BP SDEIS App G Visual Resource Assessment-Saratoga Cape Vincent

8/7/2019 BP SDEIS App G Visual Resource Assessment-Saratoga Cape Vincent

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bp-sdeis-app-g-visual-resource-assessment-saratoga-cape-vincent 1/116

Environmental Resources Management Southwest, Inc.206 East 9th Street, Suite 1700

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 459-4700

Visual Resource Assessment – Saratoga AssociatesAppendix G

February 2011

Project No. 0092352



Landscape Architects, Architects, ©Copyright All Rights Reserved Saratoga Associates

Engineers and Planners, P.C. #07-083.50

CAPE VINCENT WIND ENERGY PROJECT

SUPPLEMENTAL VISUAL

RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

Prepared for:

ERM

Capitol Tower

206 E. 9th Street, #1700

Austin, Texas 78701

January 17, 2010



Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

#07-083.50M Page 1

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project – Supplemental Visual Resource Assessment

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 5

1.2 Project Description....................................................................................................... 6 1.2.1 Aviation Obstruction Marking and Lighting ......................................................................... 7

2.0 Landscape Character/Visual Setting ............................................................................... 9

2.1 Topography.................................................................................................................. 9

2.2 Vegetation.................................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Water Features ...........................................................................................................10

2.4 Transportation.............................................................................................................10

2.5 Population Centers......................................................................................................11

2.6 Existing Wolf Island Wind Farm...................................................................................12

3.0 Visual Impact Assessment..............................................................................................13

3.1 Viewshed Mapping (Zone of Visual Influence).............................................................13

3.1.1 Viewshed Methodology ..................................................................................................... 13

3.1.2 Nighttime Visibility ............................................................................................................. 15

3.1.3 Verification of Viewshed Accuracy.................................................................................... 15

3.1.4 Viewshed Interpretation ....................................................................................................15

3.2 Inventory of Visually Sensitive Resources...................................................................22

3.2.1 Inventory Criteria............................................................................................................... 22

3.2.2 Summary Characteristics of Inventoried Resources......................................................... 24

3.2.3 Visibility Evaluation of Inventoried Resources .................................................................. 27

3.3 Factors Affecting Visual Impact ...................................................................................33

3.3.1

Landscape Units ............................................................................................................... 33 3.3.2 Viewer/User Groups.......................................................................................................... 36

3.3.3 Distance Zones ................................................................................................................. 37

3.3.4 Duration/Frequency/Circumstances of View..................................................................... 38

3.3.5 Summary of Affected Resources ...................................................................................... 38

3.4 Degree of Project Visibility ..........................................................................................43

3.4.1 Field Observation and Photography ................................................................................. 43

3.4.2 Photographic Simulations ................................................................................................. 43

3.4.3 Cumulative Photo Simulations .......................................................................................... 45

3.5 Character of Project Visibility.......................................................................................46

3.5.1 Compatibility with Regional Landscape Patterns.............................................................. 46

3.5.2 Visual Character during the Construction Period.............................................................. 47 3.6 Shadow Flicker Analysis .............................................................................................47

3.6.1 Shadow-Flicker Methodology............................................................................................ 51

3.6.2 Shadow-Flicker Impact on Existing Structures ................................................................. 53

3.6.3 Shadow-Flicker Analysis ................................................................................................... 60

4.0 Mitigation Program ..........................................................................................................62

5.0 Summary and Discussion of Potential Visual Impact....................................................65




#07-083.50M Page 2

Appendix A SVRA Photographic Simulations

Appendix B DEIS VRA Photographic Simulations

Appendix C Topographic and Vegetated Shadow-Flicker Analysis






#07-083.50M Page 4

List of Tables

Table 1 Viewshed Coverage Summary ......................................................................................... 16

Table 2 FAA Viewshed Coverage Summary...................................................................................16

Table 3 Demographic Summary of Study Area Municipalities (2000 Census) .......................................24 Table 4 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes for Study Area Highways (NYSDOT 2004) ....................24

Table 5 Visual Resource Visibility Summary ..................................................................................29

Table 6 Visual Resource Impact Summary....................................................................................39

Table 7 Key Receptors Selected for Photo Simulation ...................................................................43

Table 8 Shadow-Flicker Summary ................................................................................................ 54

Table 9 Shadow-Flicker Summary of Structures Exceeding 30 Hrs/yr.............................................60




#07-083.50M Page 5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

BP Wind Energy, N.A., Inc. (BP Wind Energy) is proposing to develop a wind-powered electrical-

generating facility consisting of 84 turbines with a maximum capacity of 134.4 megawatts (MW). The

proposed Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project (hereafter referred to as the “Project”) will be located in

the Town of Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, New York. All turbines, temporary construction

laydown area, access roads, interconnect lines, operations and maintenance building, and an electrical

substation are proposed to be located in the Town of Cape Vincent.

Since the submission of the Cape Vincent Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS), BP Wind Energy revised the Project layout and turbine type. Based on these changes, it was

determined that a Supplemental Visual Resource Assessment (SVRA) would be needed. To address

issues of potential visual impact, BP Wind Energy has retained Saratoga Associates, Landscape

Architects, Architects, Engineers, and Planners, P.C. (Saratoga Associates) to conduct a thorough and

detailed VRA of the proposed Project. This SVRA presents, with updates, the information containedin the Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project Visual Resource Assessment (Saratoga Associates,

December 3, 2007), which was contained as an appendix in the DEIS.

The purpose of this SVRA is to identify potential visual and aesthetic impacts and to provide an

objective assessment of the visual character of the Project, using standard accepted methodologies of

visual assessment, from which agency decision-makers can render a supportable determination of

visual significance.

1.1 METHODOLOGY

Consistent with Visual Resource Assessment (VRA) practice, this report evaluates the potentialvisibility of the proposed Project and objectively determines the difference between the visual

characteristics of the landscape setting with and without the Project in place. The process follows

basic New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Program Policy “Assessing and

Mitigating Visual Impacts” (NYSDEC 2000) (DEC Visual Policy) and State Environmental Quality

Review (SEQRA) criteria to minimize impacts on visual resources. This process provides a practical

guide so decision makers and the public can understand the potential visual impacts and make an

informed judgment about their significance (aesthetic impact).

There are no specific Federal rules, regulations, or policies governing the evaluation of visual

resources. However, the methodology employed herein is based on standards and procedures used bythe U.S. Department of Agriculture (National Forest Service, 1974, 1995), U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDOI, 1980), U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal

Highway Administration (USDOT, 1981), NYS Department of Transportation (NYSDOT, 1988), and

the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC, July 31, 2000).

This evaluation includes both quantitative (how much is seen and from what locations; or visual

impact) and qualitative (how it will be perceived; aesthetic impact) aspects of visual assessment.




#07-083.50M Page 6

The visual impact assessment includes the following steps:

>>>> Define the existing landscape character/visual setting to establish the baseline visual

condition from which visual change is evaluated;

>>>> Conduct a visibility analysis (viewshed mapping and field investigations) to define the

geographic area surrounding the proposed facility from which portions of the Project might

be seen;

>>>> Identify sensitive aesthetic resources to establish priority places from which further analysis

of potential visual impact is conducted;

>>>> Select key receptors from which detailed impact analysis is conducted;

>>>> Depict the appearance of the facility upon completion of construction;

>>>> Evaluate the aesthetic effects of the visual change (qualitative analysis) resulting from Project

construction, completion and operation; and,

>>>> Identify opportunities for effective mitigation.

Consistent with the DEC Visual Policy, the visual study area for this VRA generally extends to a five-

mile radius from the outermost turbines (hereafter referred to as the “five-mile radius study area” or

“study area”). Beyond this distance it is assumed that natural conditions of atmospheric and linear

perspective will significantly mitigate most visual impacts. However, considering the scale of the

proposed Project and recognizing the proposed wind turbines will, at times, be visible at distances

greater than five miles, site-specific consideration is given to resources of high cultural or scenic

importance that are located beyond the typical five-mile radius.

The study area encompasses all of the Town and Village of Cape Vincent as well as portions of theadjacent Towns of Lyme and Clayton.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed Project is located in northwestern Jefferson County within the Town of Cape Vincent.

The Town of Cape Vincent is bordered by the St. Lawrence River to the north and Lake Ontario to the

west. The Town is primarily rural and dominated by agricultural land, scattered rural homes, and

farms. The closest major population center is the City of Watertown, which is approximately 20 miles

southeast of the Project.

It is anticipated that the proposed wind energy-generating turbines will be located within an areameasuring approximately nine (9) miles by four (4) miles in the southern half of the Town of Cape

Vincent. Turbines will be located on private land under lease agreements with individual property

owners. The Project perimeter (hereafter referred to as the “turbine area” or “Project area”) is

generally bounded by Lake Ontario to the west, Deerlick/Favret/Mason Roads to the north, Cemetery

Road to the east, and the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme municipality boundary to the south.




#07-083.50M Page 7

Each turbine will include a tall steel tower; a rotor consisting of three composite blades; and a nacelle,

which houses the generator, gearbox, and power train. A transformer may be located in the rear of

each nacelle, or adjacent to the base of the tower, to raise the voltage of the electricity produced by the

turbine generator to the voltage level of the collection system (34.5 kV). The color of the blades,

nacelle, and tower will be off-white. The towers will be a tapered tubular steel monopole tower.

The turbine proposed for this Project is the General Electric 1.6-100 XLE, with a rated power of 1.6

MW. The turbine towers will be approximately 263 feet tall from ground to rotor hub. The tower will

be approximately 16 feet in diameter at the base and eight feet in diameter at the top. Each of the three

turbine blades will be approximately 164 feet in length (328 foot rotor diameter) with the apex of

blade rotation reaching approximately 427 feet above ground elevation. Each wind turbine will have a

concrete foundation that will be minimally exposed above existing grade. The maximum operating

rotational speed of the blades will be approximately 16.2 revolutions per minute (rpm), or

approximately one (1) revolution every three to four seconds.

In addition to the wind turbines, the Project will involve the construction of gravel access roads,

interconnection cables, meteorological towers (lattice structures with supporting guy wires), a batch

concrete plant, a small operation and maintenance facility, and an electrical substation. It is

anticipated that all of these elements will be located in the Town of Cape Vincent. The majority of the

interconnection cables (between the turbines and the proposed substation) will be buried; it is possible

that a small segment(s) may be routed above ground due to engineering and environmental issues.

The operation and maintenance facility, to be located along NYS Route 12E (east of County Route 56)

will also include an area suitable for an equipment yard and parking lot; the facility will occupy

approximately three acres of land. The proposed electrical substation will be located on the north side

of the Burnt Rock Road and Swamp Road intersection, and will also occupy approximately three acres

of land. A 115 kV overhead transmission line will be constructed on the north side of Burnt Rock

Road and extend approximately .33 miles from the proposed substation to a proposed transmission

line1

located within or adjacent to an existing transmission corridor.

1.2.1 Aviation Obstruction Marking and Lighting

According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), daytime lighting of wind turbines, in

general, is not necessary. Turbines themselves, due to their solid (i.e. nonskeletal) construction, as

well as their moving characteristics, provide sufficient warning to pilots during all daytime conditions

and all documented terrain and sky conditions. The FAA recommends turbines be painted either

bright white, or a slight shade from white, to provide the maximum daytime conspicuity.

The FAA requires lighting of perimeter turbines, as well as interior turbines with a maximum gap

between lit turbines of no more than ½ mile (2,640 feet). Based on these guidelines and the evaluated

84-turbine layout, approximately 45 of the proposed turbines may be illuminated at night for aviation

safety. One aviation obstruction light will be affixed to the rear portion of the nacelle on each turbine

to be illuminated.

1 To be built by others.




#07-083.50M Page 8

Lighting may be L-864 red flashing lights, in the form of incandescent or rapid discharge (strobe).

The FAA recommends red light emitting diode or rapid discharge style L-864 fixtures to minimize

impacts on neighboring communities, as the fixtures’ exposure time is minimal, thus creating less of a

nuisance. All light fixtures within the Project must flash in unison, thus delineating the Project as one

large obstruction to pilots.2 L-864 red flashing aviation obstruction lights are designed to emit light in

an upward direction with maximum visibility for pilots. The L-864 unit is a low intensity light

emitting 2,000 candelas.3

2 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, “Development of Obstruction Lighting Standards for Wind Turbine

Farms” (DOT/FAA/AR-TN05/50, November 2005).3 Candela is the unit of luminous intensity, equal to one lumen per steradian (lm/sr).




#07-083.50M Page 9

2.0 LANDSCAPE CHARACTER/VISUAL SETTING

Landscape character is defined by the basic pattern of landform, vegetation, water features, land use,

and human development. This section offers an overview of the intrinsic visual condition of the study

region and establishes the baseline condition from which to evaluate visual change.

The Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project is located in the Thousand Islands region of New York State

at the convergence of the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. This region is a popular waterfront

vacation destination that extends from the eastern shore of Lake Ontario approximately 50 miles

eastward along both the American and Canadian side of the St. Lawrence River. The Thousand Island

region offers numerous cultural, recreational and entertainment attractions, and is well known for the

scenic beauty of its shoreline and over 1,800 islands. Resorts, restaurants and tourist attractions along

the American side of the River are largely clustered in nearby communities (i.e. Villages of Clayton

and Alexandria Bay), however, recreational and tourism resources are found throughout the Thousand

Islands coastal area, including the waterfront portion of the study area.

With the exception of the two (2) village centers, the study area is decidedly rural and largely

undeveloped. The year round population of the Towns of Cape Vincent, and Lyme are 3,345, and

2,015, respectively. Residential development of varying density is nearly continuous along the

waterfront of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River throughout the study area (refer to Section

3.2.2. for information concerning seasonal population).

Broad tracts of agricultural land include open crop and pasture land, and inactive successional old-

field/scrubland. Patches of mature second growth deciduous woodland typically cover steep slopes,

ravines, stream corridors, poorly drained soils and other areas historically unsuitable for agriculture.

Gentle hills and ridges rising 185 to 200 feet above the St. Lawrence River are the dominant

topographic feature. With the exception of the more developed villages and hamlets, built featurestypically include low-density single-family residential structures and farmsteads.

2.1 TOPOGRAPHY

The study area is within the Eastern Ontario Hills subdivision of the Erie Ontario Lowland. The region

is characterized by low-lying relief with shallow hills comprised of glacial till typical of the eastern

shore of Lake Ontario.4

The landscape generally appears relatively flat or gently sloping with

elevations ranging upward from the St. Lawrence River (approximately 250 ft above sea level [ASL])

to over 450 feet ASL.

Topography within the turbine area ranges from approximately 245 to 345 feet ASL.

