VISUAL RESOURCES
STANDARD OF REVIEW
According to the CBJ Mining Ordinance, (49.65.135(a)), the CBJ shall require that:
The CBJ Land Use Code 49.15.330 (Conditional Use Permit) identifies various conditions which may be established for a given project including the following which address visual aspects:
49.15.330(g)(17) "Lighting. Conditions may be imposed to control the type and extent of illumination."
The CBJ Land Use Code 49.15.510 (Design Review) requires a design review permit for review of development projects outside of the design review and historic districts but requiring an allowable or conditional use permit. The design review process specifically addresses visual aspects of any development project including, but not limited to, landscaping, lighting and building siting, bulk and design. To date, the Kensington Gold Project has not submitted design drawings of the buildings and facilities necessary for the required design review permit, however these would not be typically expected until the final design phase is completed.
Also, the CBJ Land Use Code 49.25.420 establishes criteria for determining the height of a building. The height limitations do not apply to tanks, church spires, belfries, cupolas, monuments, fire and hose towers, chimneys, flagpoles, masts, aerials, antennae, telecommunication and electrical transmission towers and other similar structures or facilities. The Table of Dimensional Standards (Table 49.25.400) sets the maximum height for permissible and accessory uses in a RR - Rural Reserve zone at 45 feet. CBJ Land Use Code 49.20.250, Grounds for Variances, of the CBJ Land Use Ordinance establishes the criteria the Planning Commission is to use in consideration of a variance to the dimensional standards.
The Juneau Coastal Management Program states:
Finally, Policy 2.5 of the CBJ Comprehensive Plan (1996) states:
BACKGROUND
The Kensington Gold Project is located approximately 45 miles northwest of Juneau. Visually, the area appears as three general landscape components: the water; the lower rounded forested foothills on the canal banks and islands; and steep, often ice-clad taller peaks behind the foothills.
NEPA Scoping. During development of the Final EIS (1992) and the Final SEIS (1997) for the proposed project, the U.S. Forest Service, EPA, and Corps of Engineers solicited comments from the public to assist in the identification of issues and concerns related to the Kensington Gold Project. Several significant issues, relating to visual resources, were identified during the scoping process.
The Final EIS (1992) states:
The expressed concerns for the project include effects on air quality from fugitive dust and gaseous emissions.
Also, the visual impacts of the tailings impoundment and other surface facilities for individuals using Lynn Canal and/or Berners Bay must be considered."
The Final SEIS (1997) states:
CBJ Variance. The Final EIS (1992) and the applicant indicate that some of the buildings proposed in the process area would be approximately 70 to 80 feet tall. Buildings of this height would exceed the height limits for the zoning district and require a variance to the dimensional standards. Coeur applied for a variance, which was granted by the CBJ Planning Commission on May 13, 1997. During the review of the variance request, the Planning Commission considered the possibility that one of the tall buildings, the Tailings Filter Plant, could be located near the DTF, as subsequently occurred under the USFS preferred alternative (Final SEIS, 1997). The functional use of the proposed facility that might exceed a height limit was considered in the Planning Commission's review for the variance to the dimensional standards.
Visual Management System (VMS). To assist in the multiple use planning and decision making processes, the U.S. Forest Service developed the Visual Management System (VMS) to establish measurable standards for the visual resources on National Forest lands. The development of these standards recognizes the visual resource as a basic resource, similar to soil and water, and reflects the public's concern about maintaining scenic quality in areas where other resources are being managed, harvested, extracted or otherwise utilized. The VMS provides the framework for evaluating and managing visual resources of National Forest lands.
A set of premises relating to landscape character, viewer expectations, number of viewers, duration of views, resource management and perceptual variables underlie the VMS. Among the premises are the ideas that expected images exist among viewers, the number of viewers is critical, diverse landscaped character is important, and the capacity of each landscape to absorb alteration without losing its visual character is critical.
