately 1% of the Susitna Upland Terrace (2,135 acres), and less than 1%
(77 acres) of the Susitna Uplands. Locations where the reservoir extends to upland LCTs
correspond to the lower reaches of Watana and Kosina Creek where these tributaries would be
inundated at maximum reservoir elevation (2,050 feet).
5.1.3.2. Dam and Camp Facility Area
The proposed dam and camp facility area would primarily be sited within the Susitna River LCT,
with the facility footprint occupying a small percentage of this LCT (4,729 acres, or 8%). The
dam and camp facility would also occupy portions of the Wet Upland Tundra (3,199 acres or
1%) and Susitna Upland Terrace (1,651 acres or 1%). Portions of the facility located in upland
LCT include areas used for access, construction staging, and related infrastructure.
5.1.3.3. Denali Corridor
The proposed Denali Corridor would be sited primarily within the Wet Upland Tundra LCT,
with the footprint covering approximately 17,406 acres (6%) of this LCT where it runs
north/south between the Denali Highway and the Susitna River. The portion of the Wet Upland
Tundra LCT crossed by the proposed Corridor is located at its western edge; along the toe slope
of the Chulitna Mountains. Less than 1% (2,610 acres) of the proposed Corridor extends into a
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 17 June 2014
narrow pass on the eastern edge of the Chulitna Mountains LCT. Where the proposed Corridor
parallels the Denali Highway, it would also occupy approximately 10% (5,921 acres) of the
Chulitna and Nenana River Valley LCT.
5.1.3.4. Chulitna Corridor
The proposed Chulitna Corridor would primarily be sited within the Chulitna Moist Tundra
Uplands LCT, with the footprint covering approximately 13,554 acres, or 12% of this LCT. The
Chulitna Corridor footprint would also occupy approximately 45% (4,405 acres) the Portage
Lowlands LCT, including a crossing of Portage Creek. The proposed Corridor would occupy less
than 1% of the Wet Upland Tundra (1,369 acres), Susitna River (259 acres), and Susitna River
Valley (101 acres) LCTs.
5.1.3.5. Gold Creek Corridor
The proposed Gold Creek Corridor would primarily be sited within the Susitna Upland Terrace
LCT, with the footprint covering approximately 5% (7,962 acres) of this LCT. This LCT extends
in a generally northeast-southwest orientation, and includes areas located to the north and south
of the Susitna River. The Gold Creek Corridor occupies the northern edge of this LCT south of
the Susitna and north of the Fog Lakes complex and Stephan Lake. To the east of the Susitna
Upland Terrace LCT, the Corridor would occupy 12% (4,182 acres) of the Devils Canyon LCT
along the south side of the Susitna River. The Corridor crosses numerous steep and incised
tributaries draining to the main stem Susitna from the south. Smaller percentages of the Mid
Susitna River Valley LCT (4% or 3,826 acres), and the Talkeetna Uplands (1% or 2,527 acres)
would also be crossed by the Gold Creek Corridor. Portions of the Mid-Susitna River Valley
LCT coincide with the location of the existing Chugach Electric transmission line, including
where this transmission line crosses the Susitna.
5.1.4. Field Investigation
The visual resource team spent a total of 24 field days collecting data in the field over four
seasons in 2013 (excluding pre-field logistics and travel). Field seasons occurred in winter,
spring, summer, and fall of 2013. Seasons are defined by the solstice and equinox as follows:
• Winter –December 21 to March 20
• Spring – March 20 to June 20
• Summer –20 June to September 22
• Fall – September 22 to December 21
During the 2013 field season, a total of 135 ALs were visited across all four seasons. No safety
incidents occurred during the 2013 field season. Table 5.1-3 provides a seasonal field data
summary and Figure 5.1-6 shows the locations of all ALs visited during the 2013 field season.
The map set provided in Appendix A shows each location in more detail.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 18 June 2014
5.1.5. Selection of Analysis Locations
Prior to each field season, target ALs were identified systematically by the aesthetics team. The
primary objective was to establish ALs that address Analysis Goals stated in RSP Section 12.6.4.
To achieve this goal, ALs were selected to assess proposed Project components in the context of
analysis factors such as existing land use and viewer location, seasonality, LCT, and landscape
visibility. ALs were also selected to address potential future land use and associated viewing
opportunities. With these factors taken into account, ALs were distributed according to land
status and used to develop a list of ALs to target during fieldwork. In most cases, ALs focused on
one Project component (i.e., Dam and associated facilities; the Denali Corridor; the Gold Creek
Corridor; and the Chulitna Corridor); however, in some cases, more than one component could
be assessed from the same location, thereby introducing a secondary analysis focus. Specific
locations were subject to adjustment in the field based on site-specific conditions. For example,
some ALs were not accessible via helicopter, or were deemed unsuitable because views were
precluded by tall vegetation. In other instances, new ALs were identified while in the field based
on attributes of the study area that were not apparent through the desktop review. Factors
influencing selection of ALs are discussed below.
5.1.5.1. Existing Land Use and Viewer Location
As part of baseline data collection, an assessment of the distribution and abundance of specific
viewer types was initiated through interdisciplinary coordination with recreation resources. This
effort focused primarily on identifying those viewer groups with a direct nexus to the primary
study area, with emphasis on the modeled viewshed. Interdisciplinary coordination with
recreation, subsistence, socioeconomics, cultural resources, and transportation is ongoing, and
will be used to assess adequacy of ALs to assess potential viewers and viewer locations within
the study area. A total of three Focus Groups will also be held to better understand viewer type
and location.
A variety of consumptive and non-consumptive uses of the study area were identified, including
recreation and subsistence-based hunting, trapping, and fishing, ATV riding,
aviation/flightseeing, bicycling, boating (motorized and non-motorized), camping, dog sledding
and skijoring, hiking/backpacking, nordic skiing, snowmachining, and sightseeing and wildlife
viewing (Study 12.5). These activities are distributed across the study area and largely coincide
with access, landscape character attributes, and seasonality.
Relevant information on viewer groups and viewer locations collected to date is summarized
below.
5.1.5.1.1. Trails-Based Viewers
The primary study area contains a wide variety of trails, ranging from informal, unmaintained
routes to formal, regularly maintained or groomed trails. Though the trails inventory is ongoing
(see Recreation Resources Study (Study 12.5)), information collected to date provided location
data used to inform our understanding of trails-based viewing opportunities. Detailed
information on the trails and access point inventory is provided in Recreation Resources Study
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 19 June 2014
(see ISR Study 12.5). Visual Distance Zones are presented in Figure 5.1-10 Information relevant
to the Aesthetics Resources Study is summarized by geographic region, below.
Talkeetna and Southern George Parks Highway - Approximately 20 miles of trails exist
within the vicinity of the Talkeetna Mountains. These trails extend from Petersville to the
Talkeetna Mountains, providing access to hunting areas, mining claims, and remote sites (MSB
2008c). These trails are also widely used by local residents for access to residences and
recreational cabins in the community of Chase, for hunting and wood gathering, and also general
recreation. This area is outside the modeled viewshed of the primary study area, and therefor was
not targeted for placement of ALs.
Denali State Park, Northern George Parks Highway, and the Railbelt Communities of
Chulitna and Gold Creek - Denali State Park’s trail system provides opportunities for hiking,
camping, and scenery and wildlife viewing. The Kesugi Ridge and Little Coal Creek Trails
intersect the modeled viewshed and include views that extend across the Indian River drainage,
the Mid Susitna River Valley and Chulitna Moist Tundra Uplands LCTs and up the Susitna
River. Recreators on this trail system could experience views of construction and/or operation-
related activities associated with the Chulitna and/or Gold Creek Corridors. The Curry Landing
Strip-Lookout Tower Trail (RST 1509, an RS2477 ROW) connects Curry Station to Lookout
Point on Curry Ridge. This trail does not intersect the modeled viewshed. North of the State
Park, a winter route connects the Parks Highway to cabins north of Gold Creek via Chulitna.
Residents or recreators using this trail could experience views of the Chulitna and/or Gold Creek
Corridors, including the proposed rail spur and laydown areas. Two trail systems run eastward
from the community of Chulitna: (1) The Indian River-Portage Creek Trail (RST 100), which
extends approximately 8 miles from mile 274 of the Alaska Railroad, east to Portage Creek, and
(2) the Chulitna East Route (17b easement), that connects the Alaska Railroad and the
community of Chulitna to High Lakes areas of the Chulitna Moist Tundra Uplands LCT.
Residents and recreators using these trails could experience views of construction and or
operation-related activities associated with the Chulitna and/or Gold Creek Corridors, including
the proposed rail spur and laydown areas. The McWilliams-Gold Creek Trails runs eastward
from the community of Gold Creek, connecting this area to the higher-elevation plateau south of
the Susitna River. This trail is also considered an “Informal Winter Trail” (see ISR Study 12.5).
Residents and recreators using these trails could experience views of construction and/or
operation-related activities associated with the Chulitna and/or Gold Creek Corridors, including
the proposed rail spur and laydown areas.
Denali Highway - The Denali Highway extends approximately 131 miles between the
communities of Cantwell and Paxson. Recreators and tourists use this roadway for scenic drives,
bicycling trips, and to access remote trails that support both motorized and non-motorized
recreation. Several trails within this area are located within the modeled viewshed, including: the
Jack River Trail (17b easement), the Brushkana Creek Trail, the Upper Brushkana Creek trail,
the 103.6 South Trail, and the multi-use, year-round Butte Lake, Deadman Lake, and Rapter
Valley routes. River-based recreation on Brushkana Creek and the Nenana River also occurs
during summer months.
In the winter, the Denali Highway is closed to vehicle traffic; however, it is widely used for dog
sledding and snowmachine use. Viewers located on these trail systems, rivers, or on the Denali
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 20 June 2014
Highway could experience views of construction and/or operation-related activities associated
with the Denali Corridor, the reservoir, and the dam and associated facilities.
Lake Louise and Glenn Highway - Lake Louise is located off the Glenn Highway, in the
southwestern portion of the primary study area. During winter months, recreators use the Tyone
Creek Route to travel north from the Lake Louise trail system and follow Tyone Creek to its
headwaters and the Susitna River. Tyone Creek Route is partially groomed by members of a
snowmachine club in Lake Louise. Recreators on this route may experience views of the
reservoir if they ventured off trail to higher-elevation areas. Recreators may also enter the study
area through the Chickaloon-Knick-Nelchina trail system, which connects the Glenn Highway to
the Susitna River via the Old Man Creek-Goose Lake Trail. Recreators on this trail system could
experience views of the reservoir.
5.1.5.1.2. Waterway-Based Viewer Groups
Motorized and non-motorized boating occurs on the rivers and large lakes in the study area. For
example, Mahay’s is a commercial operator offering guided jet boat tours between Talkeetna and
Devils Canyon. Approximately 20,000 visitors per summer take one of these tours on this
portion of the Susitna River. Viewers on these tours could experience views of the Gold Creek
Corridor; however, much of this corridor is shielded from the viewshed of the river by
topography and vegetation. Coordination with the River Recreation and Flow and Access Study
(Study 12.7) to understand recreational use of the river at the inundation zone is ongoing.
5.1.5.1.3. Remote Area Viewers
Backcountry camping is also popular, particularly in the Talkeetna Mountains. Camping is often
associated with hiking, hunting, fishing, and other forms of recreational activity. It is expected
that additional information on more common remote area viewer locations will be obtained
through ongoing interdisciplinary coordination and Focus Groups.
5.1.5.1.4. Rail-Based Viewers
The Alaska Railroad runs through the study area, carrying passengers who are part of tour
groups; residents who are accessing their property; or recreators accessing the Susitna River and
adjacent streams along the route for fishing and as departure points for float trips down the river.
Viewers on the rail line would experience views of the Gold Creek and Chulitna corridors,
including the proposed rail spur and laydown areas.
5.1.5.1.5. Aerial-Based Viewer Groups
As much of the study area is not accessible by roads or trails, private and commercial aviation is
a primary form of transportation used to reach cabins, lodges, and other locations for recreation.
Flightseeing as a recreational activity is often combined with other remote fly-in activities, such
as hiking, camping, fishing, and hunting. Viewers flying over any portion of the study area
would experience views of project components. Additional information on common flightseeing
paths will be obtained through interdisciplinary coordination and Focus Groups.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 21 June 2014
5.1.5.2. Seasonality
The distribution of ALs assessed during the winter, spring and summer seasons are summarized
below. A total of 135 ALs were visited in 2013, distributed across the four seasons. Many of the
same ALs were visited across all seasons; however, locations were often selected based on
existing or projected (post-Project) seasonal use patterns, and therefore were only relevant to one
or two seasons. For example, the high number of ALs assessed during the summer months is due
to the number of trails in the primary study area that were apparent due to snowmelt. The
breakdown of ALs across seasons is as follows:
• Winter – 20 ALs
• Spring – 31 ALs
• Summer – 59 ALs
• Fall – 25 ALs
5.1.5.3. Landscape Character Type
To assess potential changes in landscape character, LCPs were established across the study area.
These locations were not representative of a particular viewer experience; however, they
provided a standard location to assess baseline aesthetic conditions of the area and to assess
potential change that could result from the proposed Project and could also be considered
representative of areas of dispersed recreation or subsistence uses. The distribution of proposed
project components is presented in Table 5.1-3.
5.1.5.4. Viewer Distance
Adjacent (0 < to 0.5 miles from proposed Project components) – ALs placed adjacent to the
proposed Project footprint were assessed to assess views from the project i.e., experienced from
proposed access roads), or from adjacent locations within .5 miles. Forty-four ALs from the 2013
field season (or 32.5%) are adjacent to the proposed Project footprint.
Foreground/Middleground (0.5 miles to 5 miles from proposed Project components) –
Views of the proposed dam from the foreground/middleground distance zone were assessed,
with attention given to other analysis variables, such as vegetation cover, topography, angle of
view, duration of view, and viewer position. In some cases, ALs were visited multiple times
during the same season to assess views under different weather conditions. The majority of ALs
visited during the 2013 field season were within the foreground/middleground distance zone.