2.2 VEGETATION

A large portion of the study area has historically been cleared for agricultural use. Limited areas of

second growth deciduous woodland are found in areas unsuitable for agriculture. Dominant tree

species are representative of the beech-maple climax community found throughout much of the

Eastern Ontario Hills region. These species include oak, beech, maple, ash, elm and hemlock. In

4

Thompson, p.40




#07-083.50M Page 10

addition to these deciduous climax species, isolated plantings of red and white pine are scattered

throughout the study area. Coinciding with the mix of open field and woodlots is a significant area of

secondary growth edge habitat. For the most part, this secondary growth takes the form of hedgerows,

wood borders, and old fields.

2.3 WATER FEATURES Water features are an important and scenic component of the visual landscape. The study area is

bordered by Lake Ontario to the west and the St. Lawrence River to the north. The Thousand Islands

region is well known for the scenic character of its shoreline and many islands of varying size

throughout a 50-mile stretch of the St. Lawrence River between Lake Ontario and Ogdensburg, NY.

Combined with a wide variety of active and passive recreational opportunities, the aesthetic quality of

the waterfront landscape is central to the Thousand Island region’s appeal as a well-known and

popular summer vacation destination.

The 2,342-mile long St. Lawrence Seaway, which is the only commercial shipping route between the

Great Lakes and the Atlantic Ocean, follows the St. Lawrence River through the Thousand Islands.The locks of the Seaway accept vessels 740 feet long, 78 feet wide and up to 166.5 feet in height

above the waterline. The Seaway handles over 4,000 ship transits and 40,000,000 tons of cargo during

a typical navigation season.5 The navigational channel of the Seaway within the study area follows the

American side of the St. Lawrence River south of Wolfe Island, Ontario and north of Carleton Island,

NY.

The shore of Lake Ontario is irregular and is characterized by a series of large bays, peninsulas and

islands. The largest of these bays include Chaumont Bay and Mud Bay. Numerous islands such as

Fox Island, Grenadier Island, Galloo Island, and Stony Island are clearly visible from the coastal area.

Within the study area, the St. Lawrence River is approximately eight miles wide between the south

shore along the New York State coastline and its northern shore in Ontario, Canada. Numerous

islands (e.g. Wolfe Island, Ontario and Carleton Island, NY) intersect views to the north, making the

river appear much narrower.

Kents Creek, Three Mile Creek, Soper Creek, Fox Creek, Little Fox Creek, Shaver Creek and their

tributaries drain much of the agricultural lowlands westerly to Lake Ontario. Scotch Brook and

Wheeler Creek drain the northern portion of the study area northerly to the St. Lawrence River.

Numerous private farm ponds, scattered wetlands, and small streams are also found in the study area.

2.4 TRANSPORTATION

The primary transportation route through the study area is NYS Route 12E, which travels north from

Watertown to Cape Vincent, then northeast along the St. Lawrence River to Clayton.

County Route 4 (Rosiere Road) runs east/west bordering the turbine area to the south. CR 6 (Pleasant

Valley Road), CR 8 (Millens Bay Road), and CR 9 (St. Lawrence Road) provide north-south access

5 http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com




#07-083.50M Page 11

through the turbine area. Numerous local roads traverse the study area. Roads are typically two-lane

with asphalt pavement, however some gravel surfaced seasonal roads exist.

2.5 POPULATION CENTERS

Waterfront Communities – The Village of Cape Vincent, located in the northwest portion of the Town

is situated along the shoreline of the St. Lawrence River. Over the years, this small village has

developed and maintained a modest grid street pattern including residential houses, churches, a small

hospital, and an assortment of commercial establishments (service facilities and offices). Retail and

commercial services are generally located along Broadway (NYS Route 12E), two blocks south of the

waterfront. Moderate density single-family housing may be found throughout the village. Residential

dwellings within the village tend to be older and well maintained with mature vegetation lining the

roadways. Development density drops sharply as one moves a quarter mile in any direction. Within

the village is an intact National Register Historic District, which is located along the waterfront west

of the village center. Several dozen well-maintained residences front West Broadway and Tibbetts

Point Road overlook the St. Lawrence River.

Activities within the village are generally related to light tourism, small business, local shopping, and

residential uses. Passing through the center of the Village is NYS Route 12E (Seaway Trail), a lightly

traveled state highway connecting Watertown (25 miles southeast) to the western Thousand Islands

Region. At the Village of Cape Vincent, NYS Route 12E turns northeastward along the St. Lawrence

River to the Village of Clayton (15 miles northeast).

The Village of Chaumont6 is located along the shoreline of Lake Ontario in the Town of Lyme.

Similarly to the Village of Cape Vincent, this small village maintains an organized street pattern that

includes residential houses, churches, and an assortment of commercial establishments (service

facilities and offices) that are generally clustered along NYS Route 12E (Main Street). Moderatedensity single-family housing is found throughout the village. Residential dwellings within the village

tend to be older and well maintained with mature vegetation lining many roadways. Development

density drops sharply as one moves a quarter mile in any direction. Activities within the Village of

Chaumont are generally related to small business, local shopping, and residential uses.

The small waterfront hamlet of Three Mile Bay is located along NYS Route 12E off of Chaumont Bay

in the Town of Lyme. This hamlet is largely a residential community with few commercial services.

The organization of the hamlet is focused on the waterfront and road frontage along NYS Route 12E.

The hamlet does have an organized street pattern, to a much lesser degree when compared to the

Village of Cape Vincent, with side streets north and south of NYS Route 12E.

Residential land use varies from moderate to high-density seasonal homes in neighborhood clusters to

lower density single-family parcels. Higher density waterfront residential uses are found in the small

hamlet areas such as Sunnybank, Millens Bay, Beadle Point, and Cedar Point. Waterfront residential

uses also include estate homes that are setback from roadways and adjacent properties. However,

small frame cottages, seasonal camps, and mobile homes of varying vintage and quality are the most

6 It should be noted that only a small portion of the Village of Chaumont is within the study area.




#07-083.50M Page 12

common form of seasonal structures within the study area. Boathouses and docks for recreational

vessels are common throughout the coastal area. Shoreline properties are often cleared of vegetation

to provide unencumbered views of the waterway from residences.

Similar seasonal shoreline residential development is found in the western portion of the study area

along embayments of Lake Ontario. The density of residential development tends to be somewhat lessalong the lakefront with road access to the shoreline more limited.

Rural Residential Areas – Outside these waterfront communities, homes and agricultural support

buildings are either clustered at crossroad hamlets (varying in size), such as Rosiere and Saint

Lawrence, or are very sparsely located on individual properties. Residences (a mix of old and new)

and accessory structures (barns, garages, etc.) are often found in roadside locations, however many are

located on isolated lots out of view from local roads. Rural homes range in quality from well

maintained single-family frame construction to older housing stock in need of repair. Mobile homes,

of varying vintage, located on isolated lots and within parks is also a common housing type.

2.6 EXISTING WOLF ISLAND WIND FARM

The Wolf Island Wind Farm, which is owned

by Canadian Renewable Energy Corporation,

generates up to 197.8 MW of electricity. The

wind farm, which is located on Wolf Island

(Township of Frontenac, Ontario, Canada), is

approximately three miles north of the Village

of Cape Vincent. Each of the 86 Siemens

SWT 2.3 MW wind turbines consist of a 262-

foot tall tubular steel tower, and a 305-footdiameter three-bladed rotor connected to a

gearbox and generator. The total turbine

height is approximately 415 feet to the apex of blade rotation. The wind farm began operations in

June 2009.7

7 http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/wind-power/wolfe-island-wind-project-1978-mw-wolfe-island (website last accessed December 2, 2010).




#07-083.50M Page 13

3.0 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

3.1 VIEWSHED MAPPING (ZONE OF VISUAL INFLUENCE)

3.1.1 Viewshed Methodology

The first step in identifying potentially affected visual resources is to determine whether or not the

proposed Project would likely be visible from a given location. Viewshed maps are prepared for this

purpose. Also known as defining the zone of visual influence, viewshed mapping identifies the

geographic area within which there is a relatively high probability that some portion of the proposed

Project would be visible.

The overall accuracy of viewshed mapping is dependent on the number and location of control points

(study points representing proposed turbines) used in the viewshed calculation. To calculate the

maximum range of potential turbine visibility, one control point was established at the turbine high

point (i.e., apex of blade rotation) for each of the 84 turbines being evaluated. The resulting composite

viewshed identifies the geographic area within the five-mile study area where some portion of the

proposed Project (the apex of one or more turbine blades) is theoretically visible.

One viewshed map was prepared defining the area within which there would be no visibility of the

Project because of the screening effect caused by intervening topography (See Figure 1). This treeless

condition analysis is used to identify the maximum potential geographic area within which further

investigation is appropriate. A second map was prepared illustrating the probable screening effect of

existing mature vegetation. This vegetated condition viewshed, although not considered absolutely

definitive, acceptably identifies the geographic area within which one would expect to be substantially

screened by intervening forest vegetation (See Figure 2).

Identified viewshed areas are further quantified to illustrate the number of turbines that may be visiblefrom any given area. This cumulative degree of visibility is summarized on each map using the

following groupings:

>>>> 1-5 turbines visible;






>>>>

51-70 turbines visible; and>>>> 71-84 turbines visible.

By themselves, the viewshed maps do not determine how much of each turbine is visible above

intervening landform or vegetation (e.g., 100%, 50%, 10% etc. of total turbine height), but rather the

geographic area within which there is a relatively high probability (theoretical visibility) that some

portion of one or more turbines would be visible. Their primary purpose is to assist in determining the

potential visibility of the proposed Project from the identified visual resources.




#07-083.50M Page 14

In this evaluation, ArcGIS 9.2 and ArcGIS 3D Analyst software was used to generate viewshed areas

based on publicly available digital topographic and vegetation data sets. Viewshed overlays were

created by first importing a digital elevation model (DEM) of the study area. This DEM, obtained

through the United State Geologic Survey (USGS) from its National Elevation Dataset, is based on the

best available digital elevation data including the 1:24,000-scale USGS topographic maps (10-foot

contour intervals) and is accurate to a 10-meter grid cell resolution. The computer then scanned 360

degrees across this DEM from each control point, distinguishing between grid cells that would be

hidden from view and those that would be visible based solely on topography. Areas of the

surrounding landscape were identified where each control point would be visible; areas in shadow

would not be visible.

Vegetation data was extracted from the National Land Cover Data Set 2001 (NLCD). The NLCD

dataset, produced by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, was developed from a

multi-spectral classification of LANDSAT 7 Thematic Mapper (TM) imagery (2001 is the nominal

year of image acquisition) sampled to a 30-meter grid cell resolution.8

The screening effect of

vegetation was incorporated by including an additional 40 feet (12.2 meters) of height for those DEMgrid cells that are forested (according to NLCD dataset) and then repeating the viewshed calculation

procedure. Forested areas were then removed from the viewshed to account for areas located within a

full forest canopy (where visibility would have been based on an observer two meters above the

canopy height). Based on field observation, most trees in forested portions of the study area appear to

be taller than 40 feet. This height therefore represents a conservative estimate of the efficacy of

vegetative screening.

Due to the sampling cell size (30 meters), it is important to note that the NLCD dataset is based on

interpretation of forest areas that are clearly distinguishable using multi-spectral satellite imagery. As

such, the potential screening value of site-specific vegetative cover including small hedgerows, street

trees, individual trees, and other areas of non-forest tree cover may not be represented in the viewshed

analysis. These pockets of vegetation can add to the screening of the project in certain locations.

Furthermore, the NLCD dataset does not include the screening value of existing structures. This is a

particularly important distinction in populated areas, such as the Village of the Cape Vincent and other

commercial and residential areas, where existing structures are likely to provide significant screening

of distant views. With these conditions, the viewshed map conservatively overestimates potential

Project visibility in areas where the Project may be substantially screened from view.

It is noteworthy that untrained reviewers often misinterpret treeless condition viewshed maps to

represent wintertime, or leafless condition visibility (Figure 1). In fact, deciduous woodlands provide

a substantial visual barrier in all seasons. Since the NLCD dataset generally identifies only larger

stands of woodland vegetation that is clearly distinguishable from multi-spectral satellite imagery,

viewshed maps that include the screening value of existing vegetation are equally representative of

both leaf-on and leaf-off seasons (Figure 2). Treeless condition analysis is provided only to assist

experienced visual analysts identify the maximum potential geographic area within which further

8 Thirty-meter resolution is the smallest vegetative grid cell increment commonly available for the proposed Project region. This resolution

provides an appropriate degree of accuracy for development of 20-mile viewshed maps given the fairly broad patterns of existing land use in

the area, as well as the accuracy of mapped topographic data (i.e., 1:24,000-scale USGS topographic maps with 10-foot contour intervals)




#07-083.50M Page 15

investigation is appropriate. Such topography-only viewshed maps are not generally intended or

appropriate for public interpretation or presentation.

Finally, the viewshed maps indicate locations in the surrounding landscape in which one or more

turbine highpoints (i.e. apex of blade rotation) might be visible. These maps do not imply the

magnitude of visibility (i.e., how much of each turbine is visible), the viewer’s distance from eachvisible turbine or the aesthetic character of what may be seen. Such interpretation is the subject of the

next phase of analysis (section 3.4 below).

3.1.2 Nighttime Visibility

A viewshed map (Figure 3) was created to assist in evaluating potential nighttime visibility. The

vegetated viewshed map was created using the same methodology as described above, however, the

map was created using the approximate height (269 feet) of the required strobe lights as the control

points for the 45 turbines that the FAA will require to be lighted.

3.1.3 Verification of Viewshed AccuracyBecause the viewshed map identifies the geographic area within which one or more of the proposed

turbines could theoretically be visible, but does not specify which of the 84 turbines evaluated would

be within view, it is not readily feasible to field confirm viewshed accuracy. While it is common

practice to field confirm viewshed maps prepared for a single study point through the use of balloon

study or more intuitive means, the inability to field confirm viewshed accuracy is unique to analysis of

multiple point projects covering a large geographic area, such as wind energy projects.

To help determine the accuracy of the vegetation data used for viewshed development, the NLCD data

set was overlaid on a 1m color Digital Orthophoto Quadrangle (DOQ) infrared aerial image (2003) of

the study area and reviewed for consistency. While minor inconsistencies were noted, including areasof recently cleared lands, areas of inactive/abandoned agricultural land showing a degree of pioneer

species growth and areas of non-forest vegetative cover, the vast majority of woodland areas visible on

the satellite image were highly consistent with the NLCD overlay.

3.1.4 Viewshed Interpretation

Table 1 indicates the degree of theoretical visibility illustrated on the viewshed maps within the five-

mile radius study area.




