3.8 Aesthetic and Visual Impacts The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Technical Advisory T6640.8A (TA) dictates that whenever a potential for visual impacts exists from a proposed transportation project, the environmental study should identify the potential visual impacts to the adjacent land uses as well as measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate these potential visual impacts. The visual assessment process consists of four study components. These include: • Determining the existing Landscape Viewshed What Are Context • Analyzing the Landscape Character and Experience Sensitive Solutions (CSS)? • Predicting Baseline Impacts • Identifying Mitigation Options FHWA defines CSS as “a collaborative, The visual assessment process provides an analysis of the interdisciplinary approach that involves all landscape character for the Study Area. It is also used to stakeholders to develop a determine the type and degree of visual impact for various transportation facility that viewers, such as the interstate/plaza user, the recreational fits its physical setting and tourist and the local resident. preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic and environmental resources, The exact appearance of each Build Alternative is still while maintaining safety conceptual. The development of Context Sensitive Solutions and mobility. CSS is an (CSS) has been an ongoing part of the study process to date. approach that considers The Study Team has held ongoing public consultation and has the total context within examined conceptual ideas for buffer zones and wall types. which a transportation improvement project will The Study Team plans to hold a series of CSS workshops exist." during the final EIS process. 3.8.1 What does the Existing Study Area Look Like? The Study Area and surroundings are best described (from east to west) as an urban area that begins transitioning to a more suburban less populated area as the viewer proceeds west through the study corridor. Residential and commercial properties are the most dominate land uses in the Study Area. Single‐family homes make up the majority of the residential land uses, while business properties are prevalent along Pine Grove Avenue and near the Water Street Interchange. Public land uses include parks, a public campground, and a Michigan Welcome Center, all located west of the Black River Bridge. Blue Water Bridge Plaza Study Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.8-1 3.8 Aesthetic and Visual Impacts The Study Area is mostly flat with the exception of the Black River and Stocks Creek crossings which are low lying areas. The area around the Black River gently slopes toward the river creating a visual experience that differs from the rest of the corridor. The western edge of the Study Area past the Water Street Interchange, which includes Stocks Creek, exists in more of a natural state than the remainder of the corridor. There are small woodland areas along with open areas of old fields and meadows. As one approaches Port Huron from the west, the trees and natural features are replaced with signs, billboards, power lines, streetlights, and commercial businesses. There are a few key land uses within the Study Area that contribute to the visual identity of the area. The most Area Around Existing Plaza significant of these are the Black River, adjacent marinas and parks. A public campground, owned and operated by Port Huron Township, is located on the north side of the freeway west of the Water Street Interchange. Residences are an important land use near the existing plaza. Their view includes an elevated plaza approximately 24‐feet high with associated buildings and traffic. In the area dedicated to the new plaza in Port Huron Township, there are single‐family residences located to the north and south of the existing freeway, a mobile‐home park located further southwest, a large church located north of the freeway west of Stocks Creek, and a school located south of the freeway west of the Lapeer Connector. Residences in the Township area currently do not have a view of the existing plaza, but do have a view of the I‐94/I‐69 freeway and the associated traffic. The visual quality of an area may depend on the preferences and subjective values of the viewer. FHWA produced a manual titled Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects to assist in evaluating the visual qualities of a Study Area. In order to complete the analysis, the Study Area was divided into four areas that display consistent visual characteristics and a uniform visual experience which are called “Visual Assessment Units” (VAU). Each VAU may be thought of as outdoor room that has a direct relationship to the natural layout of the area and associated land