Sixty-three ALs (or 47%) were laced within this distance zone.
Background (5 miles to 15 miles from proposed Project components) – Views of the
proposed dam from the background distance zone were assessed at seven ALs (or 6%) during the
2013 field season. Analysis variables listed above were also considered in the assessment of
visual distance zones.
Seldom Seen (15+ miles from the proposed Project components) – Views of the proposed
Project from the seldom seen distance zone were not assessed during the 2013 field season.
Should the results of the analysis of ALs located in background distance zones indicate potential
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 22 June 2014
project visibility beyond 15 miles, location in the seldom seen distance zone will be assessed
during the next study year.
5.1.5.5. Potential New Viewer Locations
Two types of ALs were used to address future land use and new viewing opportunities: (1)
locations on or near the proposed Chulitna, Gold Creek and Denali corridors, and (2) views
locations within the proposed inundation zone at a maximum reservoir elevation of 2,050 feet.
Locations placed on the proposed Corridor represented potential “new” views that could be
experienced from these travelways as a result of improved access.
Other potential new viewing opportunities were identified at vistas located in proximity to the
corridors or edge of reservoir. These locations were identified by locating topographical high
points within 5 miles of these Project components using modeling techniques in GIS to identify
local high points within a one-mile radius. ALs were also placed in the proposed inundation zone
at the maximum reservoir elevation (2,050 feet) in order to simulate potential new views that
would be available to individuals positioned on the reservoir. Twenty-one ALs from the 2013
field season (or 12.5%) were placed within the proposed Project footprint.
5.1.5.6. Land Status
A total of 83 ALs were placed in state-owned land, approximately double the total of 44 ALs
placed on BLM-administered lands. No ALs were placed on NPS-administered lands. Seven ALs
were placed on Ahtna Corporation lands (along the Denali Highway) and one AL was placed on
private land at High Lakes Lodge. The study team did not have access to CIRWG lands in 2013.
Table 5.1-4 provides a summary of ALs surveyed in 2013 by land status.
Processing of fall field data is ongoing. The discussion is organized by Project component to
convey the types of AL and Project component or view targeted for analysis. Each AL is labeled
with a pre-fix that indicates the season the AL was visited (WN = Winter; SP = Spring; SU =
Summer; FL = Fall). Numbering will be refined to be more intuitive after the fall data has been
processed.
5.1.6. Summary of Analysis Locations
ALs were categorized as OPs, OAs, OCs, or LCPs (RSP Section 12.6.4). LCPs and OCs were the
most abundant AL types surveyed, with each accounting for approximately 44% of the total ALs
surveyed during 2013. OPs accounted for approximately 17% while OAs accounted for
approximately 9% of the total ALs. The abundance of LCPs is a result of the remoteness and
limited access of much of the study area. Opportunities to access the area via an existing corridor
or to view the area from an established vista are limited. The high proportion of OCs results from
the level of effort placed on assessing existing viewer locations along the Denali Highway and
existing trails. ALs are described as follows:
5.1.6.1. Denali Corridor, Paralleling the Denali Highway
The purpose of ALs sited in the following locations is to document existing conditions looking
toward the proposed Denali Corridor, and to assess potential impacts to aesthetic resources that
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 23 June 2014
could result from construction and operation of the proposed Denali Corridor, including the
proposed transmission line and associated right-of-way, and potential improvements to the
Denali Highway.
• Cantwell (SU153): SU153 is located on a local thoroughfare in the Town of Cantwell. The
view is directed east across Cantwell toward the Denali Highway.
• Jack River Trail (SU171): SU171 is located on the Jack River Trail, an existing two-track
located south of the Denali Highway and the eastern end of the Town of Cantwell. The view
is directed north toward the Highway and the Alaska Range.
• Denali Highway MP 123 (WN28): WN28 is located on the Denali Highway near MP 123.
The view is directed west and is intended to represent the viewing experience of
snowmachiners traveling on the Denali Highway.
• Denali Highway MP 123 (SP01): SP01 is located at a roadside pull-off on the Denali
Highway. This AL provides views of the proposed Denali Corridor that could be experienced
by roadway travelers (recreators, tourists) stopped at the pull-off.
• Denali Highway MP 123 (SP02): SP02 is located in the same location as WN28. The
purpose of this AL is the same as listed above; however, it targets spring users of the
highway (variable and weather dependent).
• Denali Highway MP 123 (SU151 and SU172): SU151 and SU172 are located in the same
location as WN28 and SP02.The purpose of this AL is the same as listed above; however, it
targets summer users of the highway. SU151 and SU172 were collected under different
weather conditions to complete the evaluation under a range of conditions.
• Denali Highway MP 123 (FL19): FL19 is located in the same location as WN28, SP02,
SU151, and SU172. The purpose of this AL is the same as listed above; however, it targets
fall users, which includes an increased level of hunting access-related use.
• Denali Highway MP 123 (SP03): SP03 is located at the intersection of the Denali Highway
and the proposed Denali Corridor, where it turns south toward the Susitna River. The view
being analyzed is directed primarily to the south from the Denali Highway toward the
proposed Denali Corridor. AL type is an OC, intended to represent roadway travelers on the
Denali Highway.
• Nenana River Overlook (SU173): SU173 is situated on BLM land located north of the
Denali Highway and Nenana River. The view being analyzed is directed to the south and
provides the perspective of a superior (elevated) viewing position. The AL is classified as a
LCP.
• Denali Highway MP 118.5 - Nenana River Put-in (SU150) - SU150 is located on the
Denali Highway west of a put-in for the Nenana River. The view being analyzed is directed
to the east along the highway. The AL is classified as an OC, intended to represent views
experienced by roadway travelers on the Denali Highway. Information from this location
may be extrapolated to represent an OP located at the interpretive sign at the put-in to the
Nenana River.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 24 June 2014
• Denali Highway MP 115.5 (WN1): WN1 is located at a scenic overlook of the Nenana
River on the Denali Highway (MP 115.5). The view being analyzed is directed generally to
the southeast. The AL is classified as an OP, to represent views experienced when stopped at
the lookout.
• Denali Highway MP 107.9 (SP04): SP04 is located on the Denali Highway, facing west
toward where the transmission line and access road turns south toward the study area. The
view being analyzed is directed to the west. The AL is classified as an OC to capture the
views seen by roadway travelers traveling west on the Denali Highway.
• Brushkana Nenana Confluence (SU147): SU147 is located at the confluence of the
Brushkana and Nenana rivers. The view is looking downriver (southwest) toward the
proposed Denali Corridor where it turns southward toward the Susitna River. The AL is
classified as a LCP.
• Brushkana Creek Trail (SU146): SU146 is located on a small spur trail off the Brushkana
Creek Trail, located north of the Denali Highway. The AL is classified as an OC.
5.1.6.2. Denali Corridor, South of the Denali Highway
The purpose of ALs sited in the following locations is to document existing conditions looking
toward the proposed Denali Corridor south of the Denali Highway, and to assess potential
impacts to aesthetic resources that could result from construction and operation of the proposed
Corridor, including the proposed transmission line and associated right-of-way, and access road.
• Dispersed Campsite (WN3, SP05, SU145, and FL17): This collection of ALs is located on
top of a small knoll at the end of a trail leading from the Denali Highway at a dispersed
campsite, approximately 3.5 miles south of the Denali Highway. The view being analyzed is
directed northwest toward the proposed Denali Corridor. The AL is classified as an OP to
represent views from the dispersed campsite; however it is also considered an OA
representing views experienced by more transient use in dispersed recreation and hunting.
During winter and spring, the AL is considered an OA since camping is unlikely during those
seasons.
• Nenana River Basin View (SU144): SU144 is located in the foothills of the Chulitna
Mountains, just east of the Seattle Creek Trail. View is from a superior (elevated) position,
overlooking the broad wet upland tundra, the Brushkana and Nenana River Valleys, and the
Denali Highway. SU144 is located approximately 4miles to the north of SU142 on the same
two-track. The view being analyzed is directed northeast across the proposed Denali
Corridor. The AL is classified as an OC to demonstrate views experienced by recreators
using the Seattle Creek Trail.
• Two-track Overlooking Denali Corridor (SU142 and SU174): This collection of ALs are
located on a the Seattle Creek Trail, an existing two-track originating at the Denali Highway
and running southwest to the Chulitna Mountains. These ALs are situated in the foothills of
the Chulitna Mountains, overlooking the Denali Corridor to the east. Though collocated,
SU174 was established on a clearer day when visibility extended to the background/seldom
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 25 June 2014
seen distance zone. The view being analyzed is directed east toward the proposed Denali
Corridor. The AL is classified as an OC.
• Brushkana Creek (WN4, SP06, SU141, and FL16): This collection of ALs is located
on/near a two-track trail that originates at the Denali Highway, and on/adjacent to the
proposed right-of-way. These ALs also assess potential views of the Brushkana Creek
headwaters from this corridor. The AL type is classified as an OC, intended to represent
viewer experience from the existing two-track trail.
• Butte Lake Trail (SU140): SU140 is located on the Butte Lake Trail, a two-track leading to
Deadman Lake from the Denali Highway. The view being analyzed is directed to the
southwest toward Deadman Lake. The AL is classified as an OC.
• Deadman Lake (WN5, SP08, SU28, and FL15): This collection of ALs are located on the
south end of Deadman Lake, with the exception of the winter location which is on the west
end. The view being analyzed is directed generally north across Deadman Lake. The AL type
is classified as both an OC and OP, due to the access provided by the Butte Lake Trail, and
because Deadman Lake was identified as a notable natural feature.
• Susitna Upland Terrace LCT (SU177): This AL is located at a high elevation point
overlooking the Susitna River LCT and Susitna Upland Terrace LCP. The view being
analyzed is directed generally north. The AL is classified as a LCP.
• Wet Upland Tundra LCT (SU175): SU175 is located on flat terrain north of Big/Deadman
Lakes due east of where the proposed Denali Corridor splits. The AL is classified as a LCP.
5.1.6.3. Chulitna Corridor
The purpose of ALs sited in the following locations is to document existing conditions looking
toward the proposed Chulitna Corridor, and to assess potential impacts to aesthetic resources that
could result from construction and operation of the Corridor, including the proposed
transmission line and associated right-of-way, access road, and – at its western terminus – the
proposed rail spur and staging area.
• Indian River Floodplain at railroad (SP13): SP13 is located in the floodplain of the Indian
River on the east side of the railroad. The AL is classified as an OC as it is meant to represent
views experience by individuals within the Indian River basin.
• Communication Tower (SP17, SU100, and FL24): This collection of ALs are located near
a communication tower site, on a ridge top above Miami Lake, and south of the proposed
Chulitna Corridor. The view being analyzed is directed to the north. The AL is classified as
an LCP.
• Beaver Pond (SU165): SU165 is located south of the proposed Chulitna Corridor, on BLM
administered. The AL is situated at the eastern shoreline of an oval-shaped pond. This
location is considered an OC to represent individuals on the Indian River-Portage Creek
Trail.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 26 June 2014
• Chulitna Corridor Overlook (SU77 and FL23): This collection of ALs is located upslope
of the proposed Chulitna ROW (north) on BLM-administered lands above the Indian River-
Portage Creek Trail. The view being analyzed is directed to generally to the south across the
Portage River drainage to the Susitna River. The AL is classified as an OC due to the Indian
River-Portage Creek Trail.
• Chulitna View (SU191): SU191 is situated on a small knoll approximately 300 meters
upslope of the proposed Chulitna Corridor. The view being analyzed is directed south across
the Susitna River Valley and proposed Chulitna Corridor. The AL is classified as an LCP.
• Portage Creek Drainage (WN24, SP09, SU44, and FL2): This collection of ALs is located
on a ridge top overlooking the Portage Creek valley, on the northwest side of the basin. The
exact location of ALs differed across season due to accessibility and safety. The view being
analyzed is directed south down the drainage. This collection of ALs is classified as LCPs.
• Big Bear Lake (SU 123): SU123 is located west of Big Bear Lake, on the upper edge of
Devils creek basin. This location was targeted due to its use as a remote fly-in access point to
the study area. The view being analyzed is directed to the northeast. The AL is classified as
an LCP .
• Chulitna Moist Upland Tundra (SP10, SU121, and SU122): This collection of ALs is
located in a broad, flat to rolling wide open area on the proposed Chulitna Corridor. The view
being analyzed is directed to the south, east, and west along the proposed Chulitna Corridor.
The AL is classified as an LCP.
• Above Devil Creek (SP14): SP14 is located just east of Devils Creek, south of the proposed
Chulitna Corridor ROW. The view being analyzed is directed west. The AL is classified as a
LCP.
• Chulitna Corridor - Denali View (WN23): WN23 is located south of the proposed Chulitna
Corridor. The view directed to the south/southeast along the proposed Chulitna corridor, and
includes an unobstructed view of Denali National Park and Denali in the background/seldom
seen distance zone. The primary purpose of this AL is to document potential new viewing
experiences from the proposed Chulitna Corridor. The AL is classified as a LCP.
• Tsusena Creek Trail (SU119 and SU120): AL SU119 is situated on the Tsusena Creek
Trail, where this existing two-track intersects the proposed Chulitna Corridor. The view
being analyzed is directed south toward the proposed Chulitna Corridor. AL SU120 is
located adjacent to the Tsusena Creek Trail. The purpose of this AL is to demonstrate
dominant and focal views directed northeast toward Tsusena Butte from the proposed
Chulitna Corridor. The AL is classified as an OC to represent views experienced from the
Tsusena Creek Trail.
5.1.6.4. Gold Reek Corridor
The purpose of ALs sited in the following locations is to document existing conditions looking
toward the proposed Gold Creek Corridor, and to assess potential impacts to aesthetic resources
that could result from construction and operation of the Corridor, including the proposed
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 27 June 2014
transmission line and associated right-of-way, access road, and – at its western terminus – the
proposed rail spur and staging area.
• Gold Reek Confluence (SU160): SU160 is located on river right of the Susitna River on a
gravel bar upriver of the Gold Creek Bridge, within the Indian River Recreation Area. Views
from SU160 extend across the river to the western terminus of the Gold Creek Corridor. The
view being analyzed is directed east across the river.