#07-083.50M Page 16

Table 1 Viewshed Coverage Summary

Topography Only Viewshed(See Figure 1*)

Vegetation and Topography Viewshed

(See Figure 2)

Acres Percent Cover Acres Percent coverNo Turbines Visible 2,892 2.3% 28,292 22.3%

1 – 5 Turbine Visible 970 0.8% 4,300 3.4%

6 – 10 Turbines Visible 753 0.6% 2,800 2.2%

11 – 15 Turbines

Visible 1,053 0.8% 2,972 2.3%

16 – 20 Turbines

Visible 904 0.7% 2,762 2.2%

21 – 30 Turbines

Visible 1,474 1.2% 4,713 3.7%

31 – 50 Turbines

Visible 2,980 2.3% 9,469 7.5%

51 – 70 Turbines

Visible 4,571 3.6% 13,821 10.9%

71 – 84 Turbines

Visible 111,484 87.7% 57,952 45.6%

Total 127,081 100.0% 127,081 100.0%

*Table 1 and Figure 1, illustrate that one or more turbine highpoints (i.e. apex of blade rotation) is theoretically visible from

approximately 98 percent of the five-mile study area. However, as discussed above, this unrealistic treeless condition analysis is used

only to identify the maximum potential geographic area within which further investigation is appropriate. This viewshed is not

representative of the anticipated geographic extent of visibility and is not intended for public interpretation. Acreage quantities in

Tables 1 and 2 are rounded to nearest whole number.

Table 2 FAA Viewshed Coverage Summary

Vegetation and Topography Viewshed(See Figure 3)

Acres Percent cover

No Turbine Lights

Visible 32,925 25.9%

1 – 5 Turbine Lights 8,628 6.8%

6 – 10 Turbine Lights 6,799 5.4%

11 – 15 Turbine Lights 6,686 5.3%

16 – 20 Turbine Lights 7,051 5.5%

21 – 30 Turbine Lights 14,765 11.6%

31 – 45 Turbine Lights 50,227 39.5%

Total 127,081 100.0%

Table 1 and Figure 2 indicates that one or more of the proposed turbines will be theoretically visible

from approximately 78 percent of the five-mile radius study area. Approximately 22 percent of the

study area will likely have no visibility of any wind turbines due to intervening landform or

vegetation.




#07-083.50M Page 17

Generally, turbine visibility is most common from inland agricultural areas where cleared lands

provide long vistas in the direction of turbine groupings. Project visibility will also occur from

unscreened coastal areas, Lake and River Islands, and from on-water vantage points throughout the

five-mile radius study area.

The areas most directly affected by views of the Project will be located within the central portion of the turbine area (multiple turbines may be visible up to 360-degrees around a vantage point), south and

east of the Village of Cape Vincent, and in the general vicinity of Three Mile Bay. Viewers to the

north of the Project site, along such roads as Favret Road, Mason Road, and Hell Street will encounter

views of a large number of turbines (71 or more) at relatively close distances (e.g. foreground and

middleground distances). Roadways throughout the study area that have the potential to view a high

number of turbines (71 or more), include, but may not be limited to, NYS Route 12E, Huff, Burnt

Rock, Swamp, Merchant, Stoney Point, Deer Lick, McKeever, Branche, CR 4, and Ashland Roads.

The high degree of Project visibility along these roadways is the result of broad agricultural clearing

and the lack of screening hills. It is worth noting that some of these views may also be long distant

(background view) and fleeting as viewers pass in vehicles.

It is possible that turbines may be in close proximity to NYS Route 12E, between the Village of Cape

Vincent and the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme municipal boundary. Along this section of NYS

Route 12E, turbines may be located on both sides of the roads offering foreground and middleground

views of multiple turbines. It is anticipated that foreground views will be fleeting, in part due to

roadway speed and foreground screening.

While the viewshed map indicates theoretical visibility of multiple turbines within the Villages of

Cape Vincent and Chaumont, and the hamlet of Three Mile Bay, field observation determined the

prevalence of mature street trees and site landscaping combined with one- and two-story residential

and commercial structures (not included in the multi-spectral satellite imagery of the NLCD) will

commonly block views in the direction of the Project from downtown and waterfront areas. Increased

frequency of filtered or framed views of proposed turbines are likely through foreground vegetation

and buildings as a viewer approaches the perimeter of these communities. Direct views are more

prevalent on the outskirts of the Villages and hamlet where localized residential and commercial

structures, street trees and site landscaping are less likely to provide a visual barrier.

The viewshed mapping also indicates a high degree of Project visibility from many shoreline areas

throughout the study area. Based on field observation, such visibility would likely be limited to some

degree by existing clusters of localized (non-forest) vegetation that is not clearly distinguishable in the

multi-spectral satellite imagery of the NLCD dataset. Nonetheless, views of some portion of numerous turbines will occur from shoreline areas along the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario.

Direct views of multiple turbines will also occur from near shore and offshore vantage points on the

St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. Views are also found on Lake and River islands from shoreline

areas oriented toward the Project, as well as island hillsides with down slope vistas in the direction of

the Project. Water and island views are found on both sides of the international border within the five-

mile study area. Although most turbines will be located further inland (1+ miles) a relatively small




#07-083.50M Page 18

number of turbines may be located in close proximity to the coastline of Lake Ontario. Due to their

proximity to the coast there will be greater visibility of the Project to those boating on the Lake.

As illustrated in Table 2 and Figure 3, the viewshed map indicates that one or more of the 45 FAA

required light sources would theoretically be visible from approximately 74 percent of the five-mile

radius study area. Approximately 26 percent of the study area will likely have no visibility of anyproposed light sources. Visibility will be most evident in the cleared agricultural lands from cleared

lands with open vistas in the direction of the proposed Project, participating Project properties with lit

turbines, along many of the same roadways with high turbine visibility (e.g. NYS Route12E, and Huff,

Burnt Rock, Swamp and Merchant Roads), unscreened coastal areas, Lake and River Islands, and from

on-water vantage points throughout the five-mile radius study area.





Lake

O

ntario

St. Lawrence

River

UNITE

DST

ATES

OFAM

ERIC

A

CANA

DA

5Miles

4Miles

3Miles

2Mi les

1Mile

Mud Bay

Wilson Bay

Fulle

r Bay

Chaumont Bay

Three Mile

Bay

Duck Bay

Sawm

ill B

ay

Chaumont

9

87

654

1

2A

86

85

84

83

82

81

80

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

65

63

62

61

60

59 5

8

57

56

55

54

5

3

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

424

1

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25 2

423

22

21

20

191

8

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

87

66

¯

0

2.5

5

1.25

Miles

Cape Vincent Wind Energy

Project

Figure 1

Topographic Viewshed

Maximum Turbine Layout 84 WTGs

(Layout 10/28/2010)

This map is computer generated using data acquired by Saratoga Associates

from various sources and is intended only for reference, conceptual planning

and presentation purposes. This map is not intended for and should not be

used to establish boundaries, property lines, location of objects or to provide

any other information typically needed for construction or any other purpose

when engineered plans or land surveys are required.

PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M

Copyright © 2010 Saratoga Associates. All Rights Reserved.

File Location: B:\2007\07083\Maps\Viewshed_Topo101112_Bladetip.mxd

January 2011

Village Of

Cape Vincent

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

""

"

""69

"78

"77

"61

"71

"84

"83

"81"82

"80

"67

"65

"64

"63

"74

"73"72

"70

"68

"66

"76"75

Broadway

Joseph St

Real St

Kelsey Ln

Point St

Gouvello St

Esselty

ne St

Murray

St

Kanady

St

Ainsworth Ln

Vincen

t St

Kent Ln

Lake St

Village Of Cape Vincent

0

1,000

2,000

500

Feet

Key

No. of Turbines Visible

1 - 5

6 - 10

11 - 15

16 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 50

51 - 70

71 - 84

"

Receptor

!

Proposed Turbine Locations

Seaway Trail (Scenic Highway)

Snowmobile Trail

Municipal Boundary

River / Stream / Creek

State Park

Waterway Access

Wildlife Management Area

11 32



Lake

Ontario

St. Lawrence

River

UNITE

DST

ATES

OFAM

ERIC

A

CANA

DA

5Miles

4Miles

3Miles

2Mi les

1Mile

Mud Bay

W

ilson Bay

Fulle

r Bay

Chaumont Bay

Three Mile

Bay

Duck Bay

Sawm

ill B

ay

Chaumont

9

87

654

1

2A

86

85

84

83

82

81

80

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

65

63

62

61

60

59 5

8

57

56

55

54

5

3

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

424

1

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25 2

423

22

21

20

191

8

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

87

66

¯

0

2.5

5

1.25

Miles


Project

Figure 2

Vegetated Viewshed*


(Layout 10/28/2010)







PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M


File Location: B:\2007\07083\Maps\Viewshed_Veg101112_Bladetip.mxd

January 2011

Village Of

Cape Vincent

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

""

"

""69

"78

"77

"61

"71

"84

"83

"81"82

"80

"67

"65

"64

"63

"74

"73"72

"70

"68

"66

"76"75

Broadway

Joseph St

Real St

Kelsey Ln

Point St

Gouvello St

Esselty

ne St

Murray

St

Kanady

St

Ainsworth Ln

Vincen

t St

Kent Ln

Lake St


0

1,000

2,000

500

Feet

*Assumes uniform tree height of 40' (12.192 m) in forested areas.

Key


1 - 5

6 - 10

11 - 15

16 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 50

51 - 70

71 - 84

"

Receptor

!



Snowmobile Trail

Municipal Boundary


State Park

Waterway Access


11 32



Key

No. of FAA Lights Visible

1 - 5

6 - 10

11 - 15

16 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 45

!

Proposed Lit Turbine Locations

"

Receptor


Snowmobile Trail

Municipal Boundary


State Park

Waterway Access


Lake

O

ntario

S

t. Law

ren

ce

R

iver

UNITE

DST

ATES

OFAM

ERIC

A

CANA

DA

5Miles

4Miles

3Miles

2Mi les

1Mile

Mud Bay

W

ilson Bay

Fulle

r Bay

Chaumont Ba

y

Three Mile

Bay

Duck Bay

Sawm

ill B

ay

Chaumont

8

64

1

2A

86

85

84

80

78

76

75

73

72

70

69

68

67

65

63

61

58

54

51

49

47

46

43

40

38

37

31

29

28

27

25 2

4

21

20

19

17

15 1

4

11

87

¯

0

2.5

5

1.25

Miles


Project

Figure 3

Vegetated Viewshed

FAA Lighting Layout 45 WTGs

(Layout 10/28/2010)







File Location: B:\2007\07083\Maps\Viewshed_Veg101130_FAA.mxd

January 2011

Village Of

Cape Vincent

"69

"78

"77

"61

"71

"84

"83

"81"82

"80

"67

"65

"64

"63

"74

"73"72

"70

"68

"66

"76"75

Broadway

Joseph St

Real St

Kelsey Ln

Point St

Gouvello St

Esselty

ne St

Murray

St

Kanady

St

Ainsworth Ln

Vincen

t St

Kent Ln

Lake St


0

1,000

2,000

500

Feet


32

PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M


41






#07-083.50M Page 22

3.2 INVENTORY OF VISUALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES

3.2.1 Inventory Criteria

Because it is not practical to evaluate every conceivable location where the proposed Project might be

visible, it is accepted visual assessment practice to limit detailed evaluation of aesthetic impact to

locations generally considered by society, through regulatory designation or policy, to be of culturaland/or aesthetic importance. In rural areas where few resources of statewide significance are likely to

be found, it is common practice to expand inventory criteria to include places of local sensitivity or

high intensity of use.

Resources of Statewide Significance – The DEC Visual Policy requires that all aesthetic resources of

statewide significance be identified along with any potential adverse effects on those resources

resulting from the proposed Project. Aesthetic resources of statewide significance may be derived

from one or more of the following categories:

>>>> A property on or eligible for inclusion in the National or State Register of Historic Places [16

U.S.C. § 470a et seq., Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Law Section 14.07];

>>>> State Parks [Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Law Section 3.09];

>>>> Urban Cultural Parks [Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Law Section 35.15];

>>>> The State Forest Preserve [NYS Constitution Article XIV], Adirondack and Catskill Parks;

>>>> National Wildlife Refuges [16 U.S.C. 668dd], State Game Refuges, and State Wildlife

Management Areas [ECL 11-2105];

>>>> National Natural Landmarks [36 CFR Part 62];

>>>> The National Park System, Recreation Areas, Seashores, and Forests [16 U.S.C. 1c];

>>>> Rivers designated as National or State Wild, Scenic, or Recreational [16 U.S.C. Chapter 28,

ECL 15-2701 et seq.];

>>>> A site, area, lake, reservoir, or highway designated or eligible for designation as scenic [ECL

Article 49 or NYDOT equivalent and Adirondack Park Agency], designated State Highway

Roadside;

>>>> Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance [of Article 42 of Executive Law];

>>>> A State or federally designated trail, or one proposed for designation [16 U.S.C. Chapter 27

or equivalent];

>>>> Adirondack Park Scenic Vistas [Adirondack Park Land Use and Development Map];

>>>> State Nature and Historic Preserve Areas [Section 4 of Article XIV of the State Constitution];

>>>> Palisades Park [Palisades Interstate Park Commission]; and

>>>> Bond Act Properties purchased under Exceptional Scenic Beauty or Open Space category.




#07-083.50M Page 23

Resources of Local Interest – Places of local sensitivity or high intensity of use (based on local

context) were also inventoried, even though they may not meet the broader statewide threshold.

Aesthetic resources of local interest were generally derived from the following general categories:

>>>> Recreation areas including playgrounds, athletic fields, boat launches, fishing access,

campgrounds, picnic areas, ski centers, and other recreational facilities/attractions;

>>>> Areas devoted to the conservation or the preservation of natural environmental features (e.g.,

reforestation areas/forest preserves, wildlife management areas, open space preserves);

>>>> A bicycling, hiking, ski touring, or snowmobiling trail designated as such by a governmental

agency;

>>>> Architectural structures and sites of traditional importance as designated by a governmental

agency;

>>>> Parkways, highways, or scenic overlooks and vistas designated as such by a governmental

agency;

>>>> Important urban landscape including visual corridors, monuments, sculptures, landscape

plantings, and urban green space;

>>>> Important architectural elements and structures representing community style and

neighborhood character;

>>>> An interstate highway or other high volume (relative to local conditions) road of regional

importance; and

>>>> A passenger railroad or other mass transit route; and

>>>> A residential area greater than 50 contiguous acres and with a density of more than one

dwelling unit per acre.

Other Places for Analysis – Given the rural character of much of the study area, the inventory of

aesthetic resources has been further expanded to be conservatively over-inclusive. In several cases,

locations not rising to the threshold of statewide significance or local interest have been included to

represent visibility along sparsely populated rural roadways; most selected based on field observation

of open vistas. Although possibly of interest to local residents, such locations are not considered

representative of any aesthetically significant place and carry little importance in the evaluation of

aesthetic impact.