uses. The boundaries of these visual environments occur where there is a change in visual character. The strongest determinations of the visual 3.8-2 Blue Water Bridge Plaza Study Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.8 Aesthetic and Visual Impacts boundaries are topography and landscape components. The four VAUs (Figure 3.8.1) within the Blue Water Bridge Plaza corridor have the following characteristics and include: • VAU‐1, Port Huron Township – This VAU consists of generally old field/meadow with some woods and low lying areas. Several billboards along with powerlines and a MDOT maintenance building make up the landscape. There is a cluster of single‐family residences visible in the distance to the north and a mobile home park located just Highway median in VAU-1 off of I‐94/I‐69 to the southwest. • VAU‐2, Water Street/Lapeer Connector Area – The area in and around this VAU consists of gently rolling terrain that is dominated by constructed elements. As the viewer travels from west to east, through this VAU, the area transitions from a rural to urban landscape. Views from I‐94/I‐69 are of billboards and signs promoting local businesses. • VAU‐3, Black River Area – The sloping terrain of the I-94/I-69 in VAU-2 Black River constitutes VAU‐3. The dominant feature in this VAU is the I‐94/I‐69 crossing of the Black River. The crossing is surrounded by marinas, public parks, several residences, a condominium building, and commercial establishments that overlook the river valley. • VAU‐4, Existing Plaza Area – The visual center of this VAU is the existing Blue Water Bridge Plaza. The elevated plaza dominates the views in this VAU. The plaza itself eliminates most of the views from the street level View of the Black River Bridge in VAU-3 surrounding the plaza. However, there are excellent views of the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses from the plaza. The visual quality rating of the visual environment in each VAU can be collectively defined using the attributes of vividness, intactness and unity—each of which is evaluated independently. The visual landscape is also divided into three parts for the evaluation: • Foreground zone – 0.25 to 0.5 miles from the viewer, View from Plaza in VAU-4 • Middle ground zone – extends from the foreground zone to three to five miles from the viewer, Blue Water Bridge Plaza Study Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3.8-3 3.8 Aesthetic and Visual Impacts 1/2 402 g For Con da er t na 1/4 v Feet 0.25 Omar Ont Ca 1,050 ario, i Miles ir R Michigan Blue la Water C Huron Beers Wright Bridge t. S Merchant Superior rmour Grand River y Forest Quay Riverview n o 02,100 Lincoln s rph i d M E ic s higan ma o h Water Gratiot T Ontario McMorran 00.5 rry Saint Clair Che Erie Glenwood te Homer Maple Saint Clair Sta Willow Andrew Mu nut Church Willow Wal 1 Bard 2 3 nton Pointe 4 Stone Sta Robinso e Pointe s Mansfield Elk e Grov lin Myrtle Pin Poplar Dockside Harker le Raw Hancock 1 Whipp Thomas Sedgwick Washington River 11th City of 11th 4 Howard Port Huron Robinson Cooper 12th 12th ls n Wel Ward Miller Varney McPherson Young Short a 13th Lyo Gillett Whipple ks 14th 13th Thomas McBrady Sherman 14th ls Jen Scott r e Riverside v 15th i Wel R Francis Gordon Nelson Carleton Visual Assessment Unit k c a 15th l 16th B 17th n Riverview 17th no 16th 3 Huron ort 18th 18th 17th Wilbur 17th Elmwood Church 19th in City of P of City Alden Rural h 20t Runnels 18t e Jenks Gillett Mart ld Township Huron Port Villag 20th 21st Scenic Kern Garfie o 22nd l l e c e i n t o Brandywine M d Surface Water ersid Riv ley 22nd Far Farran Riverwood Taylor Katherine pau Elmwood Cam Henry Canal Yeager Botsford Woodstock 2 Locust John L Interstate kin Local Roads Rel Water Spruce Marchen Strawberry Lorry Laurel Connector Lapeer ry Darwin ber pau Henry Totem Yeager Pinewood Cam Indian Huckle Sharon Chippewa ry Oakwood n nber k ringto e e Tur Maywood r Robbins Brownwood C Har St Andrews St s Study Area Jurisdiction Boundary k c Aberdeen o t S is h Lew 36t rgreen Legend Eve West Water 94 Township Port Huron 1 Lindsay Eastland 69 Westland ck River Mayfield la Riverwood Lapeer Westcott Herber Westhaven Amy ine Michigan Blue Water Bridge Plaza Study r a Randolph Visual Assessment Units Michel 3.8-4 Blue Water Bridge Plaza Study Draft Environmental ImpactFigure Statement 3.8.1 3.8 Aesthetic and Visual Impacts • Background zone – extends from the middle ground zone to as far as anyone can see. Each VAU’s visual quality is based on a rating from 1−7. On this scale, 1 = very low, 4 = average/moderate, and 7 = very high. Tables 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 display the ratings assigned to the existing visual quality for each VAU for both viewers of and viewers from the highway.