• Indian River Confluence (WN12, SP29, SU161, and FL25): This collection of ALs is
located at confluence of the Indian River and Susitna River. The view being analyzed is
directed to the east across the Susitna River toward the proposed corridor. The AL is
classified as an OP.
• McWilliams-Gold Creek Route (SU101): SU101 is located on the McWilliams-Gold Creek
Route, on a ridge overlooking the Susitna Valley to the north. The purpose of this AL is to
assess potential change in visual resource attributes that could result from construction and
operation of the Gold Creek and/or Chulitna Corridors, including the proposed transmission
line, associated right-of-way, and access road. The view being analyzed is to the north and
west form State of Alaska-owned lands.
• McWilliams-Gold Creek Route Overlook (SU197 and FL1): This collection of ALs is
located on the Talkeetna Uplands LCT, south of the Susitna River. The view being analyzed
is directed primarily to the north.
• Ridge above McWilliams-Gold Creek Route (WN7, SP30, and SU31): This collection of
ALs is located upslope of the McWilliams-Gold Creek Route, south of the Susitna River. The
view being analyzed is directed primarily north. The AL is classified as an OC since it is
located just south of an existing route. Note that views from this location also extend to the
location of the proposed Chulitna Corridor.
• Mid Susitna River Valley (WN13): WN13 is located upslope from the Susitna River,
between the railroad and the existing Chugach Electric transmission line corridor. The view
being analyzed is directed to the north / northeast toward the Gold Creek Bridge, Susitna
River, and proposed Gold Creek Corridor.
• Denali View from Gold Creek (SU190): SU190 is located 2 miles south of the proposed
Gold Creek Corridor. The view is directed to the northwest across the Susitna River to the
Alaska Range and Denali. The AL is classified as a LCP under existing conditions. This
location could provide opportunity for new viewing experiences under post-project
conditions as a result of improved access to the area.
• Chugach Electric (WN10): WN10 is located on the existing transmission line corridor north
of the Susitna River, upriver of the Gold Creek Bridge. The view being analyzed is directed
to the south. WN10 is classified an LCP. In addition to objectives stated above, this AL was
also used to understand (1) potential cumulative impacts that could result from construction
and operation of the Gold Creek Corridor, and (2) visual absorption of the river valley,
particularly given the varied topography of the valley wall.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 28 June 2014
• Kesugi Ridge Trail on Curry Ridge (Denali State Park) (WN8, SP28, and SU32): This
collection of ALs is located on the Kesugi Ridge Trail on Curry Ridge. The view being
analyzed is directed to the east/northeast. The AL is classified as an OC to represent
recreators on the Kesugi Ridge Trail.
• Kesugi Ridge Trail on Kesugi Ridge (Denali State Park) (WN11, SP25, and SU35):
SU35 is located on/near the Kesugi Ridge Trail on Kesugi Ridge in Denali State Park. View
faces southeast toward the Susitna River drainage. The view being analyzed is directed to the
east. The AL is classified as an OC, intended to represent recreators on or near the Kesugi
Ridge Trail.
• High Lakes Lodge (SP18):SP18 is located on the southeast corner of the High Lakes Lodge
property. The view being analyzed is directed generally south. The AL is classified as an OP.
• Above High Lakes Lodge (WN22, SP19, and SU42): This collection of ALs is located on a
knoll to the east of High Lakes Lodge. The view being analyzed is directed to the east. The
AL type is classified as a LCP.
• Gold Creek Corridor from North (SU106 and SP26): This collection of ALs is located on
an elevated, rocky, bench above the Susitna River near the eastern end of Devils Canyon.
The purpose of this AL is to assess potential change in visual resource attributes that could
result from the construction and operation of the Gold Creek Corridor, including the
proposed transmission line and associated right-of-way and access road. The view being
analyzed is directed to the west toward the Devils Canyon. The AL is classified as a LCP.
• Proposed Gold Creek Corridor (SP31, SU107, and FL4): This collection of ALs is
perched on a ridge overlooking an unnamed drainage to the Susitna River. The purpose of
this AL is to assess potential change in visual resource attributes that may result from the
construction and operation of the Gold Creek Corridor, including the proposed transmission
corridor and access road. The view being analyzed is directed to the northwest across the
proposed Gold Creek Corridor. This point is classified as a LCP.
• Susitna River by Boat (SU164): SU164 is located in the Susitna River channel upriver of
the crosses of the Chugach Electric transmission line corridor. The view being analyzed is
directed to the south across the river to upland areas. The AL is classified as an OC to
represent viewers experiencing the basin by boat.
5.1.6.5. Dam and Associated Facilities
The purpose of ALs sited in the following locations is to document existing conditions for views
directed toward the location of the proposed Dam and associated facilities, and to assess
potential impacts to aesthetic resources that could result from construction and operation this
facility. These points may also include views of the reservoir; however their primary objective is
to assess conditions at the facility site.
• Susitna Upland Terrace (SP32): AL SP32 is located on the foothills of the Talkeetna
Mountains, southeast of the proposed dam site and reservoir. The view being analyzed is
directed generally to the north, and map may also include the Gold Creek Corridor. The AL
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 29 June 2014
is classified as a LCP, and can also be considered an OA that is representative of dispersed
recreation or subsistence.
• High Point East of Tsusena Creek (SP22 and SU108): SP22 is located immediately to the
northwest of dam site. The view being analyzed is directed primarily to the south and
southwest.SU108 is located on the east side of Tsusena Creek, on a ridge above the proposed
staging area, approximately ¾-mile west (downriver) of SP22.The view being analyzed is
directed primarily to the south and southwest. This collection of ALs was classified as LCPs.
• Chulitna Corridor - View of Dam Site (WN6 and SP15): This collection of ALs is located
along the proposed Chulitna Corridor. The view being analyzed is directed to the east. The
AL type is classified as a LCP. Views to the NNE include the proposed Denali corridor.
Views to the E and SSE include the dam site and reservoir as well as their proposed access.
5.1.6.6. Reservoir
The purpose of ALs sited in the following locations is to document existing conditions looking
toward the location of the proposed reservoir, and to assess potential impacts to aesthetic
resources that could result from construction and operation this feature. In many cases, these
pints included photography and data collected at ground plane on the river, and at an elevation of
2050 feet. Collection of data at this elevation will allow for an assessment of conditions
following inundation of the reservoir.
• Susitna Upland Terrace - Fog Lakes View (SU148 and SU176): This collection of ALs is
located on a knoll overlooking Fog Lakes to the northwest from a superior (elevated) viewing
position. Although these ALs are collocated; however the two points were visited on two
separate days to characterize different weather conditions. The view being analyzed is
directed to the northwest across Fog Lakes toward the proposed Project. The AL is classified
as a LCP.
• Fog Lakes (SU168 and FL5): This collection of ALs overlooks Fog Lakes to the north from
a slightly superior (elevated) viewing position. The view being analyzed is directed
northwest. The AL is classified as a LCP.
• Above Katana Creek (SU105 and SU 193): This collection of ALs was collocated on river
left (south), on a high point above the river. This superior position provides expansive views
of the Susitna River valley to the west (downriver). The purpose of this AL is to assess the
potential change in visual resources that may result from construction and operation of the
reservoir. The viewing being analyzed is directed to the west. The AL is classified as a LCP.
Photographs were collected at this location on two separate days characterized by different
weather conditions and view extent.
• Elevated View of Reservoir from the South (SP27): SP27 is located at a high point above
the Susitna River, with views downriver and west to Denali. The view being analyzed is
generally to the north toward the Susitna River valley and proposed inundation zone. The AL
is classified as a LCP.
• Susitna Valley & Watana Creek Overlook (WN26 and SP07): This collection of ALs are
classified as an LCP situated on a rocky knoll above Susitna River valley and Watana Creek
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 30 June 2014
confluence. Although this AL is closer to the Denali Corridor (approximately 4-miles to the
west), focus is on the Watana Creek (approximately 8.5-miles to the south). The purpose of
the AL is to assess the potential change in visual resource attributes that may result from
inundation of the reservoir and the mouth of Watana Creek. The view being analyzed is
directed to the south. The AL is classified as a LCP.
• Looking East toward Watana Creek (SP12): SP12 is located on a flat area west of the
proposed inundation zone of Watana Creek. The view being analyzed is directed to the east
toward the proposed inundation zone of Watana Creek. The AL is classified as a LCP.
• Reservoir View from Uplands (WN20): WN20 is located north of the Susitna River,
approximately 5 miles west of Watana Creek. The purpose of this AL is to assess potential
change in visual resources that may result from inundation of the Susitna River and
tributaries entering the main stem from the north. View being analyzed is directed to east-
southeast. AL is classified as an OA, representative of low use and dispersed winter
recreation.
• Denali View Across River (SU194 and FL8): This collection of ALs is located north of the
Susitna River, approximately 0.9 miles from the existing river's edge and approximately 0.4
miles from the edge of the proposed reservoir. The view being analyzed is directed
downriver, to the west. The AL is classified as a LCP since there is no access to this point,
although this location could provide an opportunity for a new viewing experience due to its
proximity to the shoreline of the proposed reservoir (at capacity).
• Clarence Lake (SP16): SP16 is located at the west end of Clarence Lake. The purpose of
this AL is to collect data on the Susitna Upland Landscape Character, and assess area
managed as Remote Developed Lakeside.
• Jay Creek Upland (SP24): SP24 is located above Jay Creek, near the confluence with the
Susitna River. The view being analyzed is directed generally southwest toward Jay Creek.
The AL is classified as a LCP.
• South Butte Trail (SU11): SU11 is located on South Butte Trail, above the Susitna River,
approximately 1.5-miles north of the river. The view being analyzed is primarily west. The
AL is classified as an OC to represent trail users.
• Watana Creek Inundation Zone (SU14): SU14 is located on river right of Watana Creek,
within the inundation zone of the proposed reservoir. The view being analyzed is directed
north (upstream) and south (downstream). The AL is classified as an OC, as recreators or
individuals engaged in subsistence may use this drainage for overland travel.
• Jay Creek Drainage (SU112 and FL11): This collection of ALs is located on the Jay Creek
trail, along a ridge situated on the west side of Jay Creek. The AL is situated adjacent to a
large amphitheater-like cliff that boarder the Creek. In addition to objectives defined above,
the purpose of this AL is also to assess potential impacts to visual resources that may result
from the inundation at the mouth of Jay Creek. The view being analyzed is directed
downriver (south) along Jay Creek toward the Susitna River. The AL is classified as a LCP.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 31 June 2014
• Goose Lake Trail (SU110): SU110 is located on the Goose Lake Trail, where the trail ends
at the base of a high butte. The view being analyzed is directed generally to the north. The
AL is classified as an OC to represent viewers located on the Goose Lake Trail.
• Susitna River Inundation Zone - PRM 197.5 (SU114, SU115, SU116, SU117, and
SU195): This collection of ALs are located on a flat, elliptical sand y island located upriver of
Watana Creek. The purpose of this AL is to document existing conditions at river level, and
to collect photography that could be used to create photosimulations of the proposed
reservoir. Photos were taken on the east end of the island looking east (upriver) and on the
west end of the island looking west (downriver). Photographs were then collected in those
same locations; however at the elevation of the proposed reservoir (2050 feet). The AL is
classified as an OC to represent travel by recreators or individuals engaged in subsistence on
the river.
• Susitna River Inundation Zone – PRM 211.6 (SU111): SU111 is located on vegetated
island/sand bar within the Susitna River, upriver of its confluence with Jay Creek. The
purpose of this AL is to document existing conditions at river level and collect photography
that could be used to simulate the proposed reservoir at an elevation of 2050 feet. The AL is
classified as an OC to represent potential use as a travel corridor.
• Susitna PRM 221.75 (SU104): SU104 is located in the middle of the channel, downstream
of Vee Canyon. Photographs were taken on an existing gravel bar in the middle of the
channel at the existing grade as well as at the proposed reservoir elevation at capacity (2,050-
feet). The view being analyzed is directed to the west, downriver. The AL is classified as an
OC.
• Vee Canyon (WN21 and SP33): WN21 and SP33 are located south of Vee Canyon on a
ridge overlooking the canyon. View is from a superior position. The view being analyzed is
directed to the northeast. The AL is classified as a LCP. Vee Canyon is considered a notable
natural feature.
• Vee Canyon Uplands (SU103 and FL14): SU103 and FL14 are located on BLM-
administered land south of the Susitna River, approximately 1/4-mile downriver of Vee
Canyon. Views are from a superior viewing position, located above the river. The view being
analyzed is directed to the north. The AL is classified as a LCP. Vee Canyon is considered a
notable natural feature.
• View toward Tsusena Butte from East (SU118): SU118 is situated at a high point located
east of the Denali Corridor northeast of Tsusena Butte. The view being analyzed is directed
to the southwest. The AL is classified as a LCP.
• Wet Upland Tundra Lakes (SP11 and SU167): This collection of ALs are located on a
rocky knoll located north of the Susitna River. This superior (elevated) viewer position
provides expansive views across the Wet Upland Tundra to the Susitna River basin and
Susitna Upland Terrace. The view being analyzed is directed south toward the proposed
inundation zone. The AL is classified as a LCP, although it is also considered a potential new
viewing opportunity due to its proximity to the Denali Corridor.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 32 June 2014
5.1.7. Baseline Data Collection
5.1.7.1. Landscape Character and Scenic Quality
BLM Planning Level Data
Scenic quality data collected as part of the VRI for the East Alaska BLM RMP planning effort in
2003 was reviewed. Based on that inventory, none of the proposed Project footprint is located in
areas classified as having Class A Scenic Quality. Approximately 78.6 square miles of the
proposed Project footprint was classified as Class B Scenic Quality, and 73.3 square miles was
classified as Class C Scenic Quality (Figure 5.1-11).