Resources of statewide significance, resources of local interest and other places for analysis were

identified though a review of published maps and other paper documents, online research, and

windshield survey of publicly accessible locations.




#07-083.50M Page 24

3.2.2 Summary Characteristics of Inventoried Resources

Overall Population and Density of

Development – This Project area is

quite rural with a very small year

round population. The population of the Town of Cape Vincent was just

3,345, including 760 residing in the

Village of Cape Vincent (year 2000

census data). The year round

population density of the Town is 59.2

persons per square mile and 46 persons

per square mile when the Village of

Cape Vincent is excluded. This

compares with a population density of

88 individuals per square mile for

Jefferson County and 402 individuals per square mile for New York State as a whole.

There are a total of 2,825 housing units within the Town of Cape Vincent, of which 1,891 (67%) are

classified as seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. Since the study area is within a region where

the population may increase during its tourism season(s), these seasonal residents may be quantified

by assuming that 2.61 persons reside in each seasonal housing unit (and all residences are fully

occupied). The seasonal population of the Town of Cape Vincent can then be estimated at

approximately 8,281 (including 1,060 residing in the Village of Cape Vincent). This is nearly 2.5

times the Town’s year round population. Table 3 summarizes demographics for other municipalities

within the study area.

Highway Corridors – Due to its rural,

location, many roadways within the

study area are relatively lightly traveled.

The primary roadway within the study

area is NYS Route 12E. This road

connects the City of Watertown to the

Village of Cape Vincent then continues

northeast along the St. Lawrence River

to the Village of Clayton. Table 4

summarizes the average annual daily

traffic (AADT) for NYS Route 12E within the study area.

The traffic volumes identified in Table 4, compares to over 19,844 vehicles per day (AADT) on I-81

in Watertown (NYS Route 382 to NYS Route 12), approximately 10 miles southeast of the study area,

and 6,190 vehicles per day on NYS Route 12 at Alexandria Bay (Interstate 81 to NYS Route 26 in

Alexandria Bay), approximately 20 miles to the northeast of the study area. Interstate 81, the most

9 http://www.dot.state.ny.us

Table 3 Demographic Summary of Study Area

Municipalities (2000 Census)

Municipality Year RoundPopulation

PopulationDensity (off-

season)*

TotalHousing

UnitsNew York State 18,976,457 402

Jefferson County 111,738 88

Town of Cape Vincent 3,345 59 2,825

Village of Cape Vincent 760 1,041 515

Town of Cape Vincent excluding Village 2,585 46 2,310

Town of Lyme 2,015 36 2,142

Village of Chaumont 592 578 273

Town of Lyme excluding Village 1423 25 1869

Town of Clayton (including Village of

Clayton) 4,817 58 3,391

* Rounded to the nearest whole number

Table 4 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes for

Study Area Highways (NYSDOT 2004)9

Route Section AADT

NYS Route 12E CR 9 (St. Lawrence) to CR 4 (Crystal

Spring Rd.)

2,122

NYS Route 12E CR 8 (Chaumont) to CR 57 2,758

NYS Route 12E CR 57 to CR 6 (Cape Vincent) 1,355

NYS Route 12E CR 6 (Cape Vincent) to CR 9 (St.

Lawrence)

1,301

NYS Route 12E CR 179 (Chaumont) to CR 8

(Chaumont)

4,729




#07-083.50M Page 25

heavily traveled transportation route in the region, connects central New York and points south with

the international border at the Thousand Islands Bridge in Alexandria Bay.

Numerous county and local roads traverse the study area. Generally, these roads are lightly traveled.

Tourism – Although summertime is the most popular season of the year, the Thousand Islands regionof New York State draws thousands of visitors year-round. The region has long been recognized for

the enjoyment of boating, fishing, and other activities found along the scenic waterfront. Many visitors

come to this region to experience the outdoors and enjoy the scenery of the riverfront and islands.

Although not as abundant as in nearby communities, the study area offers a variety of lodging

including hotels/motels, bed and breakfast establishments, summer rentals, rustic cottages and cabins,

as well as private and public campgrounds; many with water views and guest access to the river or

lakefront.

Recreation and Open Space – There are many popular recreational activities within the study area,

include: hiking, hunting, camping, biking, fishing, boating, golfing, and snowmobiling. Other passive

outdoor pursuits such as bird watching or a leisurely drive along the coastline or through the rural

landscape are also common. There are a variety of State designated recreational resources within the

study area. Some of the more prominent recreational opportunities are discussed below.

New York State designated recreational resources within the study area include:

>>>> New York State Parks

a) Burnham Point State Park (Town of Cape Vincent) – Located on the St. Lawrence

River, Burnham Point State Park offers tent and trailer campsites, picnic facilities,

boat launch and dockage.

b) Cedar Point State Park (Town of Cape Vincent) – Also on the St. Lawrence River,

Cedar Point State Park offers tent and trailer camping, picnic facilities, marina,

fishing pier, swimming beach, and play fields.

c) Long Point State Park (Town of Lyme) – Located on Point Peninsula overlooking

Chaumont Bay, Long Point State Park offers tent and trailer camping, picnic

facilities, boat launch, and playground.

>>>> NYS DEC Wildlife Management Areas

a) Ashland Flats Wildlife Management Area (Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme) – This2,037 acre Wildlife Management Area (WMA) provides public recreational activities

including bird watching, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing, and limited hunting

and trapping.

b) French Creek Wildlife Management Area (Town of Clayton) – This 2,265 acre

WMA provides public recreation activities including bird watching, cross-country

skiing, snowshoeing, hunting, fishing and trapping. Boat access is also available.




#07-083.50M Page 26

c) Point Peninsula Wildlife Management Area (Town of Lyme) - This 59 acre WMA

provides public recreation activities including bird watching, cross-country skiing,

snowshoeing, hunting, fishing, and trapping.

>>>> NYS DEC Cape Vincent Fisheries Aquarium – The aquarium includes five tanks with many

of the fish species common to Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River and interpretive

information about New York State's conservation programs in the Great Lakes.

>>>> Seaway Trail – The New York State Seaway Trail is a 454-mile scenic route paralleling Lake

Erie, the Niagara River, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. The Seaway Trail has been

selected as one of “America’s Byways” by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The

Seaway Trail was chosen for its unique landscape which has been sculpted by the forces of

nature and for its historical significance.10 Through the study area, the Seaway Trail follows

NYS Route 12E from Clayton southeast to Sacketts Harbor.

>>>> Tibbets Point Lighthouse – The Tibbetts Point Lighthouse (listed on the National Register of

Historic Places) is open to the public seasonally, and provides scenic views of Lake Ontario

and the St. Lawrence River.

Additional recreational resources include:

>>>> Snowmobile trails may be found throughout the study area whether on public/private land or

along roadways/seasonal roads. Snowmobiling is a popular activity in Northern New York

and is likely enjoyed by large numbers of participants within the study area during the winter

months. State snowmobile trails that bisect the area include, but are not limited to, C5J, C5k,

and S50. These trails are usually funded by the State, but are maintained by local

snowmobile groups.

>>>> Municipal parks, recreational and open space resources, and other small community

playgrounds and athletic fields may be scattered throughout the study area.

Cultural Resources – The Project area includes many historic structures. Within the study area, 41

structures and two historic districts listed on the State and National Register of Historic Places were

identified.11

These include:

10 http://www.seawaytrail.com 11 http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com




#07-083.50M Page 27

Town of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Town of Lyme

> Carlton Island - Light

House - Fort Haldimand

Site

> Aubertine Building > District School No. 3

> Claude Vautrin House > Broadway Historic District > Menzo Wheeler House

> Dezengremel House > Captain Louis Peugnet

House

> Old Stone Shop

> George Reynolds House > Cornelius Sacket House > Taft House

> Joseph Docteur House > Duvillard Mill > The Row

> Nicholas Cocaigne House > E.K. Burnham House > Taylor Boathouse

> Reuter Dyer House > Jean Philippe Gailband du

Fort House

> Three Mile Bay Historic

District

> Rogers Brothers Farmstead > General Sacket House > Menzo Wheeler House

> Tibbits Point Lighthouse > Glen Building > Union Hall

> Union Meeting House > James Buckley House > United Methodist Church

> Warren Wilson House > John Borland House > Wilcox Farmhouse

> Xavier Chevalier House > Johnson House

> Levi Anthony Building

> Lewis House

> Otis Starkey House

> Roxy Hotel

> St. Johns Episcopal Church

> St. Vincent of Paul Catholic

Church

> Tibbett’s Point Lighthouse

> Vincent LeRay House

There are no properties in the Town of Clayton, within the study area, that are listed on the State and

National Register of Historic Places.

3.2.3 Visibility Evaluation of Inventoried Resources

Each inventoried visual resource was evaluated to determine whether a visual impact might exist.

This consisted of reviewing viewshed maps and field observation to determine whether or not

individual resources would have a view of the proposed Project.




#07-083.50M Page 28

Table 5 lists 93 visual resources located within the five-mile study area and identifies potential Project

visibility. The location of these visual resources is referenced by numeric code within Figures 1 and 2.

Of the 93 visual resources inventoried, four would likely be screened from the proposed Project by

either intervening landform or vegetation/structures and are thus eliminated from further study.




#07-083.50M Page 29

Table 5 Visual Resource Visibility Summary

Potential Visibility Key

Visibility Indicated

No Visibility Indicated

Filtered view through trees or limited view through structures possible (field observed wherepossible)

Map ID Receptor Name Municipality Inventory Type

Theoretical

View Indicated

by Viewshed -Excluding

Existing

Vegetation

(See Figure 1)

Theoretical

View Indicated

by Viewshed -Including

Existing

Vegetation

(See Figure 2)

Actual Likely

View12

Cultural Resources

2 George Reynolds House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

5 Joseph Docteur House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

7 Claude Vautrin House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

8 Xavier Chevalier House

Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

28 Laird / Stumpf House Town of Lyme Statewide Significance

31 Taylor Boathouse Town of Lyme Statewide Significance

32 Menzo Wheeler House Town of Lyme Statewide Significance

33 Old Stone Shop Town of Lyme Statewide Significance

34 Three Mile Bay Historic District Town of Lyme Statewide Significance

36 Taft House Town of Lyme Statewide Significance

37 The Row Town of Lyme Statewide Significance

40 United Methodist Church - PointPeninsula

Town of Lyme Statewide Significance

41 Union Hall Town of Lyme Statewide Significance

44 Wilcox Farmhouse Town of Lyme Statewide Significance Not Visited

45 District School No. 3 Town of Lyme Statewide Significance

48 Remy Dezengremel House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

49 Reuter Dyer House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

53 Dabion Point / Dabion Monumnent Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance Not Visited

54 Rogers Brothers Farmstead Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

55 Tibbetts Point Lighthouse Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

56 Johnson House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

57 Captain Louis Peugnet House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

12 Actual view is based on field confirmation of potential visibility that was conducted on November 2 and 12, 2007 and in some cases through

aerial interpretation.




#07-083.50M Page 30







Theoretical

View Indicated

by Viewshed -

ExcludingExisting

Vegetation

(See Figure 1)

Theoretical

View Indicated

by Viewshed -

IncludingExisting

Vegetation

(See Figure 2)

Actual Likely

View12

58 Nicholas Cocaigne House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

60 General Sacket House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

63 Jean Philippe Galband du Fort,

House

Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

64 St. John's Episcopal Church Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

65 St. Vincent of Paul Catholic

Church


66 Broadway Historic District Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

67 Vincent LeRay House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

68 Lewis House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

70 Roxy Hotel Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

72 James Buckley House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

73 John Borland House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

74 Otis Starkey House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

75 Glen Building Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

80 E. K. Burnham House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

81 Cornelius Sacket House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

82 Aubertine Building Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

83 Duvillard Mill Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

84 Levi Anthony Building Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

87 St Vincent De Paul Cemetery Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance

88 Riverside Cemetery Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance

90 Warren Wilson House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

Recreational and Tourist Resources

1 Burnham Point State Park and

Campground


9 Milliens Bay Marina Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance

16 Cedar Point State Park (entry) Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance




#07-083.50M Page 31







Theoretical

View Indicated

by Viewshed -

ExcludingExisting

Vegetation

(See Figure 1)

Theoretical

View Indicated

by Viewshed -

IncludingExisting

Vegetation

(See Figure 2)

Actual Likely

View12

18 French Creek WMA Town of Clayton Statewide Significance

22 Lucky Star Lake Town of Clayton Local Importance

23 The Nature Conservancy Preserve

(Alvar Limestone Barrens)

Town of Lyme Local Importance

24 Ashland Flats WMA Town of Lyme Statewide Significance

26 Bay Breeze Golf Course Town of Lyme Local Importance

27 NYS DEC Boat Launch Town of Lyme Statewide Significance

38 NYS DEC Boat Launch Town of Lyme Statewide Significance Not Visited

39 Long Point State Park Town of Lyme Statewide Significance

42 Point Peninsula WMA Town of Lyme Statewide Significance

43 Eastern Ontario Waterway Access

(NYS DEC)

Town of Lyme Statewide Significance

51 Mud Bay - Martin's Marina Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance

52 Lake Ontario Waterway Access

(NYS DEC)


62 NYS DEC Research Station andAquarium


69 North Market Street, Swimming

Area

Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Not Visited

76 Cape Vincent Village Green Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance

77 Ferry to Wolfe Island - Marina - US

Coast Guard Station

Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Not Visited

78 Cape Vincent Historical Museum Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance

79 Carlton Island - Light House - Fort

Haldimand Site

Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Not Visited

85 Village Waterfront Park Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance

86 Village of Cape Vincent PublicBoat Launch

Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance

Highway Corridors/Roadside Receptors

3 Intersection Favret Rd. and Hell

St.

Town of Cape Vincent Other Places for

Analysis

6 Intersection Favret Rd. and CR 4 Town of Cape Vincent Other Places for

Analysis

11 NYS Route 12E / Seaway Trail Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

12 Intersection of Millens Bay Rd.

and Rosiere Rd.


Analysis




#07-083.50M Page 32







Theoretical

View Indicated

by Viewshed -

ExcludingExisting

Vegetation

(See Figure 1)

Theoretical

View Indicated

by Viewshed -

IncludingExisting

Vegetation

(See Figure 2)

Actual Likely

View12

12a Intersection of Millens Bay Rd.

and Mason Rd.


Analysis 13 Intersection of Rosiere Rd. (CR 4)

and St. Lawrence Rd.

Town of Clayton Town

of Cape Vincent

Other Places for

Analysis

17 Intersection of EuroCliff Rd. and

NYS Route 12E

Town of Clayton Statewide Significance

19 Intersection of Macomb

Settlement Rd. and St Lawrence

Rd.