The VMS procedure begins by assigning a character type to the resource. Character type refers to an area of land considered to have common distinguishing scenic characteristics of land, water, and vegetation. These character types provide the basis for evaluating variety classes. Variety classes are the VMS measure of visual quality, based on the premise that landscapes with the most visual diversity have the highest scenic value. There are three classes: Class A (distinctive), Class B (common) and Class C (minimal). The classification of a particular resource is based upon its relative uniqueness or commonness within the landscapes of the local region.
Sensitivity levels are a measure of viewer's concern for scenic quality in a given area. In the VMS process sensitivity levels reflect an assessment of level of use (from roads, flying over in airplanes, marine routes, trails, campgrounds, etc.), attitudes of users, and visibility or viewshed (the composite area visible from sensitive viewpoints). There are three sensitivity levels: Level 1 (highest sensitivity), Level 2 (average sensitivity), and Level 3 (lowest sensitivity).
Distance zones indicate the visual divisions of a particular landscape based on viewer position. The foreground zone is limited to distances at which details can be perceived. Usually this zone is less than a half mile from the viewpoint. The middleground zone extends from the foreground to approximately three to five miles from the viewpoint. The background zone extends from the middle ground to as far as the eye can see.
The information generated by variety classes, sensitivity levels, and distance zones assists in establishing visual resource management goals and Visual Quality Objectives (VQO). There are five VQO categories, each of which describes a different degree of acceptable alteration of the natural landscape based on the importance of aesthetics. The degree of alteration is measured in terms of visual contrast with the surrounding natural landscape. To meet a VQO, an area must satisfy the visual criteria one year after management activities cease. The VQO categories are:
o Retention - alterations not evident to the casual viewer.
o Partial Retention - alterations remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. New form, line, color, or texture may be introduced as long as they remain visually subordinate.
o Modification - management activities may visually dominate the characteristic landscape, but must reflect naturally established form, line, color and texture to be compatible with natural surroundings.
o Maximum Modification - management activities may visually dominate, but must appear as natural occurrences at background distances (five miles and more). In the middleground and foreground, alterations may be out of scale and less compatible with natural landscape elements.
The U.S. Forest Service has inventoried and classified the visual resources throughout the Tongass National Forest in accordance with the VMS. The U.S. Forest Service categorizes the Kensington project area as Coast Range Type which defines a landscape character emphasizing the unity of the canal viewshed and the visual dominance of the water and tall mountain peaks. The Final EIS (1992) portrays a VMS inventory with a mosaic of VQOs ratings ranging from Retention to Maximum Modification in the vicinity of the proposed Kensington mine within a general area under Land Use Designation II (LUD-II) by the US Forest Service to be managed in a roadless state to retain its wildland character. The dominant VQO was Partial Retention.
More recently, the Final SEIS (1997) incorporates the 1997 revised Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS, 1997c) which changes the management in the vicinity of the proposed Kensington mine to a Minerals designation during mine operations and Modified Landscape designation after mine closure. The VQOs are now Modification (foreground) and Maximum Modification (middle- and backgrounds) during operations, followed by reclamation to Partial Retention (foreground) and Modification further inland. The new designations reflect the approved Plan of Operations (1992) and acknowledge the modifying effect an active mine development will have on visual resources, while managing for a return to less noticeable visual effects in the long term following mine closure and reclamation.
Visual Resource Baseline Assessment. The report, Visual Resources Baseline Assessment: Kensington Venture (1989), prepared by Dames & Moore for the Kensington Venture, provides a baseline assessment of the visual resources of the Kensington Mine site. It is based upon on-site reconnaissance and documentation, Forest Service VMS inventory mapping, and published sources pertaining to the resources of the region. The visual resources of the site and vicinity were inventoried and classified. Fieldwork included helicopter overflights and photographic documentation from viewpoints characteristic of ferries, tour boats, and planes. The following discussion paraphrases the text of the written report.