Project Level Data
Project-level landscape character and scenic quality data was gathered through field surveys. A
narrative describing AL location, Project nexus, AL purpose, viewer context, landscape visibility
(distance zones), landscape character, and scenic quality attributes was compiled. Additional
information on analysis factors such as scale (size relationship, proportion), dominance
(attraction, visibility), distance from the Project, predominant angle of observation, dominant use
(i.e., recreation or travel), and average travel speed at which the Project would be viewed was
included where relevant. Photographs were collected to document baseline conditions and serve
as the basis for development of photosimulations. Narratives and are provided in Appendix B of
this report. Associated photographs are available for download at
http://gis.suhydro.org/reports/isr.
5.1.7.2. Visual Sensitivity
Visual sensitivity was assessed as part of the VRI conducted for the East Alaska BLM RMP
planning effort in 2003 (Figure 5.1-12). Based on that VRI, the majority of the proposed Project
footprint is located in areas classified as having low visual sensitivity (65.9 square miles). This
area corresponds with much of the interior of the study area, and the majority of the area crossed
by the Project footprint. Approximately 7.1 square miles of the proposed Project footprint is
located in areas classified as having high visual sensitivity. This area corresponds to locations
along the Denali Highway, where viewers experience the landscape within the foreground-
middleground zone, in an area frequented by recreators, individuals engaged in subsistence, and
tourists. A small portion of the study area is classified as having moderate sensitivity
(approximately 3.1 square miles). This area corresponds to a few areas east of the George Parks
Highway and north of the Chulitna Corridor as well as a few high points scattered throughout the
study area (Figure 5.1-12). Project-level data designed to inform the visual sensitivity assessment
was collected through intercept surveys mail surveys, and executive interviews completed in
coordination with recreation resources, socioeconomics, and subsistence resources during the
2013 study year. These data will be assessed during the second study year, and used to identify
participants and direct content of Focus Groups with public agencies, (2) local tour
operators/outfitters and guides/lodge owners, and (3) Alaska Native populations.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 33 June 2014
5.1.8. Photosimulations
Development of photosimulations was initiated during the 2013 study year through collection of
baseline photography, and subsequent development of panoramic imagery. Panoramic photos are
available for download at http://gis.suhydro.org/reports/isr.
5.2. Soundscape
5.2.1. Review Documentation and Develop Data Needs
The following are laws, ordinances, regulations, standards, and guidance that may influence the
Project construction and operation noise impact assessment:
• The second edition of the Bureau of Reclamation Water and Land Recreation
Opportunity Spectrum (WALROS) Handbook describes guidelines for several social
setting attributes used to characterize or categorize recreation land uses or opportunities.
With respect to sound, a “reasonable standard for the percent of noise disturbances per
number of recreation groups” ranges from 10% for an “urban” category to 1% for a
“primitive” recreation setting (Bureau of Reclamation 2011).
• Table 5.1-5 reproduces Table 2.5 from the 2006 Denali National Park Backcountry
Management Plan (DNP 2006) and describes four categories of disturbance to what is
otherwise natural soundscape.
• There are guidelines at the federal level that direct the consideration of a broad range of
noise and vibration issues as listed below:
o National Environmental Policy Act (42 United States Code [USC] 4321, et seq.)
(Public Law-91-190) (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] § 1506.5)
o Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 USC 4910)
o U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Noise Guidelines 24 CFR §
51 subpart B
o The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not promulgated standards
or regulations for environmental noise generated by power plants; however, the
EPA has published a guideline that specifically addresses issues of community
noise (EPA 1974). This guideline, commonly referred to as the “levels
document,” contains goals for noise levels affecting residential land use of day-
night sound level (Ldn) <55 a-weighted decibel (dBA) for exterior levels and
Ldn<45 dBA for interior levels. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development Noise Guidebook Chapter 2 (24 CFR Section 51.101(a)(8)) also
recommends that exterior areas of frequent human use follow the EPA guideline
of 55 dBALdn. However, the same Section 51.101(a)(8) indicates that a noise
level of up to 65 dBALdn could be considered acceptable.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 34 June 2014
• Occupational exposure to noise is regulated by 29 CFR 1910.95, Occupational Noise
Exposure, which in summary describes requirements of an employer for implementation
of feasible administrative or engineering controls, personal protective equipment, and/or
a hearing conservation program to protect its employees against the effects of noise
exposure when it exceeds an average of 90 dBA for an 8-hour period.
As of this writing, no State, borough or municipality laws, ordinances or regulations have been
found that specifically apply to noise from hydropower facilities or their construction. Research
for pertinent laws, ordinances, regulations, standards and guidance will continue through 2013,
with results added and appropriately considered as part of the preliminary Project construction
noise assessment and subsequent Project operation noise assessment.
5.2.2. Seasonal Surveys of Ambient Sound Levels
Soundscape ALs were often selected to coincide with ALs from the visual resource assessment,
or other remote locations that were considered representative of the variety of study area
landscapes and/or soundscapes. LT monitoring positions were planned ahead of each seasonal
survey. Final LT monitor installation positions, within the permitted areas and within adequate
proximity to pre-planned location coordinates, were determined after factoring in field conditions
such as topography, helicopter access and vegetative cover. At each LT monitor installation, the
sound level meter (SLM) and digital audio recorder each has its own external power source (e.g.,
a battery external to the device) to provide operation capacity beyond that of internal instrument
batteries. Each LT monitor has been setup with the audio recorder receiving an input signal
through the SLM; hence, the duration of audio recording (AR) has depended on either the battery
life of the SLM or the audio recorder. However, as shown in Tables 5.2-1, 5.2-2, 5.2-3, and 5.2-
4, there are apparent instances when the SLM continued to function, measuring and storing
sound pressure level (SPL) data, after the audio recorder automatically shutoff due to lack of
sufficient voltage from its separate power source. In most cases when this occurred, however,
concurrent SPL and AR data were collected for multiple consecutive diurnal periods. In a few
instances, shown as Winter LT3, Spring LT8, and Summer LT2 in Tables 5.2-1, 5.2-2, and 5.2-3,
respectively, concurrent SPL and AR data were collected for less than a full 24-hour period.
In summary, and based on a preliminary analysis of baseline soundscape data collected to date
(as part of customary downloading and storing survey data to off-instrument memory locations),
measured SPL at the LT (Table 5.2-1 though Table 5.2-4) and ST (Table 5.2-5 through Table
5.2-8) locations appear to be generally consistent with expectations based on contributing factors
such as nearby vegetative cover, topography, the proximity and characteristics of flowing water,
and meteorological and other conditions experienced during the measurement periods. Some
noteworthy examples of such consistency with expectations are as follows:
• During the winter soundscape survey, and as indicated by ranges of daily Leq and L90 in
Table 5.2-1, the presence of snow cover at (and remoteness of) locations LT2, LT4, and
LT7 is likely responsible for the “background” L90 levels staying below 20 dBA.
• During the spring soundscape survey, and as indicated by narrow ranges of daily Leq and
L90 in Table 5.2-2, the proximity of a continuous source of sound—the flow of water—is
evident at monitoring location LT2. Likewise, ST16 and ST20 shown in Table 5.2-8
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 35 June 2014
exhibit narrow measurement value ranges, as well as near equivalency between Leq and
L90, that one can expect when measuring sound near natural running water.
• Similar to the results from spring survey location LT2, the LT5 location from the
summer soundscape survey also exhibits narrow ranges of daily Leq and L90 in Table 5.2-
3, which implies the presence of a continuous source of sound. In this case, the observed
source was a creek, but at a distance from the summer LT5 monitoring position that is
greater than that of the distance between spring LT2 and Gold Creek.
• The 5 dB difference between Leq and L90 values at LT5 during the fall survey (Table 5.2-
4) appears consistent with the difference in the arithmetic averages of the Leq and L90
summer survey value ranges at the same LT5 monitoring location, thus supporting the
supposition of apparent acoustical contribution of creek water flow.
Please refer to Figures 5.2-1 and 5.2-2 that show the LT and ST soundscape monitoring positions
with respect to the study area.
5.3. Modeling of Project Sound Levels
Preliminary steps to develop predictive analysis of Project construction activity noise levels were
completed. The purposes of this preliminary construction noise modeling effort are as follows:
• to understand what Project construction activity and/or planning information (and level of
detail) is readily available;
• to identify what further information and data is needed for a more refined level of
predictive analysis; and,
• to gain appreciation of what construction activities, and where in the Project study area,
may have the potential to cause elevated noise levels with respect to what has been
measured or monitored as part of the seasonal baseline soundscape field surveys that
were completed in 2013.
Information on construction-related activity required for the proposed Project contained in
AEA’s PAD (AEA 2011) was reviewed. Because information contained in this document was
limited, similar studies were assessed to develop a workable but preliminary set of CADNA/A
model input parameters. Available information is summarized as follows:
Preliminary Application Document (AEA 2011)
The PAD (AEA 2011) contains information that generally describes Project construction
activities and their locations, including:
• Site plan of the proposed dam (Figure 3.3-1 of AEAs PAD [AEA2011])
• Access road and transmission line route options (Figure 3.3-8 of AEAs PAD
[AEA2011])
• Road descriptions (Section 3.3.1.10.1 of AEAs PAD [AEA2011])
• Work camp (Section 3.3.1.11 of AEAs PAD [AEA2011])
• Concrete batch plant (Section 4.4.8.1 of AEAs PAD [AEA2011])
• Barrow areas (Section 4.9.2.2 (borrow areas of AEAs PAD [AEA2011])
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 36 June 2014
As the Project design develops, and for which more detailed information is anticipated during the
next study year, the preliminary construction noise model parameters will be updated
accordingly.
CAD files
Topographic data of the Project study area reviewed to date was limited in extent, including up
to no more than a few miles from the boundaries of the proposed dam area and access road and
transmission line (“t-line”) corridor/route options.
5.4. Assessment of Downriver Study Area
The aesthetic resources team coordinated with the Recreation River Flow and Access Study
(Study 12.7), the Fish and Aquatics Instream Flow (Study 8.5), Geomorphology (Study 6.5), and
Ice Processes (Study 7.6) Studies to determine if Project-related impacts to these resources
would necessitate extending aesthetic resource studies downstream of the George Parks Highway
Bridge. It was determined that the results of the Open Flow Routing Model, filed with FERC on
January 31, 2013, would be used for this evaluation, as this model provided an estimation of
expected change in flows under extremely conservative model parameters that simulated flow
releases from the Watana Dam to the Susitna River for a maximum load following operational
scenario (OS-1). The results of this model are also presented in the Fish and Aquatics Instream
Flow Study (Study 8.5). OS-1 is based on the assumption that the entire load fluctuation of the
Railbelt would be provided by the Susitna-Watana Project, and that all other sources of electrical
power in the Railbelt would be running at base load. This assumed condition is not realistic for
an entire year and consequently provides a conservative estimate of downstream impacts of load
represent an extreme condition that would not occur for an entire year. Annual OS-1 flow and
stage hydrographs are provided for a number of locations, including the end of River Reach 3 at
the George Parks Highway Bridge (Sunshine Gage [USGS 1529278]). The results of the January
31, 2013, report indicate that OS-1 changes in both stage and flow are minimal at the end of
Reach 3. The report also concludes that modeled changes in stage in flow at the end of Reach 3
are exaggerated, as the Susitna River is confined to an unusually narrow channel in the vicinity
of the George Parks Highway Bridge. A wider and more typical channel located downstream of
Reach 3 at Project River Mile 87.1 was also measured; results indicated 12-19% less stage
change in response to flow fluctuations than observed at the more narrow location at the end of
Reach 3.
Likewise, modeling completed for the Ice Processes in the Susitna River Study (Study 7.6)
indicated that despite potential increase in discharge during freeze-up and throughout the winter,
the resulting stages would only increase about 1 ft. over the naturally occurring stage range just
prior to freeze-up, which is within the “normal” range of variability. Similarly, model results for
the Susitna Station indicated that increase in discharge to 30,000 and 35,000 cfs result in stages
(with an ice cover) of 40.0 to 41.1 ft., respectively. During freeze-up 2012, ESS20 and the
Susitna Station gage provided a direct record of the stage increase of approximately 4.8 ft. to a
stage of 41.1 ft. Though higher than that recorded for 1950-2010, these levels are similar to the
modeled stage at 35,000 cfs.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 37 June 2014
6. DISCUSSION
6.1. Aesthetic Resources
As set forth in RSP Section 12.6.4, baseline data collection to date has included a combination of
desktop (primary and secondary study area) and field data collection (primary study area).
Desktop data collection has included existing spatial and geospatial data describing aesthetic
attributes, including scenic quality, visual distance zones, and visual sensitivity of the primary
and secondary study areas (i.e., BLM 2006a, AEA 2011). Field data collection targeted ALs
sited within the primary study area. Data collection focused on identifying existing aesthetic
resource values including scenic quality, visual sensitivity, and distance zones. Baseline data
collection on scenic quality and visual distance zones is approximately 95% complete (see Table
6.1-1); however, the sensitivity level analysis is a major focus of the next study year. The review
of existing data collected during the sensitivity level analysis completed for RMP planning
process for the BLM Ring of Fire and East Alaska RMP indicated that, although the results of
this analysis are available in spatial format, no underlying data are available. The Project-specific
analysis will provide data necessary to complete this analysis. This analysis will be based on data
collected during Focus Groups and information gleaned through interdisciplinary coordination.
A discussion of how baseline data collected to meets objectives described in RSP Section 12.6.4
is provided below.
6.1.1. Adequacy of Analysis Locations to Meet Objectives of the Study Plan
RSP Section 12.6.4 6 provides locations considered suitable to address specific analysis goals
and to achieve desired outcomes of the study program. Stated goals focused on addressing
potential impacts (beneficial or adverse) to aesthetic resources and identifying new access to
views or potential change in viewer experience that may result from operation of the proposed
Project. Table 6.1-1 lists the analysis goals and associated locations considered in the Study Plan
and identifies the ALs established during 2013 to achieve these goals. In most cases, analysis
goals were achieved based on data collected in 2013; however, certain identified goals could
require additional interdisciplinary coordination and/or access to lands owned by the CIRWG in
order to achieve the desired outcome. As discussed in RSP Section 12.6.7, interdisciplinary
coordination will occur with the Recreation Resources Study (Study 12.5), Recreation River
Flow Study (Study 12.7), the Cultural Resources Study (Study 13.5), the Subsistence Baseline
Documentation Study (Study 14.5), components of the Socioeconomics and Transportation study
(Study 15.0), specifically Studies 15.6 and 15.7, the Geomorphology Study (Study 6.5), the Ice
Processes in the Susitna River Study (Study 7.6), the Baseline Water Quality Study (Study 5.5),
the Water Quality Modeling Study (Study 5.6), and the Riparian Vegetation Study Downstream
of the Proposed Susitna-Watana Dam (Study 11.6). Data collected by other studies will confirm
locations of common, sensitive, or valued aesthetic resources and/or areas where potential
changes to biophysical processes could impact scenery attributes within the primary study area.