Town of Clayton Other Places for

Analysis

20 St. Lawrence Rd. at 3 Mile Creek Town of Clayton Other Places for

Analysis

21 St. Lawrence Rd. Town of Clayton Other Places for

Analysis

25 Intersection CR 5 and Millens Bay

Rd.

Town of Lyme Other Places for

Analysis 46 Seaway Trail - High Point Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

47 NYS Route 12E Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

50 Intersection of Merchant Rd. and

CR 6


Analysis Residential/Community Resources

4 Hamlet of Rosiere Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance

10 Hamlet of Millens Bay Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance

14 Thousand Island Middle & High

Schools

Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance

15 Cape Vincent State Correctional

Facility


Analysis 51a Hamlet of Bedford Corners Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance

29 Residential (Herrick Grove) Town of Lyme Local Importance

30 Residential - Three Mile Point Bay Town of Lyme Local Importance

35 Hamlet of Three Mile Bay Town of Lyme Local Importance

59 Cape Vincent Town Hall Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance

61 Elementary School and

Recreational Park

Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance

71 Cape Vincent Village Hall Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance

89 Residential - North of Site Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance

91 Mud Bay Residential Area Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance




#07-083.50M Page 33

3.3 FACTORS AFFECTING VISUAL IMPACT

To bring order to the consideration of visual resources, the inventory of visual resources is organized

into several recognizable elements, as follows:

3.3.1 Landscape Units

Landscape units are areas with common characteristics of landform, water resources, vegetation, land

use, and land use intensity. While a regional landscape may possess diverse features and

characteristics, a landscape unit is a relatively homogenous, unified landscape of visual character.

Landscape units are established to provide a framework for comparing and prioritizing the differing

visual quality and sensitivity of visual resources in the study area. Discrete landscape units were

identified through field inventory and air photo interpretation, and divide the study area into zones of

unique patterns and visual composition. Within the visual resources study area, four distinctive

landscape units were defined. These landscape units, their general landscape character, and use are as

follows:

Village Center – The waterfront Village of Cape Vincent is

the primary residential and commercial center in the study

area. The village is centered on a small downtown

commercial area principally oriented along West and East

Broadway (NYS Route 12E), two blocks south of the

waterfront. A tree-lined National Register Historic District

extends westward from the downtown along West

Broadway and a village green fronts East Broadway at

North Point Street.

The presence of the St. Lawrence River is not a significant visual focus in much of the village. Private

commercial establishments and single-family structures dominate the waterfront, which is visually

separated from most other residential and commercial areas. Visual connectivity is afforded along

West Market Street, North Point Street and Club Street that extend from Broadway to the waters edge.

Public waterfront access is provided at a small park off of East Broadway at Murray Street and the

Wolfe Island ferry landing is at the end of North Point Street.

The waterfront Village of Chaumont is primarily a residential and commercial center. Only a small

portion of the village is located within the study area as such the majority of the residential and

commercial core is not included. The village is generally oriented along NYS Route 12E.

Generally, built structures and streets dominate the visual landscape in both villages. Trees line many

of the roadways. Most buildings are one to three stories tall, including brick and wood frame

structures. Buildings styles are an interesting mix of older architectural styles (e.g. Federal, Late

Victorian, Italianate) interspersed with conventional, more modern, mid- to late-20th century

residences. Some of the older buildings are very well maintained or restored while others are in

various states of disrepair or alteration. With the exception of the view over the Duck Bay inlet

(Village of Chaumont), views are generally short distance and focused along streets (which are

typically arranged in a grid/block pattern). Structures and trees generally block most distant views,




#07-083.50M Page 34

however, filtered or framed views are possible through foreground vegetation and buildings from the

perimeter of the villages. Development density drops sharply as one moves away from the central

business district as the Village Center landscape unit transitions to the Rural Agricultural landscape

unit.

Rural Hamlet – Rural hamlets, such as Three Mile Bay,Rosiere, and Saint Lawrence, are characterized by low to

medium density clusters of older residential dwellings and

very limited retail or commercial services. Rural hamlets are

typically found at the crossroad of two or more rural

highways that define the hamlet center. Such small

population clusters may be focused on a place of worship,

general store or other community building. Residential

structures generally front main roads. Side streets, if any, are often limited to one or two blocks off the

hamlet center.

Roadside residences and street trees often reinforce axial views along the highway. Views are

typically short distance and directed towards the main thoroughfare and adjacent structures. Structures

and trees generally block most views, however, filtered or framed views beyond the hamlet may exist

through foreground vegetation. Development density drops almost immediately as one moves away

from the hamlet center; transitioning quickly to the character of the surrounding Rural Agricultural

landscape unit

Rural Agricultural Landscape Unit – This landscape unit is

predominantly a patchwork of open land, including working

cropland/pastures and successional old-fields transected by

property-line hedgerows, occasionally interspersed with

woodlots. The terrain itself consists of relatively level

topography with gentle low-lying hills and small rounded

hillocks rising 180 to 190 feet above the St. Lawrence River

and Lake Ontario.

Within this landscape unit, population densities are very low and structures are sparsely located. Uses

are predominantly agricultural and very low-density residential. Minor areas of commercial use are

occasionally found along the roadside. Building stock consists primarily of permanent homes and

manufactured housing, along with accessory structures (barns, garages, sheds, etc.). Structures are of

varying vintage and quality. Poorly maintained or dilapidated structures and properties are not

uncommon sights.

Roadside views are often constrained by foreground vegetation. However, distant vistas (½ mile or

more) are common across the expansive agricultural plain. Straight stretches of road can provide long

axial views. Narrow curving roads often provide an interesting series of short views of the rural

landscape, but also force drivers to direct their attention to the road rather than the adjacent scenery.




#07-083.50M Page 35

Vistas to the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario from the Rural Agricultural landscape unit are not

common.

Some local residents and visitors may regard the aesthetic character of this landscape unit as an

attractive and pastoral setting; others may view it as a working landscape, similar in character with

much of rural upstate New York. Although a component of the background landscape, this inland areais not widely associated with scenic quality of the adjacent waterfront landscape that is central to the

Thousand Island region’s appeal as a vacation destination.

Waterfront – The scenic character of the Lake Ontario and

St. Lawrence River coastal area appears to be the principal

factor influencing current and historic residential

development patterns along the shoreline. Many seasonal

and year-round residents desire to live by the water and

enjoy the views of the waterfront and islands the region is

well known for.

13

The scenic value of waterfront propertyhas resulted in a nearly continuous pattern of residential

development along the study area shoreline. Residential structures include traditional single-family

residences, cottages, camps, and mobile homes; nearly all oriented to take best advantage of water

views. Along the shoreline, development density is highly variable, ranging from large wooded estate

lots set back from nearby roadways and neighboring properties, to neighborhood scale clusters of

small wood frame camps and trailer homes of varying quality, vintage and size. Shoreline areas

between the water’s edge and residential structures are commonly cleared, partly or often completely,

to create unencumbered vistas.

Along the St. Lawrence River, the Waterfront landscape unit is clearly defined by NYS Route 12E.

Along Lake Ontario the boundary is less defined, but still clearly identifiable along roadways

paralleling the lakefront and at the end of lake access roads. Most waterfront homes are located within

200 yards of the water. Beyond this distance water views quickly diminish due to the lack of

pronounced topographic rise inland from the shoreline. For this reason, throughout much of the

coastal area, the Rural Agricultural landscape unit extends to within several hundred feet of the

water’s edge.

Through much of the Waterfront landscape unit, residential properties directly front NYS Route 12E.

Individual driveways, often appearing informal and unpaved, mark the water-side of the highway

corridor. Occasional public and private roads lead to organized neighborhoods defined by closely

spaced homes, camps or trailers clustered in a one or two block grid pattern paralleling the shoreline.

Hundreds of individual docks, often-spaced only feet apart protrude from the shoreline providing

private access for homeowners and vacation renters. In other areas, most commonly in sheltered bays,

larger marinas offer seasonal dock rentals and off-water storage. Cedar Point and Burnham State

Parks provide public access to the St. Lawrence River within this distinct landscape unit.

13 Nearly 67% of all residential structures in the Town of Cape Vincent and 40% of all residential structures in the Town of Clayton are classified

as seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. It is a reasonable assumption that the vast majority of these second homes are either fronting or

immediately proximate to Lake Ontario or the St. Lawrence River.




#07-083.50M Page 36

While many waterfront properties are very well maintained and contribute to the overall beauty of the

waterfront landscape, other private properties have fallen to some degree of disrepair and detract from

the visual quality of the waterfront setting.

Many scenic views from the Waterfront landscape unit are focused primarily on the picturesque views

of the St. Lawrence River, Lake Ontario, and islands.

3.3.2 Viewer/User Groups

Viewers engaged in different activities, while in the same landscape unit, are likely to perceive their

surroundings differently. The description of viewer groups is provided to assist in understanding the

sensitivity and probable reaction of potential observers to visual change resulting from the proposed

Project.

Local Residents – These individuals would view the proposed Project from homes, businesses, and

local roads. Except when involved in local travel, such viewers are likely to be stationary and could

have frequent and/or prolonged views of the Project. They know the local landscape and may besensitive to changes in particular views that are important to them. Conversely, the sensitivity of an

individual observer to a specific view may be diminished over time due to repeated exposure.

Through Travelers – Commuters and through travelers would view the proposed Project from

highways. These viewers are typically moving and focusing on the road in front of them.

Consequently, their views of the proposed Project may be peripheral, intermittent, and/or of relatively

brief duration. Given a general unfamiliarity or infrequent exposure to the regional or local landscape,

travelers are likely to have a lower degree of sensitivity to visual change than would local residents

and workers.

Recreational Users – This group generally includes all local residents involved in outdoor recreational

activities, as well as visitors who come to the area specifically to enjoy the cultural, recreational,

scenic resources, and open spaces of the Thousand Islands region.

The sensitivity of recreational users to visual quality is variable; but to many, visual quality is an

important and integral part of the recreational experience. The presence of wind turbines may

diminish the aesthetic experience for those that believe the rural landscape should be preserved for

agricultural, rural residential, open space and similar uses. Such viewers will likely have high

sensitivity to the visual quality and landscape character, regardless of the frequency of duration of

their exposure to the proposed Project. For those with strong utilitarian beliefs, the presence of the

proposed Project will have little aesthetic impact on their recreational experience.

While the scenic quality of the Thousand Islands landscape is an important aspect of the recreational

experience for most visitors, viewers will also be cognizant of various foreground details,

developments and other visually proximate activities. Visitors and recreational users currently view

the existing working landscape, low to moderate-density roadside residential and commercial uses of

varying aesthetic quality, as well as utility infrastructure.




#07-083.50M Page 37

A greater number of recreational users will be present in the region when the weather is clear and

warm as compared to overcast, rainy or cold days. In addition, more recreational users will be present

on weekends and holidays than on weekdays.

Tourists – The Thousand Islands region of New York State is a widely recognized vacation

destination drawing thousands of visitors year-round. These individuals come to the area specificallyto enjoy the historic, recreational, and scenic resources of the lake, river and islands.

Most tourists and seasonal residents would have high sensitivity to the visual quality and landscape

character, regardless of the frequency or duration of their exposure to the proposed Project. This

group may view the proposed facility while boating on the river or lake, from coastal vantage points or

while traveling local roadways for the purpose of enjoying the scenic waterfront landscape.

3.3.3 Distance Zones

Distance affects the apparent size and degree of contrast between an object and its surroundings.

Distance can be discussed in terms of distance zones, e.g., foreground, middleground and background.Distance zones established by the U.S. Forest Service and reiterated by the NYSDEC Visual Policy

are used in this SVRA. A description of each distance zone is provided below to assist in

understanding the effect of distance on potential visual impacts.

Foreground (0-½ mile) – At a foreground distance, viewers typically have a very high recognition of

detail. Cognitively, in the foreground zone, human scale is an important factor in judging spatial

relationships and the relative size of objects. From this distance, the sense of form, line, color and

textural contrast with the surrounding landscape is highest. The visual impact is likely to be

considered the greatest at a foreground distance.

Middleground (½ mile to 3 miles) – This is the distance where elements begin to visually merge or

join. Colors and textures become somewhat muted by distance, but are still identifiable. Visual detail

is reduced, although distinct patterns may still be evident. Viewers from middleground distances

characteristically recognize surface features such as tree stands, building clusters and small landforms.

Scale is perceived in terms of identifiable features of development patterns. From this distance, the

contrast of color and texture are identified more in terms of the regional context than by the immediate

surroundings.

Background (3-5 miles to horizon) – At this distance, landscape elements lose detail and become less

distinct. Atmospheric perspective14

changes colors to blue-grays, while surface characteristics are lost.

Visual emphasis is on the outline or edge of one landmass or water resource against another with a

strong skyline element.

14 Atmospheric Perspective: Even on the clearest of days, the sky is not entirely transparent because of the presence of atmospheric particulate

matter. The light scattering effect of these particles causes a reduction in the intensity of colors and the contrast between light and dark as the

distance of objects from the observer increases. Contrast depends upon the position of the sun and the reflectance of the object, among other

items. The net effect is that objects appear "washed out" over great distances.




#07-083.50M Page 38

3.3.4 Duration/Frequency/Circumstances of View

The analysis of a viewer’s experience must include the distinction between stationary and moving

observers. The length of time and the circumstances under which a view is encountered is influential

in characterizing the importance of a particular view.

Stationary Views – Stationary views are experienced from fixed viewpoints. Fixed viewpoints include

residential neighborhoods, recreational facilities, historic resources and other culturally important

locations. Characteristically, stationary views offer sufficient time, either from a single observation or

repeated exposure, to interpret and understand the physical surroundings. For this reason, stationary

viewers have a higher potential for understanding the elements of a view than do moving viewers.

Stationary views can be further divided to consider the effect of short-term and long-term exposure.

Sites of long-term exposure include any location where a stationary observer is likely to be visually

impacted on a regular basis, such as from a place of residence. Sites of short-term exposure include

locations where a stationary observer is only visiting, such as recreational facilities. Although the

duration of visual impact remains at the discretion of the individual observer, short-term impacts areless likely to be repeated for a single observer on a regular basis.

Moving Views – Moving views are those experienced in passing, such as from moving vehicles, where

the time available for a viewer to cognitively experience a particular view is limited. Such viewers are

typically proceeding along a defined path through highly complex stimuli. As the tendency of

automobile occupants is to focus down the road, the actual time a viewer is able to focus on individual

elements of the surrounding landscape may be a fraction of the total available view time. Obviously, a

driver is most affected by driving requirements.

Conversely, the greater the contrast of an element within the existing landscape, the greater thepotential for viewer attention, even if viewed for only a moment by a moving viewer. Billboards

along a rural highway, designed to attract attention and recognition, are an example of this condition.