The area of the Kensington Gold Project is comprised of three broad landscape components: the water itself; lower, rounded, forested foothills on the canal banks and islands; and the very steep, ice-clad, often sparsely vegetated or unvegetated taller peaks behind the foothills to the east and west. The overall context of the visual resource is one of subtle variation in pattern and color in the foothill forest cover when viewed from water level, and of often marked patchiness and variation when viewed from the air. Forest cover along Lynn Canal in the broad project area appears fairly intact, particularly from water level; that is, human alterations to the landscape are not highly evident -- a fact contributing to its recognized scenic value.
In describing the site's regional setting, Dames and Moore states: "...generally the Lynn Canal is a sensitive landscape, heavily traveled by ferries, tour boats and planes carrying recreational visitors for whom the dramatic and undisturbed natural scenery is a principal attraction."
The Kensington Gold Project site is located along a curving stretch of coastline just north of Point Sherman, which provides some visual enclosure. The site is part of a viewshed separated visually from scenic Berners Bay to the south by intervening hills. The proposed project structures would be located between two rounded foothills typical of the foothills landscape and at the foot of the very steep slopes of Lion's Head Mountain. Land cover in and around the proposed project is mainly spruce-hemlock forest extending down to the water's edge. Avalanche chutes and a broad v-pattern of light-colored tundra vegetation descend to adjoin this area from the steep slope above, creating strong visual contrast in form and color with the site and its immediate foothill surroundings. Along the water's edge, a narrow margin of light-colored beach is evident from the air, contrasting in color and establishing a strong line emphasizing the land-water edge.
The landscape of the project site is typical of much of its character type which is Coast Range as defined by the U.S. Forest Service. The Dames and Moore report describes the site characteristics as: "In particular the proposed dam, plant and encampment are located in a foothill setting which tends to attract less attention than some of the more bold and dramatic visual components of the landscape. Lion's Head Peak is dramatic in form but does not dominate the overall panorama of the mountain range. Within the context of this rather spectacular character type, with major glaciers, unusual peaks, bays, and strong land-water form, the site landscape may perhaps be regarded as relatively 'common'."
Viewpoints to the site are generally from air and water travel routes following Lynn Canal. From these typical viewpoints, the cleared area of the existing mine facility is currently slightly visible from the canal at sea level, and quite evident from the air, contrasting with the surrounding forest in color and form. In views from water level, the existing mine facility clearing is partly screened by foreground forest cover. The existing roadway is not visible from sea level or typical aerial viewpoints due to tree screening.
Visual Resource Technical Report. In 1991 the landscape architecture firm of Beck and Baird/Boise assessed the visual resource impacts expected from the development of the Kensington Gold Project. The assessment was based on the Dames and Moore baseline assessment, the U.S. Forest Service's visual resource mapping, field work and documentation, and computer simulation of proposed development activities. The report also contains a discussion of the visual impacts anticipated with the mining development and some general concepts of mitigative measures. The following discussion is paraphrased from the text of the written report of the 1991 Beck and Baird/Boise assessment.
Critical viewpoints were marked along typical air and water travel routes in Lynn Canal. Primary consideration was given to the ship route viewpoint as the greatest number of viewers see the project site for a longer duration from the water. Each summer more than 200,000 persons on cruise ships and ferries pass the project site. Alaska Marine Highway ferries are in view of the project area for approximately ten minutes. Commuter airlines follow generally the same route as the ships. The greatest number of viewers coincides with the summer season of clearest weather and greatest visibility. The analysis for the assessment of the visual resources was made assuming no impaired visibility due to weather conditions.
The cleared area of the existing mine operations is visible from the water, as is the colored roof of a shop near the beach. Both are visible primarily due to contrast in color. Vegetation screens other buildings near the beach. The road from the beach camp to the mine is not visible from the water. From the air, all operations are visible.
In assessing the visual characteristics of the various development components (marine terminal, access road, process area, man camp, tailings dam), it was determined -- at the time -- that the tailings disposal impoundment dam would create the greatest visual impacts over the longest period of time. This component has been deleted in the current proposal and replaced with the Dry Tailings Facility (DTF). The visual impacts of these two components were simulated by computer and described in the report.