The rationale for ongoing coordination or land access is provided in Table 6.1.1.
Ongoing interdisciplinary coordination will ensure that baseline data collection was sufficient,
and included areas where resource-specific sensitivities may exist. For example, preliminary
review of the Subsistence Baseline Documentation Study (Study 14.5) indicated that AL
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 38 June 2014
surveyed in 2013 provide coverage of areas identified as important subsistence use areas. This
type of review will occur for other resources targeted for coordination in RSP Section 12.6.7.
Cross-referencing of data collected by other studies will ensure that locations of common,
sensitive, or valued aesthetic resources and/or areas where potential changes to biophysical
processes could impact scenery attributes within the primary study area. Information collected by
these resource studies during the 2013 study year will also inform and support the systematic
selection of participants for Focus Group. Coordination activities are ongoing. A status of
coordination efforts is described below:
• Recreation Resources Study (Study 12.5) (including Recreation River Flow and
Access Study [Study 12.7]) – Coordination will include identification of recreational use
areas, including areas of targeted use (i.e., trails, river/stream corridors, access points,
State Parks) and areas of dispersed use. The adequacy of existing ALs to address
aesthetic attributes of these areas will be assessed. Data pertaining to recreation use and
demand, experiential preferences, and place-base value obtained from household and
intercept surveys will inform the visual sensitivity analysis. Because of the integration
between Aesthetics Resources and Recreation, it is expected that data will continue to be
shared in an ongoing manner the next study year.
• Cultural Resources Study (Study 13.5) – Coordination will include identification of
eligible or identified TCPs within the primary study area and establish ALs through
collaboration with cultural resource study leads. It was expected that data would
reviewed and shared in an ongoing manner throughout the 2 study years, recognizing
restrictions applied to protect sensitive data. However, the sample available for
investigation in 2013 was unexpectedly restricted by the lack of access to CIRWG lands.
This is not anticipated to affect the aesthetics resources timeline since TCPs are primarily
being identified through research and interviews (past and present), not through field
identification. The Aesthetics Resources timeline could be affected if the list of identified
TCPs is completed after the viable next field season, and if the list yields any TCPs that
are considered essential to the aesthetics analysis and have not been adequately covered
by previously visited ALs. The Aesthetics Resources team will coordinate with the
Cultural Resources team throughout the next study year in order to avoid effects to the
Aesthetics Resources Study timeline.
• Subsistence Baseline Documentation Study (Study 14.5) – Coordination will include
identifying areas within the primary study area that are used for subsistence purposes, or
to access other areas used for subsistence to establish AL for both scenery attributes and
soundscape. These areas will be cross-referenced to ALs surveyed during the 2013 to
determine the extent to which these areas were addressed in the 2013 effort. Additional
coordination with subsistence resource study leads will review of surveys and traditional
and local knowledge interview data with relevance to the visual sensitivity analysis (Q1
of next study year). During the 2013 study year, the Subsistence Baseline Documentation
Study (Study 14.5) identified 37 communities located within the Susitna River watershed
that were studied as part of the subsistence study. Subsistence data compiled included
existing harvest amount, seasonal round, and subsistence use area data in addition to
documenting sources of traditional knowledge for the 37 study communities. In 2013, the
study team conducted household harvest surveys in 10 study communities and conducted
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 39 June 2014
traditional knowledge workshops in seven study communities. This information is useful
for the aesthetics resources study because it identifies areas where subsistence activities
exist, thereby providing information on these specific viewer groups within the study
area. Several areas within the study area appear to be used for subsistence activities
including fishing, hunting for land-based animals and birds, trapping, and vegetation
gathering. Those areas include north and south of the Denali Highway; the Susitna River
and its tributaries such as Jack River, Jay Creek, Goose Creek, Kosina Creek, Seattle
Creek, Gold Creek, Portage Creek, Watana Creek, and Butte Creek; smaller lakes and
ponds around Miami Lake, Indian River, Fog Lakes, Clarence Lake, Deadman Lake,
Lake Louise, and Big Lake. Areas within walking distance of the Denali Highway
appeared to be popular for subsistence activities, particularly for vegetation gathering.
Though the subsistence study team plans to collect additional baseline data in next study
year through household harvest surveys and subsistence mapping interviews, preliminary
review of existing data indicates that the aesthetics study maintained solid coverage of
these areas identified for subsistence activity. One variance was identified in the
Subsistence Baseline Documentation Study (S tudy 14.5), indicating that that the data
review did not include summary data from the Alaska Department of Fish & Game’s
Wildlife Harvest Database, as this information was not received in time. A summary of
this information will be included in the Updated Study Plan. The aesthetics team will
coordinate with the subsistence resource team in the next study year to finalize our AL
data gap analysis; however but this variance is not expected to affect the Aesthetics
Resources schedule.
• Social Conditions and Public Goods and Services Study (Study 15.6) – Coordination
will include data on recreation and subsistence use values, quality of life, community use
patterns, non-use environmental values, and social conditions of the area to inform the
visual sensitivity level analysis. Socioeconomics data is expected to be available in the
next study year. The socioeconomics study performed in 2013 provided information
regarding non-use values, social conditions, quality of life, and community use patterns
of the area that help inform the aesthetics study. Specifically,
o Devils Canyon was identified as an aesthetic resource that may have “non-use
value”;
o The rural character of the area is identified as an indicator of the quality of life for
study area residents;
o Pace of life is identified as an indicator of the quality of life for study area
residents, which can be affected by traffic including snowmachines; and,
o Community image is identified as an indicator for the quality of life for study area
residents. For Talkeetna residents, continuing to be an “end-of-the-road village”
and preserving historic structures are considered important or the community
image.
This study has been informed by the Social Conditions and Public Goods and Services
Study (Study 15.6), as part of the 2013 work. Therefore the status of the Socioeconomics
Study is not expected to delay the Aesthetics Study. The aesthetics study will also
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 40 June 2014
provide information to the socioeconomics study through ongoing interdisciplinary
coordination.
• Transportation Resources Study (Study 15.7) – Data obtained from the Transportation
Resources Study (Study 15.7) was evaluated to understand anticipated changes related to
transportation demands that could affect aesthetic resources. In 2013, existing
transportation modes were identified and summarized. In the next study year, future
conditions forecasting will be refined and potential project-related transportation effects
will be identified. This information will be used by the aesthetics team to determine how
these potential effects could affect aesthetics resources. River travel data was not
captured through agency and individual interviews in 2013, but will be completed during
the next study season. This is not expected to affect the aesthetics resources study
schedule.
• Riparian Vegetation Study Downstream of the Proposed Susitna-Watana Dam
(Section 11.6) – Coordination will be used to understand potential changes in riparian
vegetation that would result in detectable changes in scenic attributes of the river
corridor. Riparian instream flow data is expected Q4 of the next study year, and will be
used to refine the aesthetics resources impact analysis. In 2013, the riparian resources
field work and mapping was conducted to identify different ecosystem components to
characterize the riparian conditions of the study area. This information will be expanded
upon in the next study year. Variances in the riparian study were implemented to allow
for more intensive sampling improve understanding of riparian vegetation and soils in the
area. This variance is not expected to affect the aesthetics resources study schedule.
• Baseline Water Quality Study (Study 5.5) – Coordination will focus on identifying
expected changes in water quality parameters that would be detectable to viewers situated
on or near the river (3Q of the next study year). Coordination with Water Quality
(Section 5.0) will focus on identifying expected changes in water quality parameters that
would be detectable to viewers situated on or near the river. Water quality data is
expected to be available in the next study year. In 2013, the water quality fieldwork was
conducted to understand baseline water quality conditions within the study area,
including turbidity and apparent color which are of interest to the visual resources
analysis. The data is in the process of being reviewed and validated. Three proposed
Focus Area reaches requiring access to ANCSA lands were not sampled during the 2013
study year due to lack of access. Although three Focus Areas were not sampled during
2013, this modification is not expected to affect the aesthetics resources study schedule.
• Geomorphology Study (Study 6.5) – Coordination with the geomorphology study will
include determination of whether the geomorphic response to Project operations will
result in detectable changes in downstream scenery attributes (Q1 2013 – Q4 of the next
study year ). In 2013, the field work and mapping was conducted to identify different
ecosystem components to characterize the riparian conditions of the study area. This
information will be expanded upon in the next study year. Some of the flow and stage
modeling and analysis has been delayed, which will delay completion of the
geomorphology analysis. The reservoir erosion assessment as described in RSP Section
6.5.4.8.2.3 (AEA 2012) will be completed during the next study year. The work was
postponed due to access limitations during the 2013 field season. The aesthetics team will
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 41 June 2014
coordinate with the geomorphology team throughout the study year in order to avoid
delays to the aesthetics resources study schedule.
• Hydrology-Related Resources (Study 7.0) – Coordination with hydrology-related
resources will be used to understand hydrologic conditions that may affect scenic
attributes and soundscape. A major focus will be on reviewing results of the Ice
Processes in the Susitna River Study (Study 7.6) to better understand expected changes in
the type, distribution, and seasonality of ice cover on the Susitna River, downriver of the
proposed dam (Q4 2013). Baseline data collection began in 2012 and continued in the
2013 study year. Initial existing conditions modeling was also conducted in 2013 for the
ice processes study. The plans for the next study year will continue field observations of
key areas and processes, continue to develop and calibrate the River1D and River2D
models for existing conditions for both open water and ice covered conditions, and apply
these models to the proposed project operations scenarios. The study will provide a basis
for impact assessment, which will inform the development of any necessary protection,
mitigation, and enhancement measures. During the 2013 field study, some changes were
made to camera locations for the time-lapse camera monitoring, but these are not
expected to affect the aesthetic resources study.
Several analysis goals were determined not necessary to support the impact analysis and were
consequently dropped from the analysis plan. As locations identified in the Study Plan were
considered preliminary, any refinement to these locations based on new information or field-
based observations is not considered a variance. Rationale for this decision is provided in Table
6.1-1, with more detail on the decision to not extend the study area downriver of the George
Parks Highway provided below.
6.2. Soundscape
The following discussion of study effort status is categorized by bulleted focal points listed in
Section 4.6. The degree of progress towards assessing Project-induced noise effects resulting
from future recreation opportunities is also discussed.
6.2.1. Quantifying Existing Soundscape Data
At a total of 23 LT locations, SPL metrics, statistical data, and AR from the four seasonal
soundscape field surveys were successfully collected for multiple consecutive 24-hour periods.
Of these, at least seven LT positions could reasonably be considered “co-located” and thus
represent SPL and AR data collection for more than one seasonal survey, which provides the
kind of data that enables both a comparison of seasonal soundscapes (and the underlying
acoustical contributors) and the comparison of predicted Project operation and construction noise
with a seasonally appropriate baseline setting. For example, if a particular noise-producing
construction activity was expected to take place during the summer season, then available
baseline soundscape data from the summer survey would likely be used for any relative (e.g.,
increase over existing ambient) noise impact assessment.
Tables 5.2-1 through 5.2-8 present summarized Leq and L90 values for the LT and ST soundscape
measurement locations and can offer a coarse level of insight on the magnitude of sound levels
relative to one another and the likely dominant acoustical contributors to measured ambient
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 42 June 2014
sound. A detailed analysis of the baseline data from each survey is currently being conducted
(with expected completion by the end of 2013) and is anticipated to yield the following detailed
findings and information:
• Reasonable identification of apparent significant acoustical contributors during a
measurement period, including Project study activities and non-Project transportation and
recreation activities that can be distinguished from the apparent “natural” background or
specific naturally occurring sound events or conditions.
• Reasonable identification of apparent significant acoustical contributors attributed to
naturally occurring sound events or conditions (e.g., birds or insects).
• Where and when data is available, correlation of wind speed with measured SPL and AR.
• One-third or octave-band analysis of measured sound, plotted versus time.
• Statistical values to help characterize the frequency of apparent anthropogenic sounds as
a portion of entire measurement duration.
Ongoing interdisciplinary coordination with wildlife resources will occur to ensure that
potentially sensitive wildlife areas are accounted for in baseline measurements collected to date.
6.2.2. Determining Consistency of Existing Soundscape with Management
Objectives Pertaining to Sound
As detailed baseline soundscape data analysis is completed, consistency with management
objectives can be made and reported. By way of example, the determination of frequency of
apparent anthropogenic sounds during a baseline LT or ST measurement period (e.g., expressed
as a percentage of time) might be compared with the vicinity’s ROS or WALROS category
designation on the basis of expected “reasonable standard for the percent of noise disturbances
per number of recreation groups” or a similarly appropriate noise-related statistical value or
characteristic traits, such as the Denali National Park Backcountry Management Plan Noise
Disturbance guidelines.
6.2.3. Identifying Anticipated Changes in Soundscape
As the detailed baseline soundscape data analysis is completed, comparisons can be made with
results from predictive construction and operation noise models. While some progress may be
made in this regard with respect to the former before the end of 2013, any such comparisons
between the analyzed baseline soundscape and future Project operations must wait until project
related noise models are competed (i.e., when Project operation noise model input parameters are
available).
6.2.4. Noise from Future Recreation Use and Demand Due to the Project
When the Project operation plans and corresponding expectations of future land uses in the study
area are developed, predictions of noise emission from anticipated future recreation activities
(e.g., new or altered ROS or WALROS designations) concurrent with Project operation can be
made. Figure 6.2-1 shows how the 2013 Sound ALs were distributed among the existing ROS
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 43 June 2014
designations in the study area. The Roaded Natural ROS had the most ALs (11 total), followed
by Primitive (5 total), then Semi-Primitive at two ALs. Both the Special ROS and Semi-
Primitive Non-Motorized ROS had one AL each.