Furthermore, an element is more likely to be perceived in greater detail by local residents to whom it

is experienced on a daily basis than it is to passers-by.

3.3.5 Summary of Affected Resources

As listed in Table 5, of the 93 inventoried visual resources, four would likely be screened from the

proposed Project by either intervening landform or vegetation/structures and are thus eliminated from

further study. Table 6 summarizes the factors affecting visual impact (landscape unit, viewer group,

distance zone and duration/frequency/circumstances of view) described above for each visual resourcedetermined to have a potential view of the proposed Project.









C

Vi

tWidE

P

j

t

SVRA

J

2011

Table 6

Visual Resource Impact Summa

ry

Factors Affecting Visual Impa

ct

Map

ID

Receptor Name

Municipality

Inventory Type

Approximate

Number of

Turbines

Visible

(see Figure 2)

Landsca

pe

Unit

Viewer/User

Group(s)

Distance (miles)

/Distan

ce Zone

(neares

t turbine)

Moving/

Stationary

88

Riverside Cemetery

Town of Cape Vincent

Local Imp

ortance

56

Rural Agricultural

local residents

1.9/Middleground

Stationary

89

Residential - North of Site


Local Imp

ortance

77

Waterfront

local residents

2.5/Middleground

Stationary

90

Warren Wilson House


Statewide

Significance

84

Rural Agricultural

local residents

1.3/Middleground

Stationary

91

Mud Bay Residential Area


Local Imp

ortance

84

Rural Ham

let

local residents

0.8/Middleground

Stationary




#07-083.50M Page 43

3.4 DEGREE OF PROJECT VISIBILITY

3.4.1 Field Observation and Photography

On November 2 and 12, 2007, and December 30, 2010 a field crew drove public roads and visited

many of the potentially affected visual resources (as determined through viewshed mapping based on

the DEIS VRA layout) to document existing visibility in the direction of proposed wind turbines. Allphotographs were taken from affected visual resources using a 6.3 or 8.1-mega pixel digital camera

with a lens setting of approximately 50mm15 to simulate normal human eyesight relative to scale. The

location selected for each photograph was judged by the field observer to be the most unobstructed

line-of-sight to the turbine area from the subject visual resource. To the degree possible, photographs

were taken at a time of day when the sun was to the back of the photographer to minimize the effect of

glare within the camera’s field of view and to maximize visible contrast of the landscape being

photographed.

The precise coordinates of each photo location were recorded in the field using a handheld global

positioning system (GPS) unit. To determine the direction of the proposed wind turbines from each

photo location, the precise coordinates of all proposed turbines were pre-programmed into the GPS as

a “waypoint.” The GPS waypoint direction indicator (arrow pointing along calculated bearing) was

used to determine the appropriate bearing for the camera, so that a desired turbine, or grouping of

turbines, would be generally centered in the field of view of each photograph.

3.4.2 Photographic

Simulations

Selection of Key Receptors for

Photo Simulation – To demonstrate

how the actual turbines will appearwithin the study area from a variety

of distances and locations,

simulations were created from nine

resources. Of these, six were

contained in the DEIS VRA and

updated using the revised layout and

turbine selection. The specific

simulations chosen to be simulated

as part of the SVRA were selected

for their relevance to the factorsaffecting visual impact (viewer/user

groups, landscape units, distance

zones and duration/frequency and

15

A Canon EOS Rebel XT digital SLR with a 24-85milimeter (mm) zoom lens was used for all Project

photography. This digital camera, similar to most digital SLR cameras, has a sensor that is approximately 1.6

times smaller than a comparable full frame 35mm film camera. Recognizing this differential, the zoom lens used

was set to approximately 31mm to achieve a field-of-view comparable to a 50mm lens on a full frame 35mm

camera (31mm x 1.6 = 50mm).

Table 7 Key Receptors Selected for Photo Simulation

Map ID Receptor NameSVRA Photographic Simulations

1 Burnham Point State Park and Campground

4 Hamlet of Rosiere

12a Intersection of Millens Bay Rd. and Mason Rd.39 Long Point State Park

49 Reuter Dyer House

59 Cape Vincent Town Hall

66 Broadway Historic District

82 Aubertine Building

91 Mud Bay Residential Area

Original VRA Photographic Simulations

1 Burnham Point State Park and Campground

4 Hamlet of Rosiere

7 Claude Vautrin House

8 Xavier Chevalier House

12a Intersection of Millens Bay Rd. and Mason Rd.

16 Cedar Point State Park (entry)

18 French Creek WMA

37 The Row

39 Long Point State Park

51a Bedford Corners59 Cape Vincent Town Hall

66 Broadway Historic District

86 Village of Cape Vincent Public Boat Launch




#07-083.50M Page 44

circumstances of view discussed above.

These simulations do not include views from all potentially affected visual resources, but rather

provide representative examples of how the proposed Project will appear under varying circumstances

of distance and landscape character.

Because the visibility of wind turbines will most commonly affect local residents from rural homes

and during daily travel along local roads, and most open vistas of the Project typically occur in

isolated locations along rural roadways, views selected for photo simulation favor such views even

though the number of viewers will not be large.

All simulations completed for the SVRA (Appendix A) and the original VRA (Appendix B) and are

identified in Table 7. The simulations contained in Appendix B are based on the DEIS layout and

turbine selection, and are contained in the SVRA for informational purposes.

Photo Simulation Methodology – A photo simulation of the proposed Project was prepared from each

key receptor location identified in Table 7. Photo simulations were developed by superimposing a

rendering of a three-dimensional computer model of the proposed Project into the base photograph

taken from each corresponding visual resource (see section 3.4.1). The three-dimensional computer

model for the revised simulations were developed using Autodesk Civil 3D® and 3D Studio Max

Design® software (3D Studio Max).

Simulated perspectives (camera views) were then matched to the corresponding base photograph for

each simulated view by replicating the precise coordinates of the field camera position (as recorded by

GPS) and the focal length of the camera lens used (50mm). Precisely matching these parameters

assures scale accuracy between the base photograph and the subsequent simulated view. The camera’s

target position was set to match the bearing of the corresponding existing condition photograph asrecorded in the field. With the existing conditions photograph displayed as a “viewport background,”

and the viewport properties set to match the photograph pixel dimensions, minor camera adjustments

were made (horizontal and vertical positioning, and camera roll) to align the horizon in the

background photograph with the corresponding features of the 3D model.

To verify the camera alignment, visible elements (e.g. structures, towers, roads) within the photograph

are identified and digitized from digital orthophotos. Each element is assigned a Z value (elevation)

based on DEM data and then imported to 3D Studio Max. A 3D terrain model is also created (using

DEM data) to replicate the existing site topography. The digitized elements are then aligned with

corresponding elements in the photograph by adjusting the camera target. If necessary, slight cameraadjustments are made to ensure and accurate alignment.

Once the camera alignment is verified, a to-scale 3D model of the proposed Project is merged into the

model space. The 3D model of the Project is intended to accurately convey the current design intent.

To the extent practicable, and to the extent necessary to reveal impacts, design details of the proposed

GE 1.6-100 turbines were built into the 3D model and incorporated into the photo simulation.

Consequently, the scale, alignment, elevations and location of the visible elements of the proposed

facilities are true to the conceptual design.




#07-083.50M Page 45

With the model in place, a daylight system is created based on the date and time of the photograph.

Regional inputs such as time zone and location are also applied to the daylight system. To accurately

depict "reflected light" a ground plane utilizing the previously created mesh (based on DEM data) is

placed in the scene. This ground plane also portrays any additional shadows cast by the proposed

Project. In some cases a minor haze may be applied to the proposed Project to increase realism and

show distance fall-off. To determine the correct amount of haze, existing elements within the view

were evaluated and compared to actual textures and colors (e.g. a radio tower that normally appears

dark grey becomes light grey due to the effects of atmospheric haze). A similar haze overlay is then

applied to the turbines to duplicate the atmospheric conditions present in the photograph. A database

of existing turbine photographs, at variable distances is also used to verify simulation color accuracy.

The camera view is then rendered and saved.

The rendered view was then opened using Adobe Photoshop CS4 software for post-production editing

(i.e., airbrush out portion of turbines that fall below foreground topography and vegetation).

Arms Length Rule – The photo simulations included in Appendix A have been printed using an11”x17” page format. At this image size, the page should be held at approximately arms length

16so

that the scene will appear at the correct scale. Viewing the image closer would make the scene appear

too large and viewing the image from greater distance would make the scene appear too small

compared to what an observer would actually see in the field.

For viewing photo simulations at other page sizes (i.e., computer monitor, projected image or other

hard copy output) the viewing distance/page width ratio is approximately 1.5/1. For example, if the

simulation were viewed on a 42-inch wide poster size enlargement, the correct viewing distance would

be approximately 63 inches; or 5 ¼ feet.

Field Viewing – The photo simulations present an accurate depiction of the appearance of proposed

turbines suitable for general understanding of the degree and character of Project visibility. However,

these images are a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional landscape. The human eye

is capable of recognizing a greater level of detail than can be illustrated in a two-dimensional image.

Agency decision-makers and interested parties may benefit from viewing the photo simulations in the

field from any or all of the simulated vantage points. In this manner, observers can directly compare

the level of detail visible in the base photograph with actual field observed conditions.

3.4.3 Cumulative Photo Simulations

In addition to the Project, Acciona Energy North (Acciona) is proposing the 51-turbine St. Lawrence

Wind Farm that will also be within the Town of Cape Vincent. Acciona’s project will be located

approximately one half mile northwest of the Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project at the closest point.

To illustrate the potential cumulative effect, a series of simulations were created to depict both

projects.

16 Viewing distance is calculated based a 39.6-degree field-of-view for the 50mm camera lens used, and the 15.5” wide image presented in

Appendix A. “Arm’s length” is assumed to be approximately 22.5 inches from the eye. Arm’s length varies for individual viewers.




#07-083.50M Page 46

In order to prepare the simulations, Saratoga Associates assumed that all Acciona turbines will have a

tower of approximately 263 feet tall from ground to hub and each of the three blades will be

approximately 134.5 feet in length (269 foot rotor diameter) with an apex rotation reaching

approximately 397.5 above ground elevation.17

The methodology for producing the cumulative

simulations is the same as described above in Section 3.4.2. Of the nine simulations created for the

SVRA, five views actually have a potential to view the proposed St. Lawrence Wind Farm (Appendix

A), specifically:

>>>> Viewpoint 1 – Burnham Point State Park and Campground;

>>>> Viewpoint 12a – Intersection of Millens Bay Rd. and Mason Rd.;

>>>> Viewpoint 39 – Long Point State Park;

>>>> Viewpoint 59 – Cape Vincent Town Hall; and

>>>> Viewpoint 66 – Broadway Historic District.

These locations illustrate the potential visibility of both the Project and the proposed St. Lawrence

Wind Farm. In addition, views at varying distances from both projects demonstrate how foreground,

middleground, and background views will be affected by the addition of the both projects.

3.5 CHARACTER OF PROJECT VISIBILITY

3.5.1 Compatibility with Regional Landscape Patterns

The visual character of a landscape is defined by the patterns, forms and scale relationships created by

lines, colors, and textures. Some patterns dominate while others are subordinate. The qualitative

impact of a Project is the effect the development has on these patterns, and by corollary on, the visual

character of the regional landscape.

Existing Landscape – The visible patterns (form, line, color, and texture) found within the Projectregion can best be described as representative of the agricultural landscape typical of the region.

Given the rural nature of the study area, visible colors are natural, muted shades of green, brown, gray,

and other earth tones. When viewed from a distance, the landscape maintains a rather uniform and

unbroken blending of colors, which tend to fade with hazing of varying atmospheric conditions.

The following describes the compatibility of the proposed Project with regional landscape patterns

within which it is contained and viewed. This evaluation is graphically depicted in the photographic

simulations provided in Appendices A and B.

Form – The form of the regional landscape is essentially a planar landscape. The woodland edge of

agricultural fields commonly creates a brief vertical offset of the prevailing planar form. The

proposed Project will be comprised of 84 thin tapered vertical structures distributed throughout the

landscape; topped with large rotating blades. The introduction of such clearly man-made and kinetic

structures creates an obvious visual disruption of the agricultural landscape.

17 All turbine locations for the St. Lawrence Wind Farm were provided by BP Wind Energy.




#07-083.50M Page 47

Line – The existing landscape maintains a horizontal line formed by extended vistas over an

agricultural plain that often forms the visible horizon. The well-defined vertical form of 84 turbines

that may be visible across this plain introduces a contrasting and distinct perpendicular element into

the landscape. Views will commonly include multiple turbines at varying distances from the viewer.

It is anticipated that the turbines will most commonly be viewed in an off-axis manner creating the

appearance of a rather random arrangement.

Color – Generally, the neutral off-white color of the proposed turbine tower, nacelle and blades will be

viewed against the background sky. Under these conditions the turbines would be highly compatible

with the hue, saturation and brightness of the background sky and distant elements of the natural

landscape. Color contrast will decrease with increasing distance and/or periods of increased

atmospheric haze or precipitation.

Texture – Tubular style monopole towers have been specifically selected, instead of skeletal (or

lattice) frame towers, to minimize textural contrast and provide a more simple, visually appealing

form.

Scale/Spatial Dominance – The proposed wind turbines will be the tallest visible elements on the

horizon and will be disproportionate to other elements (e.g. silos) commonly visible on the regional

landscape. From most foreground and middleground vantage points the contrast of the proposed

turbines with commonly recognizable features, such as structures and trees, will result in the proposed

Project being perceived as a highly dominant visual element. However, when viewed from

background vantage points, the turbines perceived scale and spatial dominance begins to lessen.

3.5.2 Visual Character during the Construction Period

Construction of the proposed wind turbines will require use of large mobile cranes and other largeconstruction vehicles. Turbine components will be delivered in sections via large semi-trucks. The

construction period for each turbine is expected to be quite short. As such, construction related visual

impacts will be brief and are not expected to result in adverse prolonged visual impact to area residents

or visitors.

3.6 SHADOW FLICKER ANALYSIS

Wind turbines can cause a flickering effect when shadows created by rotating turbine blades move

across the ground and nearby structures. This can cause a disturbance within structures (hereafter

referred to as “receptors”) when the repeating pattern of light intensity change falls across the

windows of buildings. The effect, known as shadow-flicker, is most conspicuous when windows facea rotating wind turbine and when the sun is low in the sky (e.g. shortly after sunrise or shortly before

sunset).