ANALYSIS
Detailed analysis of the anticipated visual impacts resulting from the proposed development of the Kensington Gold Project is contained in the report, Visual Resources of the Proposed Kensington Gold Project Area (1991). The following discussion draws on that report, more recent computer simulations in Kensington Mine Visual Simulation (SWCA, Inc., 1996), and the Final SEIS (1997), and addresses each component of the proposed development. The discussion assesses the visual impacts as they relate to current Visual Quality Objectives (VQO) established for the area and also notes major changes to the structural components of the mine project, as currently proposed. The potential for mitigation is identified as a part of this discussion.
Existing Conditions. At the time of field work in October 1990, there were several small scale visual impacts from then-current exploration activities. The only visual observations reminiscent of the historical mining activities are subtle differences in vegetation marking a tram line and clearings. Existing visual impacts are from the mine portal, clearing below the lower portal, and a small waste rock pile. The road from the beach to the mine is visible in short segments. Portions of two buildings near the beach can be seen. Generally, little has changed since 1990 as exploration and other work virtually ceased since that period.
Marine Terminal Complex. The marine terminal complex consists of the barge landing area, fuel storage/laydown, heliport, helicopter hangar, temporary construction camp, ore container storage, and access road. The primary visual impacts associated with these elements include clearing vegetation and introduction of structures. Most of the structures in this area are anticipated to be low profile and would not introduce form or line impacts. The structures at water's edge, including a possible fuel unloading trestle and barge landing, are not massive. The visual impact would result from breaking the unity of the shoreline by the structures. Color and texture contrasts from buildings and ore concentrate containers are possible.
The VQO for the beach area and extending inland several hundred yards is Modification (visually dominant alterations but compatible with natural surroundings) during mine operations and Partial Retention (alterations visually subordinate to natural landscape) following mine closure. l hundred yards, is Retention (alterations not evident to the casual viewer). The VQO for the marine terminal area probably can be met during operation, and should be attainable after closure when structures are removed and reclamation is completed. Due to the size and mass of some elements of the marine terminal the visual impacts will be difficult if not impossible to eliminate. However some mitigation can be realized by using building materials and paints that are non-reflective and colors compatible with the existing landscape. The ore containers could also be painted a color that is non-reflective. In addition, some screening landscaping could be incorporated to further mitigate the visual impact of the near beach elements. The LPG tank, no longer included in the project proposal, would have been the most prominent of the marine terminal elements.
Site lighting of the marine terminal may have a major impact on the visual resource at night. Typically the viewer load will be low during night time. Mitigative measures for the lighting of the marine terminal area would include the orientation of all lighting toward the site rather than to the canal side. In addition, the illumination engineering criteria should follow a design goal to provide the minimal lighting necessary for worker safety purposes while keeping the visual impact low.
Site Access Roads. The anticipated impacts of the road construction are from clearing vegetation and introducing a visible line resulting from contrast in color and texture between the cleared area and the adjacent, uniform appearing vegetation. In some places cuts and fills may be visible, creating a contrast in color between newly exposed soil and surrounding ground cover.
Most of the access road traverses an area designated as VMS Variety Class B (Common), with Highest Sensitivity Level 1 and with a VQO of Maximum Modification during mine operations in the middle- and back ground (alterations visually dominate and less compatible with natural surroundings) and a VQO of Modification after mine closure (alterations visually dominate but compatible with natural surroundings). Under the current mine proposal, a longer road segment would be visible because it would no longer be screened by a tailings dam. It is anticipated that the contrasts introduced by the road, which includes the tailings pipeline corridor, will be visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape and therefore would meet the VQO. Upon closure and reclamation of the road and pipeline corridor, a higher level of VQO could be met.