6.3. Evaluation of Downriver Extent of Study Area
Based on the information provided in the January 31, 2013, Open Flow Routing Model, it was
determined that flow and stage hydrographs under the operational scenario modeled would be
within the natural range of variability at locations downriver of Talkeetna. Based on these
results, it is possible that potential changes in the aesthetic attributes (visual or auditory) of the
river would not be detectable. Though an extension of the study area below Talkeetna does not
appear justified based on these model results, ongoing coordination will finalize this
determination prior to initiation of the next study year.
7. COMPLETING THE STUDY
[Section 7 appears in the Part C section of this ISR.]
8. LITERATURE CITED
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR).2012. George Parks Highway Scenic Byway
Master Interpretive Plan. Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. Published online at:
http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwdplng/scenic/index.shtml.Accessed October 10, 2013.
ADNR.2011.Susitna Matanuska Area Plan. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Published
online at:
http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/planning/areaplans/sumat/pdf/smap_2011_complete.pdf.Acces
sed October 10, 2013.
ADNR.2009. Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 2009-
2014.Published online at:http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/plans/scorp/scorp0914.pdf.Accessed
October 9, 2014.
ADNR.2006a. Denali State Park Management Plan. Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation.
Published online:
http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/plans/denali/final/denali_complete.pdf.Accessed October 11,
2013.
ADNR.2006b. Ten-Year Strategic Plan.Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation.Published
online at: http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/plans/strategicplan.htm.Accessed October 11, 2013.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 44 June 2014
ADNR. 2005. Cultural Resource Management Plan for the Denali Highway Lands, Central
Alaska. Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. Published online at:
http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/oha/denalihwylands/denalihwylands.pdf.Accessed October
10, 2013.
ADNR.2000. Nelchina Public Use Area Fact Sheet. Published online at:
http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/factsht/nelchina_pua.pdf. Accessed November 19, 2013.
ADNR.1991. Susitna Basin Recreation Rivers Management Plan. Division of Land and
Resources. Published online at:
http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/planning/mgtplans/susitna/pdf/Preface.pdf. Accessed October
15, 2013
ADNR.1985. Susitna Area Plan. Published online at:
http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/planning/areaplans/susitna/pdf/susitna_area_plan.pdf.Accessed
October 10, 2013.
ADNR.1981. Scenic Resources along the Parks Highway: Inventory and Management
Recommendations. Published online at:
http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/planning/mgtplans/scenic_res_parks_hgwy/. Accessed October
10, 2013.
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. 2008. The George Parks Highway
Scenic Byway Corridor Partnership Plan. Published online at:
http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/interp/pdf/georgeparkshwyscenicbyway.pdf. Accessed
October 10, 2013.
AEA (Alaska Energy Authority). 2012. Revised Study Plan: Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project FERC Project No. 14241. December 2012. Prepared for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission by the Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. Published
online at:http://www.susitna-watanahydro.org/study-plan.Accessed 8, 2013.
AEA.2011. Pre-application Document: Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No.
14241.Prepared for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2013. Generalized Land Status of Alaska NAD83, Bureau
of Land Management, Alaska State Office. Updated August 8, 2013
BLM. 2012. Wild and Scenic Rivers Policy and Program Direction for Identification, Evaluation,
Planning and Management. Release 9-399. July 13, 2012. Published online at:
http://www.rivers.gov/documents/blm-policy-manual.pdf.Accessed November 20, 2013.
BLM.2006a. East Alaska Resources Management Plan and Final EIS. Published online at:
http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/planning/east_alaska_plan/east_frmp.html.Accessed
October 17, 2013.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 45 June 2014
BLM.2006b. Ring of Fire Resource Management Plan and Final EIS. Published online at:
http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/planning/ring_of_fire_plan/ring_of_fire_proposed.htm
l.Accessed October 17, 2013.
BLM. 1986. Visual Resource Inventory. BLM Handbook 8410-1. Washington, D.C.
Bureau of Reclamation. 2011. Water and Land Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (WALROS)
Users’ Handbook, Second Edition.
City of Palmer. 2006. City of Palmer Comprehensive Plan. Published online
at:http://www.cityofpalmer.org.Accessed October 8, 2013.
City of Wasilla. 2011. City of Wasilla Comprehensive Plan. Published online at:
http://www.cityofwasilla.com/home/showdocument?id=4714. Accessed October 8, 2013.
Denali Borough. 2009. Comprehensive Plan. Published online at:
http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/plans/Denali%20Borough-CP-2009.pdf.Accessed
October 11, 2013.
Denali Borough. 2013. Denali Borough Code Chapter 19 Zoning. Published online at:
http://www.codepublishing.com/ak/denaliborough.html. Accessed October 11, 2013
Dessauer, Peter F., and David W. Harvey. 1980. An historical resource study of the Valdez
Creek Mining District, Alaska - 1977. Edited by John L. Beck. Ms. on file, Bureau of
Land Management Glennallen Field Office, Glenallen, Alaska.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB). 2013a. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Code Title 17: Zoning.
http://www.codepublishing.com/AK/matanuskasusitnaborough/. Accessed October 9,
2013
MSB.2013b. Willow Area Comprehensive Plan. Published online at:
http://www.matsugov.us/docman/doc_view/4975.Accessed October 4, 2013.
MSB. 2010. Economic Development Strategic Plan. Published online at:
http://www.matsugov.us/economicdevelopment.Accessed October 11, 2013.
MSB.2009. Sutton Comprehensive Plan, November 2009 Update. Published online at:
http://www.matsugov.us/docman/doc_view/2883.Accessed October 7, 2013.
MSB.2008a. Chickaloon Comprehensive Plan. Published online at:
http://www.matsugov.us/docman/doc_view/2889.Accessed October 7, 2013.
MSB. 2008b. Glacier View Comprehensive Plan 2008 Update. Published online at:
http://www.msbgov.us/planning/plans/comprehensive-plans.Accessed October 8, 2013.
MSB. 2008c. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Recreational Trails Plan. Published online at:
http://www.matsugov.us/communitydevelopment/recservices/trails/trail-plan-a-topics.
Accessed October 8, 2008
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 46 June 2014
MSB. 2007. Core Area Comprehensive Plan, November 2007 Update. Published online at:
http://www.msbgov.us/docman/doc_view/1326.Accessed October 8, 2013.
MSB. 2006. Glacier View Comprehensive Plan – Sheep Mountain Sub-District. Published online
at: http://www.msbgov.us/planning/plans/comprehensive-plans. Accessed October 10,
2013.
MSB.2005a. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Comprehensive Development Plan 2005
Update.Published online at: http://www.matsugov.us/docman/doc_view/2076.Accessed
October 13, 2013.
MSB. 2005b. Y Community Council Area Comprehensive Plan: Taking Part in Our Future.
Published online at: http://www.matsugov.us/docman/doc_view/913 Accessed October
5, 2013.
MSB. 2001. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Component of the Asset Management Plan.
Published online at: http://www.matsugov.us/communitydevelopment/landmgmt/asset-
management-plans.Accessed October 11, 2013.
MSB.1999a. Chase Comprehensive Plan. Published online at:
http://www.msbgov.us/planning/plans/comprehensive-plans.Accessed October 5, 2013.
MSB.1999b. Talkeetna Comprehensive Plan. Published online at:
http://www.tkacouncil.org/home/talkeetna-comprehensive-plan.Accessed October 2,
2013.
Mat-su Trails and Parks Foundation (MSTPF).2013. Mat-Su Trails and Parks Master Plan.
Published online at: http://www.matsutrails.org/wp-
content/uploads/downloads/2013/04/4-22-
13_DRAFT_MatSuTrailsParksMasterPlan3.pdf.Accessed October 11, 2013.
National Park Service (NPS). 2006. Final South Denali Implementation Plan and Environmental
Impact Statement. Published online
at:http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/sdenali/includes/eisfull.pdf.Accessed October 15, 2013.
Reed, S.E., J.P. Mann and J.L. Boggs. 2009. SPreAD-GIS: an ArcGIS toolbox for modeling the
propagation of engine noise in a wildland setting. Version 1.2.TheWilderness Society,
San Francisco, CA.
State of Alaska. 2013. Municipal Government Structure Webpage. Available at:
https://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dcra/LOGON/muni/muni-structure.htm. Accessed
October 2, 2013.
Sound Advice Acoustics Ltd Webpage. 2012. Available at:
http://www.soundadviceacoustics.co.uk/prediction_software.php. Accessed September 5,
2013.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 47 June 2014
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental
Noise Requisite to Protect Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.
Report No. 550/9-74-004. Washington, D.C.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 48 June 2014
9. TABLES
Table 5.1-1.Viewshed Area Breakdown by Distance Zone and Land Status1 (Draft 1/10/2014)
Viewshed Total Area (Square
Miles)
Area Percentage Breakdown by Distance Zone Square Miles by Land Status
Foreground/ Middleground Background Seldom Seen Federal State CIRWG2
Denali Corridor 1,144 454 388 301 56.5 870.5 216.5
Gold Creek
Corridor
628 312 220 95 0.25 378 250
Chulitna Corridor 693 250 305 138 1.5 461 231
Dam and
Reservoir
414 248 128 38 0 365 49
Susitna River 5-
miles
Downstream of
Dam
13.7 11 4 2 0 4.9 8.8
1Totals may not add up due to rounding.
2Represents lands owned by members of the Cook Inlet Regional Working Group
Table 5.1-2. Approximate Distribution of Project Components across LCT (Acres) (Draft 1/10/2014)
Landscape Character Type Reservoir
Dam and
Camp Facility Area Denali Corridor Chulitna Corridor Gold Creek Corridor
Chulitna Moist Tundra Uplands 0 0 0 13,554 0
Chulitna Mountains 0 0 2,610 0 0
Devils Canyon 0 0 0 0 4,182
Mid Susitna River Valley 0 0 0 0 3,826
Northwest River Valley Area 0 0 5,921 0 0
Portage Lowlands 0 0 0 4,405 0
Susitna River 16,514 4,729 0 259 0
Susitna River Canyon 4,820 0 0 0 0
Susitna River Valley 0 0 0 101 0
Susitna Upland Terrace 2,134 1,651 0 0 7,962
Susitna Uplands 77 0 0 0 0.00
Talkeetna Uplands 0 0 0 0 2,527
Wet Upland Tundra 0 3,199 17,406 1,370 0
Table 5.1-3. Seasonal Visual Field Summary Table (Draft 1/10/2014)
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 49 June 2014
Season Trip Dates Number of Analysis Locations Total Days Collecting Data in the Field1
Winter 2013 March 6, 2013 – March 15, 2013 20 6
Spring 2013 May 13, 2013 – May 22, 2013 31 6
Summer 2013 July 13, 2013 – July 23, 2013 59 9
Fall 2013 September 22, 2013 – September 27, 2013 25 3
TOTAL 135 24
1Actual days collecting data in the field are shorter than trip duration as these figures do not include days where the crew could not complete
field work due to weather conditions or logistical constraints. Travel days to and from Anchorage are also not included in this table.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 50 June 2014
Table 5.1-4.Analysis Locations by Land Status (Draft 1/10/2014)
Fieldwork Season Total Analysis
Locations
Analysis Locations By Land Ownership
Federal State Private Ahtna Corporation
Winter 20 6 13 0 1
Spring 31 5 23 1 2
Summer 59 21 35 0 4
Fall 25 12 12 0 1
TOTAL 135 44 83 1 7
Table 5.1-5. Natural Sound Disturbance (Draft 1/10/2014)
Descriptor Standard
Very High
Natural sounds are often interrupted by motorized noise including loud noise.
Motorized noise may be audible up to 50% of any hour, and there may be up to 50
motorized noise intrusions per day that exceed natural ambient sound. Motorized
noise does not exceed 60dBA.
High
Natural sounds are frequently interrupted by motorized noise, including some loud
noise. Motorized noise may be audible up to 25% of any hour, and there may be
as many as 25 motorized noise intrusions per day that exceed natural ambient
sound. Motorized noise does not exceed 60dBA.
Medium
Natural sounds predominate in this area, but there are infrequent motorized
intrusions, a few of which may be loud. Motorized noise may be audible up to 15%
of any hour, and there may be as many as 10 motorized noise intrusions per day
that exceed natural ambient sound. Motorized noise does not exceed 40dBA
Low
Natural sounds predominate in this area and motorized noise intrusions are very
rare and usually faint. Motorized noise may be audible up to 5% of any hour, and
there is no more than o motorized intrusion each day that exceeds natural ambient
sound. Motorized noise does not exceed 40dBA.