Evidence from operational turbines suggests that the intensity of shadow-flicker is only an issue at

short distances. It is generally accepted that shadow-flicker will have a minimal to unperceivable




#07-083.50M Page 48

affect on properties at a distance greater than ten turbine rotor diameters18

from the turbine. Shadow-

flicker will only occur when certain conditions coincide:

>>>> Daylight hours (sunrise to sunset) – shadow-flicker does not occur at night;

>>>> Sunshine – shadow-flicker will not occur on foggy or overcast days when daylight is not

sufficiently bright to cast shadows;

>>>> Receptor is within ten rotor diameters of the turbine – beyond this distance a person should

not perceive a wind turbine to be chopping through sunlight, but rather as an object with the

sun behind it.19

>>>> Windows face the turbine – turbine shadows can enter a structure through unshaded

windows; and

>>>> Turbine is rotating – no flicker will occur when the turbine is not in operation.

Because of constantly changing solar aspect and azimuth, shadows will be cast on specific days of the

year and may pass a stationary receptor relatively quickly. Shadow-flicker will not be an everyday

event or be of extended duration when it does occur. Additionally, shadow-flicker is most likely to

occur during early morning or late afternoon hours, thus specific receptors may experience shadow-

flicker, but the occupants of the receptor may either be inactive or absent. For example, receptors

such as residential dwellings located to the west of a turbine, are more likely to fall within the shadow

zone shortly after sunrise when affected residents are typically asleep with shades drawn. Receptors

located to the east of a turbine are more likely to fall within the shadow zone shortly before sunset. In

this case, receptors such as schools or office buildings are likely to be unoccupied during this time.

When the rotor plane is in-line with the

sun and receptor (as seen from the

receptor), the cast shadows will be

very narrow (Image 1), of low

intensity, and will move quickly past

the stationary receptor. When the rotor

plane is perpendicular to the sun-

receptor “view line,” the cast shadow

of the blades will move within a larger

elliptical area (Image 2).

The distance between a wind turbine

and a receptor affects the intensity of

the shadows cast by the blades, andtherefore the intensity of flickering.

Shadows cast close to a turbine will be

more intense, distinct and “focused.”

This is because a greater proportion of the sun’s disc is intermittently blocked. Similarly, flickering is

more intense if created by the area of a blade closer to the rotor and further from the tip. Beyond ten

18 Planning for Renewable Energy - A Companion Guide to PPS22 Queen’s Printer and Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office 2004 19 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/tna/+/http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/renew_3.5.1.4.htm/ (Website last accessed on August 17,

2010).

Image 2 - Perpindicular Rotor PlaneImage 1 - Aligned Rotor Plane




#07-083.50M Page 49

turbine diameters the intensity of the blade shadow is considered negligible and at such a distance

there will be virtually no, or limited, distinct chopping of the sunlight.



Key

Proposed Wind Turbine

Hours of Shadow-Flicker

Less than 2

2 - 10

10 - 20

20 - 30

30 - 40

Greater than 40

Coun

ty Ro

ute 4

State Route 12E

Burnt Rock Rd

Bates

Rd

Huff R

d

County Route 4

30

0

1,000

2,000

500

Feet


Project

Figure 4

Typical Shadow Pattern From Turbine #30

(Layout 10/28/2010)







File Location: B:\2007\07083\Maps\Shadow_TypicalPattern101203.mxd

January 2011

30

PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M







#07-083.50M Page 51

3.6.1 Shadow-Flicker Methodology

The Projects shadow-flicker analysis was conducted using WindPRO 2.6 Basis software (WindPro)

and associated shadow module. This is a widely accepted modeling software package developed

specifically for the design and evaluation of wind power projects. Variables used for shadow

calculations include:

> Terrain – The terrain within the Project area was developed using a digital elevation model

(DEM) obtained through the United States Geological Survey in 1/3 arc second resolution

(approximately 10 meters). This data was interpolated and exported at 1-meter interval

contours for use in WindPro.

> Latitude and Longitude – WindPro considers the azimuth and altitude of the sun in relation to

the proposed turbine. For this analysis, the Project coordinates were specified by using

Universal Transverse Mercator coordinate system (UTM) North American Datum (NAD) 83

Zone 18.

> Turbine Dimensions and Blade Rotation Speed – For the shadow-flicker analysis, the turbinewas modeled using dimensions of the Vestas V100. An alternate turbine was used in this

analysis, as the turbine selected for the Project was not available in the WindPro catalogue. It

is anticipated that the Vestas V100 will be similar to the selected GE 1.6-100 turbine. The

analysis assumed a hub height of 263 feet (80 meters) and a rotor diameter of 328 feet (100

meters). The frequency of flickering is directly related to the rotor speed and number of

blades on the rotor. The shadow-flicker analysis assumed a three-bladed wind turbine

rotating at 14.9 revolutions per minute (RPM), which is the approximate nominal speed of the

Vestas V100 turbine. While the proposed turbine (GE 1.6-100) may have a slightly higher

RPM (approximately 16.2), it is anticipated that this difference will have little to no effect on

the shadow-flicker results.

> Receptor Locations – Locations of residences in the Project Area were provided by BP Wind

Energy and supplemented by Saratoga Associates. These locations were determined by a

combination of interpretation of aerial photographs and field verification. The shadow

analysis was conducted for all residences located within 1,000 meters (3,280 feet) radius of

any proposed turbine, a distance equal to ten times the rotor diameter of the turbine. This

distance is generally considered to be the limit of shadow impact. The locations of 755

residences20

, which are included in this analysis, are shown in Appendix C.

> Receptor Windows – WindPro has the capability to identify where windows are located in

each receptor, so that shadow-flicker hours are only calculated when shadows are cast in the

direction in which the window faces. For this analysis, it was conservatively assumed that

every receptor had windows in all directions. WindPro refers to this as the “Green house”

mode.

> Sunshine probabilities (percentage of time from sunrise to sunset with sunshine) – The

WindPro model calculates shadow frequency based on monthly sunshine probabilities. The

20 Receptor locations identified by Saratoga Associates have been identified by interpreting aerial photos and have not been field verified. The

number of locations contained in the shadow-flicker analysis should be considered conservative and may include vacant properties and/or

ancillary structures (e.g. silo).




#07-083.50M Page 52

following sunshine probabilities were used for this analysis and are based on 60 years of

historic meteorological data for the Syracuse Hancock International Airport (City of

Syracuse, NY), which is located approximately 86 miles south of the Project site.21

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

33% 39% 47% 49% 55% 59% 63% 59% 54% 44% 27% 25%

>>>> Screening from Vegetation and Structures – Trees and structures will block shadows from the

proposed wind turbine. Results from the WindPro model assume that the area lacks

vegetation and structures. This assumption is considered conservative, as shadows will not

occur in areas where the turbine is not visible due to the screening effects of vegetation and

structures. As part of Saratoga Associate’s analysis, the effect of vegetation is accounted for

by using GIS to overlay the WindPro results onto the vegetated turbine viewshed map (see

Appendix C). It was assumed that shadows will not occur in areas where turbines are not

visible due to the screening effects of vegetation.

>>>> Operational Time/Rotor Orientation –The WindPro model was given the number of hours per

year that the turbine might be operating for every wind direction identified below. The totalhours in the table below are 8,760 hours/year, or approximately 100% of the hours in one

calendar year. Moreover, the orientation of the rotor (determined by wind direction) affects

the size of a shadow cast area. To more accurately calculate the amount of time a shadow

will be over a specific location (based on rotor orientation), the WindPro model considers

typical wind direction. These hours are used to determine average annual shadow hours for

the year. The following operational time (hours per year [hrs/yr]) of wind direction is based

on meteorological data collected by BP Wind Energy from March 2006 to February 2008.

N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW

306 593 747 410 239 188 224 352 679 810 1,019 1,034 836 697 367 259

Using the variables identified above, WindPro was used to calculate the theoretical number of hours

per year the shadow of a rotor would fall at any given location within the 1,000-meter radius of the

turbine. Hours for each receptor do not take into account activities within the receptor (i.e. rooms of

primary use or enjoyment versus less frequently occupied rooms) or account for the direction/location

of windows. Figures contained in Appendix C, illustrates the geographic area of the shadow impact

using the following increments:

>>>> Less than 2 hrs/yr;

>>>> 2-10 hrs/yr;

>>>> 10-20 hrs/yr;

>>>> 20-30 hrs/yr;

>>>> 30-40 hrs/yr; and

>>>> Greater than 40 hrs/yr.

21 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/online/ccd/pctpos.txt (data for Syracuse, NY) (Website last accessed on November 15, 2010).




#07-083.50M Page 53

3.6.2 Shadow-Flicker Impact on Existing Structures

There are 755 existing structures located within a 1,000-meter radius of a proposed turbine.22 These

structures were identified through a combination of air-photo interpretation and field verification.

Each existing structure was evaluated to determine potential shadow impact. Table 8 summarizes the

number of hours per year each inventoried structure would theoretically fall within the shadow zone

of one or more proposed turbines. The locations of inventoried structures are included in figures

contained in Appendix C.

22 Gaps in numbering are a result of receptors falling outside the shadow-flicker study area and as a result have been removed from this analysis.




#07-083.50M Page 54

Table 8 Shadow-Flicker Summary

Map

ID23

Maximum

Potential Shadow

Hours per Day

Expected

Potential Shadow

Hours per Year24

Receptor

Screened by

Intervening

Vegetation?25

Map

ID

Maximum

Potential Shadow

Hours per Day

Expected

Potential Shadow

Hours per Year

Receptor

Screened by

Intervening

Vegetation?

1 0:56 15:49 No 64 1:00 55:38 No2 0:57 16:58 No 65 1:03 57:38 No

3 0:59 20:34 No 66 1:02 56:53 No

4 0:48 36:38 No 67 0:52 31:22 No

5 0:45 32:49 No 68 1:16 57:12 No

6 0:28 6:14 No 69 1:14 34:05 No7 0:29 6:42 No 70 1:12 48:30 No

8 0:25 2:38 No 71 1:10 54:48 No

9 0:32 20:56 No 72 1:20 77:28 No13 1:18 24:49 No 73 1:13 58:34 No

14 0:57 24:47 No 74 1:08 27:30 No

15 0:35 8:07 No 75 1:09 29:24 No16 0:34 7:14 No 76 0:48 8:53 No

17 0:45 21:32 No 77 0:30 3:53 No

18 0:45 22:44 No 78 0:31 4:08 No

19 1:01 25:56 No 79 0:30 3:38 No

20 0:34 11:21 No 80 0:34 14:25 No

21 0:33 11:18 No 81 0:28 4:06 No22 0:33 10:49 No 82 0:37 16:16 No

23 0:29 9:58 No 83 0:38 14:33 No

24 0:28 7:02 No 84 0:25 3:09 No25 1:28 32:28 No 85 0:24 3:07 No

26 0:56 8:00 No 86 0:24 3:10 No

27 0:54 7:42 No 87 0:36 6:21 No28 0:51 6:27 No 88 0:48 11:34 No

29 0:54 7:01 No 89 0:45 8:04 No

30 0:47 10:08 No 90 0:46 8:46 No

31 0:37 5:03 No 91 1:57 26:53 No

32 0:44 8:46 No 92 0:44 7:50 No33 0:57 29:09 No 93 0:53 14:11 No

34 1:05 30:05 No 94 0:45 16:17 No

35 1:03 29:10 No 95 0:36 10:09 No36 1:33 35:20 No 96 034 9:30 No

37 0:47 11:54 No 97 0:31 12:28 No

38 0:41 10:51 No 98 0:29 8:00 No

39 0:41 10:03 No 99 0:30 8:19 No40 0:38 17:57 No 100 0:30 8:50 No

41 0:41 10:08 No 101 0:33 18:23 No

42 0:41 11:30 No 102 1:53 31:35 No

43 0:57 16:48 No 103 0:30 15:33 No

44 1:06 19:02 No 104 0:24 4:39 No45 0:37 5:42 No 105 0:24 4:37 No

46 0:43 3:36 No 106 0:24 4:27 No

47 1:10 29:25 No 107 0:26 3:13 No48 0:00 0:00 No 108 0:27 3:22 No

49 0:00 0:00 No 109 0:34 10:18 No

50 0:00 0:00 No 110 0:37 10:35 No51 0:44 13:08 No 111 0:38 10:45 No

52 0:28 5:14 No 112 0:40 11:14 Yes

53 0:14 1:35 No 113 0:58 19:17 No

54 0:45 20:06 No 114 1:30 29:36 No

55 0:42 18:21 No 115 0:40 12:35 No

56 0:27 3:28 No 116 1:09 18:22 No

57 0:25 2:47 No 117 1:01 15:52 No58 1:14 31:14 No 118 1:04 17:48 No

59 0:35 9:19 No 119 0:40 11:55 No60 0:34 10:35 No 120 0:56 17:37 No

61 0:34 13:43 No 121 0:57 21:24 No

62 0:35 14:02 No 122 0:58 25:22 No

63 1:03 43:11 No 123 0:56 26:08 No

23 Location of receptors provided in figures contained in Appendix C.24 Hours based on maximum potential shadow hours excluding the screening value of existing vegetation.




#07-083.50M Page 55


Map

ID23

Maximum

Potential Shadow

Hours per Day

Expected

Potential Shadow

Hours per Year24

Receptor

Screened by

Intervening

Vegetation?25

Map

ID

Maximum

Potential Shadow

Hours per Day

Expected

Potential Shadow

Hours per Year

Receptor

Screened by

Intervening

Vegetation?