Mitigation measures for the road and pipelines might include the revegetation of cut and fill slopes and the construction of the bridges with wood in lieu of concrete or steel. There is no indication that the road will be lighted.
Mill Process Area. The process area (mill, warehouse, maintenance shop, administrative offices, change facility, and power plant) will require the largest amount of clearing and cut and fill of any of the development components, with the exception of the DTF. The proposed Process Plant building will be up to 80 feet tall and about 160 feet long. The tall buildings would be positioned along an excavated bench with some separation by intervening shorter facilities.
The 1991 Beck & Baird report states that the process area would be screened from the critical viewpoints once the tailings dam was built, but the process area would be visible until then. With the dam no longer included in the proposed project, the process area facilities would now be visible, as noted in the Final SEIS (1997), and would be an impact to the visual resources. The anticipated impacts include the color contrasts from the large cut and fill areas to construct the bench on which the processing facilities will be built and the structures themselves. The horizontal line of the bench and building roof lines will contrast with the angular lines of the natural landscape.
The process area occurs in an area of Variety Class B (Common) with Highest Sensitivity Level 1, and a VQO of Maximum Modification (alterations visually dominate and less compatible with natural surroundings) during mine operations and a VQO of Modification (alterations visually dominate but compatible with natural surroundings) after mine closure. Notwithstanding the scale and mass of the buildings and structures of the process area, it is likely that the VQO can be met in the short term, and the VQO under a Modified Landscape designation can be met after closure when the buildings and structures have been removed and reclamation has occurred.
Mitigative measures should include using non-reflective materials and natural appearing colors. Revegetation of the cut and fill slopes will reduce the color contrast from the exposed soil.
Site lighting of the process area may have a major impact on the visual resource at night, although typically the viewer load will be low during night time. The process area buildings or structures will not require aircraft warning lights. Mitigative measures for the lighting of the process area would include the orientation of all lighting toward the site rather than the canal side. In addition, the illumination standards should follow a design goal to provide the minimal lighting necessary for worker safety purposes while keeping the visual impact low.
Employee Camp. The employee camp facility is currently proposed to be located adjacent to the mill process area. The scale of the camp facility is small compared with some other components of the mill process area. Although the camp is considered to be primarily not visible from the critical viewpoints, its minimal impact to visual resources would benefit from the sensitive selection of materials and colors for the buildings proposed. In addition, some landscaping could enhance the facility and make it more appealing for the workers. The illumination standards should follow a design goal to provide the minimal lighting necessary for safety purposes while keeping the visual impact low.
Dry Tailings Facility (DTF). The DTF will be developed in three cells over the life of the mining operation with an engineered berm or compacted "skin" constructed concurrently around the sides. As one cell is constructed, the DTF slopes would be graded and seeded concurrently to somewhat mitigate the visual impacts. As each cell is completed, the top of the DTF will be reclaimed. The Tailings Filter Plant, to dewater tailings delivered via a slurry pipeline, will be located adjacent to the DTF, according to the preferred alternative in the Final SEIS. After mine closure, the structure would be removed.
The VQO in the DTF area is Maximum Modification (alterations visually dominate and less compatible with natural surroundings) during mine operations and Modification (alterations visually dominate but compatible with natural surroundings) after mine closure. These VQOs should be met at the DTF and associated facilities. The Kensington Mine Visual Simulation,(1996) prepared for Coeur by SWCA, Inc indicates that 10 years after mine closure the vegetative cover on the DTF would be different from the original cover and give a slightly different color and texture. The Final SEIS (1997, page 4-73) calls for "...plantings which replicate as closely as possible Southeast Alaska vegetation patterns (e.g, Sitka spruce and hemlock with an understory of blueberry and deer cabbage)." Over time, the revegetated areas would blend in with the surrounding landscape in terms of color, and the DTF would tend to recede visually into the landscaped background. The form of the DTF would remain discernible, but the somewhat crowned shape would help to blend it into the surrounding rounded foothills landscape (Ouderkirk, 1997). Also, if indigenous plant material were to establish themselves on the top of the DTF it would help to mitigate the straight horizontal lines. While it has been suggested that the top of the DTF be regraded to offer less of a straight horizontal line, there is a concern that an uneven surface could lead to ponding of water, with the potential for infiltration.