Source: DNP 2006
Notes: “Audible” means audibility to a person of normal hearing. Maximum sound levels assume the measurement device is more than 50 feet
from the noise source. For comparison, 40dBA is the overall sound level inside a typical residential home. 70dBA is the sound level of a
vacuum cleaner as perceived by the user.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 51 June 2014
Table 5.2-1. Winter 2013 Long-Term Soundscape Survey Data (Draft 1/10/2014)
Long-Term (LT) Soundscape Monitoring Locations Data Collection during Winter 2013 Seasonal Soundscape Survey
Identification
(URS shorthand description or name)
GPS Coordinates (decimal
degrees)
Survey Time Period (mm/dd) of SPL (Audio)
Data
Daily 1 Survey LeqRange (dBA)
Daily 1 Survey L90 Range (dBA)
Winter LT1 (Denali Highway
– West)
63.366457
-148.359346
3/7-3/12
(3/7-3/8) 42 - 49 15 - 31
Winter LT2 (Denali Highway
– East Campground)
63.289424
-148.067008
3/7-3/12
(3/7-3/8) 22 - 40 14 - 16
Winter LT4 (Burnt Trees /
"25")
62.830469
-148.66463
3/8-3/11
(3/8-3/9) 18 - 24 15
Winter LT5 (High Lakes) 62.849341
-149.092327
3/8-3/15
(3/8-3/9) 23 - 69 15 - 37
Winter LT7 (Brushkana) 63.17352
-148.262308
3/11-3/18
(3/11-3/12) 15 - 40 15
1. Values considered were from consecutive 24-hour periods.
Table 5.2-2. Spring 2013 Long-Term Soundscape Survey Data (Draft 1/10/2014)
Long-Term (LT) Soundscape Monitoring Locations Data Collection during Spring 2013 Seasonal Soundscape Survey
Identification (URS shorthand description or name)
GPS Coordinates
(decimal
degrees)
Survey Time Period (mm/dd)
of SPL (Audio)
Data
Daily 1 Survey
LeqRange (dBA)
Daily 1 Survey L90 Range (dBA)
Spring LT1 (Curry) 62.62237
-150.09857
5/18-5/24
(5/18-5/24) 24 - 51 15 - 17
Spring LT2 (Gold Creek) 62.78604
-149.65572
5/18-5/24
(5/18-5/24) 54 - 57 53 - 56
Spring LT3 (Kesugi) 62.81964
-149.75472
5/20-5/27
(5/20-5/27) 29 - 38 15 - 18
Spring LT4 (HLL) 62.84393
-149.1156
5/20-5/30
(5/20-5/21) 25 - 55 15 - 36
Spring LT5 (Burnt Trees /
"25")
62.83
-148.6574
5/23-5/29
(5/23-5/29) 35 - 38 25 - 32
Spring LT6 (Watana
Confluence)
62.8683
-148.2533
5/23-5/31
(5/23-5/31) 35 - 57 19 - 28
Spring LT7 (DENA HWY) 63.39105
-148.56028
5/21-5/26
(5/21-5/26) 36 - 40 16 - 25
Spring LT9 (V Canyon
Backup)
62.67589
-147.527
5/23-5/31
(5/23-5/31) 35 - 42 23 - 36
1. Values considered were from consecutive 24-hour periods.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 52 June 2014
Table 5.2-3. Summer 2013 Long-Term Soundscape Survey Data (Draft 1/10/2014)
Long-Term (LT) Soundscape Monitoring Locations Data Collection during Summer 2013 Seasonal Soundscape Survey
Identification (URS shorthand
description or name)
GPS Coordinates
(decimal degrees)
Survey Time Period (mm/dd) of SPL (Audio) Data
Daily 1 Survey LeqRange (dBA)
Daily 1 Survey L90 Range
(dBA)
Summer LT1 (Curry) 62.639139
-150.098778
7/12-7/19
(7/12-7/19) 30 - 46 17 - 28
Summer LT3
(Brushkana)
63.186111
-148.273778
7/12-7/19
(7/12-7/19) 30 - 40 23 - 27
Summer LT4 (Antler Hill) 62.882139
-148.3725
7/12-7/19
(7/12-7/19) 34 - 46 21 - 32
Summer LT5 (Fog Lakes) 62.763917
-148.417556
7/12-7/20
(7/12-7/20) 39 - 42 35 - 37
Summer LT6 (Burnt
Trees / "25")
62.830111
-148.658167
7/12-7/19
(7/12-7/17) 34 - 39 27 - 28
Summer LT7 (Chu Cor) 62.869
-148.704
7/12-7/19
(7/12) 31 - 38 18 - 25
Summer LT8 (High
Lakes)
62.849556
-149.093806
7/12-7/20
(7/12-7/20) 40 - 53 16 - 21
Summer LT9 (Kesugi) 62.822417
-149.761222
7/12-7/18
(7/12-7/13) 32 - 53 15 - 24
1. Values considered were from consecutive 24-hour periods.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 53 June 2014
Table 5.2-4. Fall 2013 Long-Term Soundscape Survey Data (Draft 1/10/2014)
Long-Term (LT) Soundscape Monitoring Locations Data Collection during Fall 2013 Seasonal Soundscape Survey
Identification (URS shorthand
description or name)
GPS Coordinates
(decimal degrees)
Survey Time Period (mm/dd) of SPL (Audio) Data
Daily 1 Survey LeqRange (dBA)
Daily 1 Survey L90 Range
(dBA)
Fall LT1 (Kesugi Ridge) 62.822417
-149.761222
9/7 - 9/9
(9/7 - 9/12) 53 27
Fall LT2 (Chu Cor) 62.869
-148.704
9/7 - 9/9
(9/7 - 9/17) 37 29
Fall LT3 (Antler Hill) 62.882139
-148.3725
9/7 - 9/9
(9/7 - 9/16) 40 34
Fall LT4 (Upper V
Canyon)
62.711356
-147.579455
9/7 - 9/9
(9/7 - 9/16) 30 19
Fall LT5 (Fog Lakes) 62.763917
-148.417556
9/7 - 9/8
(9/7 - 9/16) 44 39
Fall LT6 (Burnt Trees /
"25")
62.830111
-148.658167
9/7 - 9/12
(9/7 - 9/16) 57 - 76 37 - 56
Fall LT7 (Swamp Town) 62.7805
-148.7414
9/7 - 9/14
(9/7) 36 - 39 19 - 25
Fall LT8 (Thoroughfare-
Portage Confluence)
62.94146
-149.169973
9/7 - 9/12
(9/7 - 9/8) 39 - 40 28 - 37
Fall LT9 (Denali Hwy) 63.345244
-148.301793
9/7 - 9/14
(9/7 - 9/16) 32 - 42 22 - 26
1. Values considered were from consecutive 24-hour periods.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 54 June 2014
Table 5.2-5. Winter 2013 Short-Term Soundscape Survey Data (Draft 1/10/2014)
Short-Term (ST) Soundscape Monitoring Locations Data Collection during Winter 2013 Seasonal Soundscape Survey
Identification (URS shorthand description or name)
GPS Coordinates
(decimal degrees)
Survey Time Period Date (mm/dd), Start and End
(hh/mm)
Survey Time Period Leq(dBA)
Survey Time
Period L90 (dBA)
Winter ST1 (Denali Hwy) 63.37185
-148.81502
3/17,
11:16 – 11:50 58 19
Winter ST2 (East Fork
Chulitna Wayside)
63.15194
-149.40869
3/17,
12:40 – 13:06 58 35
Winter ST3 (Ermine Hill
Trailhead)
62.82744
-149.9038
3/17,
13:44 – 14:08 62 29
Winter ST4 (Lake Louise
Lodge)
62.2776
-146.5147
3/19,
10:13 – 14:24 55 32
Winter ST5 (Kesugi
Ridge)
62.822417
-149.761222
3/27,
16:12 – 16:36 56 22
Winter LT3 (Stephan
Lake Lodge)
62.699901
-148.911899 3/8,
14:47 – 17:04 73 16
Winter LT6 (T-line Ridge) 62.828229
-149.57262 3/9,
13:08 – 17:31 61 15
Winter LT8 (Lake Louise
Lodge)
62.29161
-146.52922 3/19,
00:00 – 02:55 15 14
Table 5.2-6 Spring 2013 Short-Term Soundscape Survey Data (Draft 1/10/2014)
Short-Term (ST) Soundscape Monitoring Locations Data Collection during Spring 2013 Seasonal Soundscape Survey
Identification
(URS shorthand
description or name)
GPS Coordinates
(decimal degrees)
Survey Time
Period Date
(mm/dd), Start
and End
(hh/mm)
Survey Time
Period
Leq(dBA)
Survey Time
Period L90 (dBA)
Spring LT8 (Clarence
Lake)
62.67531
-147.7982
5/23,
14:20 – 18:50 60 16
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 55 June 2014
Table 5.2-7. Summer 2013 Short-Term Soundscape Survey Data (Draft 1/10/2014)
Short-Term (ST) Soundscape Monitoring Locations Data Collection during Summer 2013 Seasonal Soundscape Survey
Identification (URS shorthand description or name)
GPS Coordinates
(decimal degrees)
Survey Time Period Date (mm/dd), Start and End
(hh/mm)
Survey Time Period Leq(dBA)
Survey Time
Period L90 (dBA)
Summer ST1 (Denali
Hwy)
63.391257
-148.560994
7/13,
12:14 – 19:21 43 20
Summer ST2
(Campground)
63.28901
-148.06715
7/13,
12:57 – 13:18 58 47
Summer ST3 (Corridor
Intersection w/ Denali
Hwy)
63.346148
-148.3
7/13,
13:58 – 14:17 28 18
Summer ST4 (Cantwell) 63.38938
-148.90281
7/13,
15:04 – 15:48 60 38
Summer ST5 (Pass
Creek)
62.91025
-149.71456
7/13,
16:53 – 17:16 64 38
Summer ST6 (Lower
Troublesome Creek
Trailhead)
62.6257
-150.22782 7/13,
17:55 – 18:10 64 46
Summer ST7 (Tangle
Lakes Recreation Area)
63.05243
-146.00245 7/15,
11:27 – 11:57 42 38
Summer ST8 (Tangle
Lakes Hilltop)
63.04784
-146.04586 7/15,
12:14 – 12:37 42 24
Summer ST9 (Near V
Canyon)
62.687219
-147.564828 7/16,
10:12 – 10:35 41 29
Summer ST10 (Susitna
River)
62.694629
-147.58501 7/16,
11:00 – 11:22 49 48
Summer ST11 62.717672
-147.599817 7/16,
11:58 – 12:24 67 32
Summer ST12 (High
Point)
62.7706
-147.990248 7/16,
13:26 – 15:57 56 42
Summer ST13 (Noname
2)
62.794414
-148.972506 7/16,
14:22 – 14:35 46 30
Summer ST14 (Noname
3)
62.766731
-149.120094 7/16,
15:53 – 16:02 32 22
Summer ST15 (Staging) 62.830394
-148.573744 7/16,
16:52 – 17:14 38 29
Summer ST16 (Watana
Creek)
62.860733
-148.199781 7/16,
17:46 – 18:04 66 66
Summer ST17 (Goose
Lake Trail), meas. A
62.67890532
-147.683033 7/17,
9:36 – 9:47 57 24
Summer ST17 (Goose
Lake Trail), meas. B
62.67890532
-147.683033
7/17,
9:56 – 10:25 67 21
Summer ST18 (Susitna
Sandbar 1)
62.766093
-147.809499 7/17,
11:00 – 11:18 41 40
Summer ST19 (Jack
Creek Overlook)
62.801199
-147.872121 7/17,
12:13 – 12:29 40 32
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 56 June 2014
Short-Term (ST) Soundscape Monitoring Locations Data Collection during Summer 2013 Seasonal Soundscape Survey
Identification (URS shorthand
description or name)
GPS Coordinates
(decimal degrees)
Survey Time
Period Date (mm/dd), Start
and End (hh/mm)
Survey Time Period
Leq(dBA)
Survey Time
Period L90 (dBA)
Summer ST20 (Susitna
Sandbar 2)
62.812795
-148.167027 7/17,
13:24 – 13:46 53 52
Summer ST21 (Right of
Way)
62.909501
-148.544743 7/17,
15:32 – 15:54 34 30
Summer ST22 (Noname
9)
62.888567
-148.627369 7/17,
16:34 – 16:41 47 37
Summer ST23 (Noname
10)
62.905073
-148.974466 7/17,
17:18 – 17:30 36 29
Summer ST24 (Train
stop - Chulitna) n/a 7/18,
14:31 – 16:03 66 25
Summer ST25 (Train
stop – Hurricane)
63.0125
-149.614
7/19,
15:20 – 15:34 79 74
Summer ST26 (moving
train) n/a 7/19,
15:35 – 15:36 75 73
Summer ST27 (Idling
train @ Indian River)
Railway
MP 269.9
7/19,
16:02 – 16:04 76 72
Summer LT2 (V Canyon) 62.701472
-147.534389 7/12,
12:49 – 23:59 63 32
Summer LT2 (V Canyon) 62.701472
-147.534389
7/13,
00:00 – 06:56 37 35
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 57 June 2014
Table 5.2-8. Fall 2013 Short-Term Soundscape Survey Data (Draft 1/10/2014)
Short-Term (ST) Soundscape Monitoring Locations Data Collection during Fall 2013 Seasonal Soundscape Survey
Identification (URS shorthand description or name)
GPS Coordinates
(decimal degrees)
Survey Time Period Date (mm/dd), Start and End
(hh/mm)
Survey Time Period Leq(dBA)
Survey Time
Period L90 (dBA)
Fall ST1 (Lower
Troublesome Creek)
62.625797
-150.227994
9/8,
11:25 - 11:45 63 48
Fall ST2 (E. Fork
Chulitna Campground
South)
63.149800
-149.412111 9/8,
12:42 - 13:02
53 50
Fall ST3 (E. Fork
Chulitna Campground
North)
63.151580
-149.409100 9/8,
13:12 - 13:32
62 47
Fall ST4 (Dena Hwy
West)
63.391056
-148.560361
9/8,
14:52 - 15:12 52 31
Fall ST5 (Dena Hwy
West)
63.393617
-148.518028
9/8,
15:22 - 15:37 48 33
Fall ST6 (Dena Hwy
West)
63.382592
-148.434461
9/8,
15:54 - 16:09 44 44
Fall ST7 (Dena Hwy
West)
63.330739
-148.255386
9/8,
16:31 - 16:46 53 31
Fall ST8 (Dena Hwy
West)
63.241500
-147.794053
9/8,
17:35 - 17:50 50 41
Fall ST9 (Dena Hwy
West)
63.235542
-147.782758
9/8,
18:04 - 18:24 44 34
Fall ST10 (Dena Hwy
Mid)
63.142133
-147.535900
9/8,
18:53 - 19:08 42 30
Fall ST11 (Dena Hwy
Mid)
63.106511
-147.542419
9/8,
19:23 - 19:38 33 28
Fall ST12 (Dena Hwy
Mid)
63.104097
-147.537431
9/8,
19:45 - 19:55 33 26
Fall ST13 (Dena Hwy
Mid)
63.098422
-147.484133
9/8,
20:17 - 20:27 25 22
Fall ST14 (Dena Hwy
Mid)
63.041542
-146.881583
9/9,
10:23 - 10:43 48 43
Fall ST15 (West Tangle
Lakes Hilltop)
63.047814
-146.045722
9/9,
12:33 - 12:48 43 36
Fall ST16 (Tangle Lakes
Rec Area Hilltop)
63.052458
-146.002281
9/9,
13:11 - 13:26 42 39
Fall ST17 (Paxson Lake
Campground)
62.883639
-145.526581
9/9,
14:32 - 14:52 34 27
Fall ST18 (Soudough
Creek Campground)
62.525458
-145.520997
9/9,
16:19 - 16:34 46 37
Fall ST19 (Dry Creek
Campground)
62.154978
-145.476319
9/9,
17:15 - 17:30 48 42
Fall ST20 (Lake Louise -
The Point Lodge)
62.288244
-146.539389
9/10,
8:57 - 9:12 47 43
Fall ST21 (Lake Louise
Campground)
62.285336
-146.539717
9/10,
9:25 - 9:40 36 34
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 58 June 2014
Short-Term (ST) Soundscape Monitoring Locations Data Collection during Fall 2013 Seasonal Soundscape Survey
Identification (URS shorthand
description or name)
GPS Coordinates
(decimal degrees)
Survey Time
Period Date (mm/dd), Start
and End (hh/mm)
Survey Time Period
Leq(dBA)
Survey Time
Period L90 (dBA)
Fall ST22 (Glenn Hwy -
Old Man Creek Trail)
61.960092
-147.125408
9/10,
10:49 - 11:14 46 38
Fall ST23 (Glenn Hwy -
New Purinton Creek)
61.804789
-148.087128
9/10,
12:31 - 12:46 54 32
Fall ST24 (Denali View
South)
62.592233
-150.238517
9/15,
11:42 - 12:02 67 44
Fall ST25 (Byers Lake
Day Use Area)
62.742814
-150.128503
9/15,
12:23 - 12:43 43 37
Fall ST26 (Byers Lake
Campground 1)
62.746642
-150.116689
9/15,
12:54 - 13:09 47 39
Fall ST27 (Byers Lake
Campground 2)
62.748097
-150.116803
9/15,
13:19 - 13:34 47 40
Fall ST28 (Byers Lake
Boat Launch)
62.744325
-150.122242
9/15,
13:44 - 14:04 56 47
Fall ST29 (Ermine Hill
Trailhead)
62.827283
-149.903844
9/15,
14:27 - 14:42 57 43
Fall ST30 (Little Coal
Creek Trailhead)
62.891414
-149.7469
9/15,
15:16 - 15:31 51 40
Fall ST31 (Talkeetna
Boatlaunch)
62.327228
-150.111825
9/15,
17:43 - 18:03 57 46
Fall ST32 (Talkeetna
Campground)
62.32635
-150.109217
9/15,
18:07 - 18:22 50 36
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 59 June 2014
Table 6.1-1. Analysis Goals and Locations Considered in RSP Section 12.6.3 (Draft 1/10/2014)
Analysis Goal Locations Being Considered 2013 ALs Mid Susitna River Valley Evaluate potential impacts of
transmission and access routes to
aesthetic resources of the Mid
Susitna River Valley.