Borrow Pits. There would be four borrow pits (totaling 43 acres) created as a result of the construction of the project. Two pits are located adjacent to the mine process site and two facing Lynn Canal., in areas with a VQO of Maximum Modification during mine operations and a VQO of Modification after mine closure. The borrow pits do not appear in the 1996 visual simulations prepared for the project, however the visual impact would be one of contrasting colorations between the rock wall of the pits and the surrounding green coloration of the natural landscape. Benches created in the development of the pits would lend themselves to revegetation and mitigate the visual aspect, but steep walls would not support vegetation. The issue has been discussed within the context of mine reclamation with an emphasis on maximizing long-term stability as well as revegetation capabilities to reduce the overall visual impact of the borrow pits.
STAFF FINDINGS
(CBJ 49.15.330 (e)(1)(B))
Yes. Sufficient information is available for staff review and recommendation.
2. Will the visual aspects of the proposed mine endanger the public health or safety?
(CBJ 49.15.330 (f)(1))
There is no evidence that the visual alterations in the general vicinity of the mine would endanger public health or safety.
3. What will be the effect of visual impacts from the proposed mine on the value of property in the neighboring area? Will visual impacts of the project site be in harmony with the neighboring area? (CBJ 49.15.330(f)(2))
No evidence suggests that visual impacts of the project will decrease the value of property in the neighboring area. During the life of the mine there will be visual impacts with approximately 270 acres of forested lands disturbed, and views of the industrial operation will be out of harmony with the largely pristine, undeveloped neighboring area. However, mitigation measures, such as the use of naturally-appearing building paints and finishes, revegetation of cut and fill slopes and embankments after construction, and lighting design and orientation required in the permit condition below will minimize unsightly visual impacts during mine operations. Following mine closure and reclamation which includes removal of buildings and revegetation, the pre-mining visual character of the area would largely be restored or, at a minimum, reclaimed components will be visually compatible -- or in harmony -- with the surrounding natural landscape, in keeping with the Visual Quality Objectives of the Modified Landscape Land Use Designation in the Tongass Land and Resources Management Plan.
4. Will the proposed mine be in general conformity with the comprehensive plan, thoroughfare plan, and other officially adopted plans as they may apply to visual resources? (CBJ 49.15.330(f)(3))
Yes. The project, as proposed and with the conditions recommended below, conforms with the Juneau Coastal Management Program standard, which addresses scenic qualities of the shoreline, compatibility with surroundings, and blockage of scenic vistas. See the mitigating measures identified above in Finding No.3.
5. Will the mining operation be conducted in such as way so as to mitigate adverse impacts on the public and neighboring properties from unsightly visual aspects?
CBJ 49.65./135(a)(4))
Yes. The proposed project, with the conditions listed below and in the staff report on Reclamation, will minimize adverse visual impacts of the project. Mitigation includes landscaping, screening, lighting, naturally-appearing paints and finishes on structures, and revegetation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the following conditions be included in the large mine permit:
b. Revegetate around buildings and other facilities immediately after construction.
c. Use natural-appearing paints and finishes for construction of buildings, tanks, ore containers, and other structures so that the mine facilities blend in with the surrounding natural landscape.
d. Design and place exterior lighting such that light and glare are minimized from offshore viewpoints, while assuring that worker safety is not compromised.
e. Revegetate cut and fill slopes for the access road and the tailings slurry pipeline after construction.
f. Revegetate embankment slopes and other disturbed areas after construction.
g. Locate overhead lines so that they are not readily noticeable from offshore viewpoints.
Return
to Kensington Mine Review Page
Return to the
Capital City Home Page
Our URL is http://www.juneau.lib.ak.us/cdd/Kensingt.htm