Susitna River, view downriver from
perspective of a boater.
FL25
Susitna River, view upriver from
perspective of a boater (jetboat).
SU114
View from rail line. Collect during second study year if permission
gained from RR, or address from whistle stop.
Upland, from perspective of existing
trails.
SU197 – AL located in Talkeetna Uplands. View
extends across Mid Susitna River Valley.
Upland, from dispersed recreation
and/or subsistence use areas.
Sufficient data to address this goal was collected
at SU197. Should new information be obtained
from either recreation or subsistence resources,
additional ALs will be considered.
Aerial views, from common flight path
used for flightseeing.
The assessment of this objective is subject to
information obtained through Executive
Interviews completed by the Recreation
Resources Study (RSP Section 12.5) and
Recreation River Flow Study (RSP Section 12.7),
and Focus Groups planned as part of the
Aesthetics Resources Study (RSP Section 12.6).
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.
This goal could be achieved once access to
lands owned by the CIRWG along the Gold
Creek Corridor is obtained.
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).
This goal will be evaluated further based on
interdisciplinary coordination with components of
the Instream Flow Resources (RSP Sections 8.5
and 8.6), the Geomorphology Study (RSP
Section 6.5), and the Riparian Vegetation Study
downstream of the Proposed Susitna-Watana
Dam (RSP Section 11.6).
View from existing winter trail toward
ice bridge (note that this analysis will be
coordinated to the outcome of the ice
processes study).
This goal will be evaluated further based on
interdisciplinary coordination with the Ice
Processes in the Susitna River Study (RSP
Section 7.6).
View from upland trail, and/or dispersed
recreation/subsistence use area.
This goal will be evaluated further based on
interdisciplinary coordination with components of
the Instream Flow Study (RSP Section 8.0,
including Studies 8.5 and 8.6), the
Geomorphology Study (Study 6.5), and the
Riparian Vegetation Study downstream of the
Proposed Susitna-Watana Dam (Study 11.6).
At transect locations for the Ice
Processes in the Susitna River Study
(Study 7.6), the Geomorphology Study
This goal will be evaluated further based on
interdisciplinary coordination with components of
the Instream Flow Study (RSP Section 8.0,
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 60 June 2014
Analysis Goal Locations Being Considered 2013 ALs
(Study 6.5), and the Riparian
Vegetation Study downstream of the
Proposed Susitna-Watana Dam (Study
11.6).
including Studies 8.5 and 8.6), the
Geomorphology Study (Study 6.5), and the
Riparian Vegetation Study downstream of the
Proposed Susitna-Watana Dam (Study 11.6).
View of river valley from upland area,
i.e., locations with existing view of the
Mid Susitna River Basin (e.g., Denali
State Park; rail line; trails).
ALs located on Kesugi Ridge (WI11, SU35,
SP25, WN8, SP28, and SU32) achieved this
goal; however, views were too far to discern
characteristics of river channel. The need to
pursue this goal further will be based on
interdisciplinary coordination with components of
the Instream Flow Study (RSP Section 8.0,
including Studies 8.5 and 8.6), the
Geomorphology Study (Study 6.5), and the
Riparian Vegetation Study downstream of the
Proposed Susitna-Watana Dam (Study 11.6). Devils Canyon Evaluate the change in the
appearance, if any, of riverflow
within Devils Canyon as a result of
the proposed Project.
View downriver from perspective of a
low flying aircraft.
This goal will be assessed further based on
interdisciplinary coordination with components of
the Instream Flow Study (RSP Section 8.0,
including Studies 8.5 and 8.6) and the
Recreation River Flow Study (Study 12.7).
View upriver from perspective of a jet
boat operator (base of Devils Canyon).
This goal will be assessed further based on
interdisciplinary coordination with components of
the Instream Flow Study (RSP Section 8.0,
including Studies 8.5 and 8.6) and the
Recreation River Flow Study (Study12.7).
Evaluate potential impacts of
transmission and access routes to
aesthetic resources of Devils
Canyon.
View from river canyon, south toward
corridor (visibility questionable).
Both SP26 and SU106 assessed landscape
attributes from upland areas. Locations within
the canyon could not be accessed due to safety.
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.
Viewshed models indicate that Devil’s Canyon is
too incised to permit views of the river channel
from the proposed corridors. Susitna River / Vee Canyon Evaluate change in mechanism of
view(s) within the inundation zone.
View upriver/downriver from within
Susitna River corridor (existing).
SU114; SU115; SU111; SU104; FL13; FL12
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.
SU116; SU117; SU195; SU104
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.
SU103; FL14; SP33; FL8; FL9; FL10; FL11;
SU105; SU193; SU194 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.
This location was dropped from consideration as
only a very small section of Goose Creek, where
it intersects the Susitna Upland Wet Tundra
Basin, is within the modeled viewshed. View of
the upriver terminus of the reservoir was instead
assessed from the mouth of Goose Creek at the
Susitna River (FL12). Portage Evaluate change in seasonal Views from existing trail; views from SU77; SU23; SU165
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 61 June 2014
Analysis Goal Locations Being Considered 2013 ALs
attributes of river downstream of
the proposed dam site as a result
of varied flow regimes.
mouth of creek.
Evaluate potential impacts to
landscape character that may
result from access roads and/or
transmission lines.
Views from proposed access roads and
transmission lines.
SU77; SU23; SU165
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.
WN24; SP09; SU44; FL2
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.
SU77; SU23; SU165; WN24; SP09; SU44; FL2 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.
SU123; FL3; SP15; WN6; FL21; SU121; SU122
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.
FL22; SP13; SP17; FL24, SU100
Views from Tsusena Butte/Lake. The Chulitna Moist Tundra Uplands is not within
the viewshed of Tsusena Lake. It was
determined that Tsusena Butte could be
assessed in the second study year if the area
could be accessed safely. This view was
assessed through SU119, located on the
Tsusena Creek Trail.
Views from Denali Highway, with
emphasis on existing pull-
outs/established vistas.
The Denali Highway does not travel through or
near this LCT. 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.
SP06; SU141; SP08; SU28; FL15; SU120; WN5
Evaluate potential impacts to
landscape character that may
result from access roads and/or
transmission lines.
Views from the Susitna River. At existing conditions, steep valley walls prohibit
views from the river of areas where the proposed
transmission line and/or access roads would be
sited. Likewise, the inundation zone, at capacity,
would not extend into the Wet Upland Tundra
LCT.
Views from rail line. The rail line does not run through or near this
LCT.
Views from Sherman interpretive signs. The locations of the Sherman interpretive signs
do not contain views of this LCT.
Views from existing trails; dispersed SU141; FL16; SU145; SP05; FL17; SU142;
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 62 June 2014
Analysis Goal Locations Being Considered 2013 ALs
recreation and/or subsistence use
areas.
SU174; FL18; SP04; SU145; SP05; FL17;
SU147; SU146 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.
SP31; SU107; FL4
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.
WN7; SP30; SU31; SU101; SU190; SU197 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. This location was removed from consideration
based on the location of the Fog Lakes relative to
the proposed project and the Talkeetna
Mountains.
Views from Stephan Lake. This location was removed from consideration
based on the location of Stephan Lake relative to
the proposed project and the Talkeetna
Mountains.
Views from dispersed recreation and/or
subsistence use areas.
SU177; WN19; SP24; SP27 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.
FL7 (from trail); SU14 (view from Watana Creek
– dispersed recreation and/or subsistence).
This analysis goal is also supported by ALs
SU194 and FL8 (view directed west) and WN20
(view directed east).
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.
This goal could be achieved once access to
lands owned by the CIRWG along the Gold
Creek Corridor is obtained.
Consider views of portions of the river
located directly downriver of the dam
where ice formation may change as a
result of Project operations.
This goal cannot be assessed from the Susitna
Upland Terrace LCT unless access to lands
owned by the CIRWG along the Gold Creek
Corridor is obtained; however, the same outcome
is achieved by using ALs WN25, SU166, and
SP20 located on the north side of the Susitna
River. Susitna Upland Evaluate impacts to landscape
character when viewed from the
air.
Views from common flightseeing
routes.
To be completed in in the second study year
based on results of 2013 recreation study. Air Tour Routes Evaluate change in scenic
attributes of the river as a result of
changes in flow volume.
Montana Creek Recreation Site. Based on preliminary results from the ice
processes study, it was determined that
extending the study to areas downriver of
Talkeetna was not necessary. Susitna River, downstrea Evaluate potential changes to
aesthetic attributes related to
changes in ice processes and/or
river flows; note that the extent to
Montana Creek Recreation Site. Based on preliminary results from the ice
processes study, it was determined that
extending the study to areas downriver of
Talkeetna was not necessary.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 63 June 2014
Analysis Goal Locations Being Considered 2013 ALs
which these areas are evaluated
will depend on the outcome of
analysis of modeling completed
relating to ice processes and river
flows.
Winter Trail(s) at Delta Islands. Based on preliminary results from the ice
processes study, it was determined that
extending the study to areas downriver of
Talkeetna was not necessary.
Iditarod NHT Winter Trail. Based on preliminary results from the ice
processes study, it was determined that
extending the study to areas downriver of
Talkeetna was not necessary.
10. FIGURES
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-W atana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 64 June 2014
Figure 3- 1. Aesthetics Resources Study Area
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-W atana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 65 June 2014
Figure 5.1- 1. Denali Corridor Modeled Viewshed
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-W atana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 66 June 2014
Figure 5.1- 2. Gold Creek Corridor Modeled Viewshed
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-W atana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 67 June 2014
Figure 5.1- 3. Chulitna Corridor Modeled Viewshed
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-W atana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 68 June 2014
Figure 5.1- 4. Dam and Reservoir Modeled Viewshed
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-W atana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 69 June 2014
Figure 5.1- 5. Susitna River Five Miles Downstream of Dam Modeled Viewshed
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-W atana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 70 June 2014
Figure 5.1- 6. Analysis Locations and Land Status
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-W atana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 71 June 2014
Figure 5.1- 7. Visual Resource Inventory & Management Classes
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-W atana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 72 June 2014
Figure 5.1- 8. Planning Areas
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-W atana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 73 June 2014
Figure 5.1- 9. Landscape Character Types
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-W atana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 74 June 2014
Figure 5.1- 10. Visual Distance Zones
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-W atana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 75 June 2014
Figure 5.1- 11. Scenic Quality Rating
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-W atana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 76 June 2014
Figure 5.1- 12. Sensitivity Level Rating
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-W atana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 77 June 2014
Figure 5.2- 1. 2013 Soundscape Locations – Long Term
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-W atana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 78 June 2014
Figure 5.2- 2. 2013 Soundscape Locations – Short Term
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-W atana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 79 June 2014
Figure 6.2- 1. 2013 Analysis Locations and ROS
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 June 2014
PART A - APPENDIX A: AESTHETICS ANALYSIS LOCATION MAP SET
[See separate file for Appendix.]
INITIAL STUDY REPORT AESTHETIC RESOURCES STUDY (12.6)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 June 2014
PART A - APPENDIX B: ANALYSIS LOCATIONS NARRATIVES
[See separate file for Appendix.]