124 0:59 26:09 No 198 0:46 39:39 No

125 1:21 25:49 No 199 0:44 41:09 No126 0:39 9:49 No 200 0:53 37:50 No127 0:36 5:40 No 201 0:58 32:32 No

128 0:38 6:47 No 202 0:57 25:31 No

129 0:38 7:05 No 203 0:36 10:18 No130 0:32 6:47 No 204 0:38 9:42 No

131 0:39 6:53 No 205 0:23 2:31 No

132 1:26 30:07 No 206 0:39 18:45 No133 0:49 10:04 No 207 0:28 3:03 No

134 0:47 8:30 No 208 0:27 3:02 No

135 0:47 8:44 No 209 0:00 0:00 No136 0:45 7:15 No 210 0:00 0:00 No

137 0:49 6:54 No 211 0:00 0:00 No

138 0:39 5:41 No 212 0:00 0:00 No139 0:38 6:23 No 213 0:56 36:05 No

140 1:16 26:39 No 214 0:42 11:17 No

141 0:41 5:39 No 215 0:47 12:15 No142 0:44 5:18 No 216 0:42 14:54 No

143 0:28 6:07 No 217 0:43 13:06 No144 0:27 6:48 No 218 0:00 0:00 No145 0:24 4:24 No 219 0:29 3:36 No

146 0:53 16:35 No 220 0:52 18:39 No

147 0:47 25:26 No 221 0:56 21:32 No148 0:46 27:17 No 222 1:04 36:16 No

149 0:38 14:20 No 223 1:04 30:34 No

150 0:33 12:11 No 224 0:00 0:00 No151 1:22 26:35 No 225 0:00 0:00 No

152 0:28 10:12 No 226 0:49 22:41 No

153 0:26 5:42 No 227 1:13 48:49 No154 0:25 10:19 No 228 0:27 7:08 No

155 0:25 11:33 No 229 0:29 6:53 No

156 0:28 11:58 No 230 0:32 12:44 No157 0:29 8:10 No 231 0:00 0:00 No

158 0:28 10:59 No 232 0:00 0:00 No

159 0:33 8:32 No 233 0:00 0:00 No160 0:36 11:34 No 234 0:00 0:00 No

161 0:45 20:59 No 235 0:00 0:00 No

162 0:44 18:27 No 236 0:00 0:00 No163 0:22 2:23 No 237 0:00 0:00 Yes

164 0:26 3:51 No 238 0:23 2:24 No

165 0:29 4:37 No 239 0:33 9:09 No166 0:00 0:00 No 240 0:35 14:44 No

167 0:00 0:00 No 241 0:33 16:20 No

168 0:00 0:00 No 242 0:39 17:13 No169 0:00 0:00 No 243 0:40 14:56 No

173 0:44 19:07 No 244 0:37 7:27 No

175 0:44 17:49 No 245 0:56 25:53 No176 0:24 2:21 No 246 0:53 23:09 No

180 0:00 0:00 No 247 0:57 42:39 No

181 0:00 0:00 No 248 0:53 28:52 No182 0:00 0:00 No 249 0:51 25:20 No

183 0:00 0:00 No 250 0:24 2:43 No

184 0:59 17:13 No 251 0:00 0:00 No

185 0:00 0:00 No 252 0:37 9:27 No186 0:00 0:00 No 253 0:25 10:21 No

187 0:00 0:00 No 254 0:28 13:52 No188 0:33 5:23 No 255 0:29 7:43 No

189 0:52 9:44 No 256 0:30 8:34 No

190 0:34 12:54 No 257 0:30 9:35 No191 0:54 26:58 No 258 0:38 12:08 No

192 0:38 9:34 No 259 0:38 24:39 No

193 0:51 39:31 No 260 0:38 15:23 No194 0:52 42:03 No 261 0:33 18:29 No

195 0:46 21:14 No 262 1:12 16:01 No

196 0:48 39:09 No 263 0:35 6:18 No197 0:48 36:22 No 264 0:44 25:29 No




#07-083.50M Page 56


Map

ID23

Maximum

Potential Shadow

Hours per Day

Expected

Potential Shadow

Hours per Year24

Receptor

Screened by

Intervening

Vegetation?25

Map

ID

Maximum

Potential Shadow

Hours per Day

Expected

Potential Shadow

Hours per Year

Receptor

Screened by

Intervening

Vegetation?

265 0:51 31:04 No 350 0:37 8:56 No

266 0:56 37:01 No 351 0:00 0:00 No267 0:35 13:47 No 352 0:39 15:15 No268 1:09 30:12 No 353 0:49 13:54 No

269 1:01 13:36 No 354 0:53 15:31 No

270 0:56 8:48 No 355 0:35 5:14 No

271 0:40 10:16 No 356 0:19 0:37 No

272 0:27 15:37 No 357 0:00 0:00 No

273 0:34 12:54 No 358 0:00 0:00 No274 0:39 7:28 No 359 0:00 0:00 No

275 0:35 12:35 No 360 0:00 0:00 No

276 0:42 17:24 No 361 0:00 0:00 No277 1:05 21:22 No 362 0:00 0:00 No

278 0:32 12:02 No 363 0:00 0:00 No

279 0:49 17:05 No 364 0:00 0:00 No280 0:40 16:16 No 365 0:40 11:59 No

281 0:24 2:46 No 366 0:40 9:50 No

282 0:41 26:46 No 367 0:11 0:37 No283 0:29 3:49 No 368 0:28 3:45 No

284 0:34 15:50 No 369 0:24 2:36 No285 1:12 43:21 No 370 0:35 9:00 No296 0:30 6:48 No 371 0:35 10:39 No

304 0:00 0:00 No 372 0:34 11:55 No

305 0:00 0:00 No 373 0:00 0:00 No306 0:00 0:00 No 374 0:29 4:15 No

307 0:29 6:46 No 375 1:02 45:59 No

308 0:00 0:00 No 376 0:56 40:15 No309 0:00 0:00 No 377 1:04 50:47 No

310 0:00 0:00 No 378 0:57 47:32 No

311 0:00 0:00 No 379 1:10 59:31 No312 0:00 0:00 No 380 1:05 39:30 No

313 0:00 0:00 No 381 0:46 12:29 No

314 0:00 0:00 No 382 1:08 31:53 No315 0:34 5:47 No 383 0:29 3:22 No

316 0:50 8:53 No 384 0:00 0:00 No

317 0:44 17:45 Yes 385 0:30 4:33 No

318 0:00 0:00 No 386 0:40 13:59 No319 0:51 26:45 No 387 0:34 21:13 No

320 0:47 30:09 No 388 0:35 17:30 No321 0:52 26:54 No 389 0:36 16:10 No

322 0:34 8:40 No 390 0:37 22:42 No

323 0:27 3:01 No 391 0:35 12:14 No324 0:00 0:00 No 392 0:25 4:09 No

325 0:20 2:30 No 393 0:37 6:15 No

326 0:46 11:37 No 394 0:51 13:17 No327 0:43 30:25 No 395 0:36 5:46 No

328 0:27 5:23 No 396 0:48 12:11 No

329 0:00 0:00 No 397 0:38 12:21 No330 0:30 8:26 No 398 0:35 9:53 No

331 0:25 2:24 No 399 0:34 9:45 No

333 1:17 23:40 No 400 0:32 12:58 No334 0:33 7:21 No 401 0:29 7:55 No

335 0:37 7:43 No 402 0:32 16:30 No

336 0:59 25:54 No 403 0:25 8:40 No

337 0:31 11:44 No 404 0:28 3:29 No338 0:32 11:37 No 405 0:34 9:32 No

339 0:28 6:58 No 406 0:33 10:27 No340 0:00 0:00 No 407 0:00 0:00 No

341 0:30 7:25 No 408 0:36 10:10 No

342 0:54 7:53 No 409 0:39 10:41 No343 0:52 6:38 No 410 0:41 13:13 No

344 0:42 8:07 No 411 0:47 16:24 No

345 0:35 4:42 No 412 0:47 21:35 No346 0:39 5:54 No 413 1:09 19:01 No

347 0:43 16:59 No 414 0:48 11:32 No

348 1:00 22:12 No 415 0:42 9:18 No349 0:43 11:44 No 416 0:40 10:52 No




#07-083.50M Page 57


Map

ID23

Maximum

Potential Shadow

Hours per Day

Expected

Potential Shadow

Hours per Year24

Receptor

Screened by

Intervening

Vegetation?25

Map

ID

Maximum

Potential Shadow

Hours per Day

Expected

Potential Shadow

Hours per Year

Receptor

Screened by

Intervening

Vegetation?

417 0:58 19:11 No 486 0:00 0:00 No

418 0:00 0:00 No 487 0:26 3:52 No419 0:52 17:02 No 488 0:00 0:00 No420 0:39 9:09 No 489 0:00 0:00 No

421 0:35 5:16 No 491 0:00 0:00 No

422 0:37 6:29 No 492 0:44 18:32 No423 0:33 5:07 No 493 0:25 2:27 No

424 0:35 6:06 No 494 0:25 2:35 No

425 0:34 5:48 No 495 0:25 2:32 No426 0:33 6:55 No 496 0:00 0:00 No

427 0:30 6:55 No 497 0:25 2:30 No

428 0:33 7:32 No 517 0:39 11:18 No429 0:00 0:00 No 518 1:09 33:34 No

430 0:32 7:02 No 519 0:36 5:41 No

431 0:28 5:53 Yes 520 1:30 61:45 No432 0:37 6:48 No 521 0:34 7:27 No

433 0:33 4:18 No 522 0:00 0:00 No

434 0:35 5:06 No 523 0:32 10:45 No435 0:39 6:25 No 524 0:00 0:00 No

436 0:32 12:09 No 525 0:49 11:01 No437 0:33 9:06 No 526 0:39 11:44 No438 0:41 15:40 Yes 527 0:34 5:55 No

439 0:55 21:43 No 528 0:58 39:54 No

440 0:36 7:49 No 529 0:57 16:54 No441 0:52 23:21 No 530 1:19 57:18 No

442 0:39 7:37 No 531 0:16 0:41 No

443 0:52 21:03 No 532 0:45 10:08 No444 0:53 22:44 No 533 0:42 8:42 No

445 0:57 36:19 No 534 0:47 13:26 Yes

446 0:24 2:25 No 535 0:42 8:53 No449 0:24 9:33 No 536 1:15 41:54 No

450 0:28 7:22 No 537 1:06 40:18 No

451 0:30 9:27 No 538 0:59 55:36 No452 0:37 10:55 No 539 0:32 3:42 No

453 1:14 20:16 No 540 0:29 2:49 Yes

454 0:41 24:27 No 541 0:00 0:00 Yes455 0:41 17:50 No 542 0:00 0:00 Yes

456 0:40 25:36 No 543 0:55 6:57 No

457 0:35 15:57 No 544 1:57 42:48 No458 0:31 13:24 No 545 0:28 3:55 No

459 0:32 13:43 No 546 0:14 1:00 No

460 0:48 18:03 No 547 0:00 0:00 No461 1:09 28:36 No 548 0:00 0:00 No

462 0:43 14:24 No 549 0:00 0:00 No

463 0:31 6:27 No 550 0:00 0:00 No464 1:17 18:20 No 551 0:26 5:10 No

465 0:43 7:17 No 552 0:00 0:00 No

466 0:42 4:55 No 553 0:00 0:00 No467 0:37 15:52 No 554 0:26 3:19 No

468 0:35 8:58 No 555 0:30 5:04 No

469 0:48 8:04 No 556 0:33 7:09 No470 0:48 9:49 No 557 0:32 12:27 No

471 0:59 9:46 No 558 0:34 12:22 No

472 0:56 17:18 No 559 0:14 0:59 No

473 0:43 19:32 No 560 0:00 0:00 No474 0:47 15:14 No 561 0:00 0:00 No

475 0:46 18:43 No 562 0:00 0:00 No476 0:28 6:11 No 563 0:00 0:00 No

477 0:31 8:46 No 564 0:00 0:00 No

478 0:38 16:47 No 565 0:00 0:00 No479 0:32 5:44 No 566 0:00 0:00 No

480 0:42 23:02 No 567 0:00 0:00 No

481 0:44 17:13 No 568 0:00 0:00 No482 0:17 1:46 No 569 0:00 0:00 No

483 0:00 0:00 No 570 0:00 0:00 No

484 0:00 0:00 No 571 0:00 0:00 No485 1:00 34:07 No 572 0:00 0:00 No




#07-083.50M Page 58


Map

ID23

Maximum

Potential Shadow

Hours per Day

Expected

Potential Shadow

Hours per Year24

Receptor

Screened by

Intervening

Vegetation?25

Map

ID

Maximum

Potential Shadow

Hours per Day

Expected

Potential Shadow

Hours per Year

Receptor

Screened by

Intervening

Vegetation?

573 0:00 0:00 No 640 0:25 2:34 No

574 0:64 29:45 Yes 641 0:26 2:56 No575 0:31 20:45 No 642 0:00 0:00 No576 0:45 10:26 No 643 0:34 4:13 No

577 0:46 29:34 No 644 0:33 4:12 Yes

578 0:28 2:59 No 645 0:33 4:10 No579 0:35 5:24 No 646 0:32 4:11 No

580 0:25 3:26 No 647 0:32 4:02 No

581 0:25 2:43 No 648 0:31 3:59 No582 0:00 0:00 No 649 0:30 3:41 No

583 0:00 0:00 No 650 0:29 3:32 No

584 0:00 0:00 No 651 0:29 3:28 No585 0:00 0:00 No 652 0:28 3:18 No

586 0:00 0:00 No 653 0:27 3:10 No

587 0:00 0:00 No 654 0:27 3:07 No588 0:00 0:00 No 655 0:26 3:01 No

589 0:00 0:00 No 656 0:26 2:57 No

590 0:00 0:00 No 657 0:25 2:51 No591 0:00 0:00 No 658 0:25 2:45 No

592 0:00 0:00 No 659 0:24 2:41 No593 0:00 0:00 No 660 0:24 2:40 No594 0:00 0:00 No 661 0:24 2:35 No

595 0:00 0:00 No 663 0:24 2:42 No

596 0:00 0:00 No 664 0:24 2:47 No597 0:00 0:00 No 665 0:25 2:58 No

598 0:00 0:00 No 666 0:25 3:00 No

599 0:00 0:00 No 667 0:26 3:07 No600 0:00 0:00 No 668 0:27 3:14 No

601 0:00 0:00 No 669 0:31 3:59 No

602 0:00 0:00 No 670 0:31 4:08 No603 0:00 0:00 No 671 0:33 4:28 No

604 0:00 0:00 No 672 0:35 4:47 No

605 0:00 0:00 No 673 0:36 4:50 No606 0:00 0:00 No 674 0:36 5:11 No

607 0:00 0:00 No 675 0:41 9:00 No

608 0:00 0:00 No 676 0:40 8:36 No609 0:00 0:00 No 677 0:39 8:17 No

610 0:00 0:00 No 678 0:38 7:50 No

611 0:00 0:00 No 679 0:37 5:34 No612 0:00 0:00 No 680 0:36 5:18 No

613 0:00 0:00 No 681 0:32 4:20 No

614 0:00 0:00 No 682 0:30 4:11 No615 0:00 0:00 No 683 0:30 4:13 No

616 0:00 0:00 No 684 0:29 3:58 No

617 0:00 0:00 No 685 0:28 3:51 No618 0:00 0:00 No 686 0:28 3:37 No

619 0:00 0:00 No 687 0:26 3:14 No

620 0:00 0:00 No 688 0:25 3:04 No621 0:00 0:00 No 689 0:25 3:00 No

622 0:00 0:00 No 690 0:25 2:57 No

623 0:00 0:00 No 691 0:24 2:48 No624 0:00 0:00 No 692 0:26 3:23 No

625 0:00 0:00 No 693 0:27 3:31 No

626 0:00 0:00 No 694 0:29 4:09 No

627 0:00 0:00 No 695 0:30 4:23 No628 0:00 0:00 No 696 0:30 4:29 No

629 0:00 0:00 No 697 0:31 4:37 No630 0:00 0:00 No 698 0:32 4:52 No

631 0:00 0:00 No 699 0:33 5:14 No

632 0:00 0:00 No 700 0:33 5:08 No633 0:24 2:14 No 701 0:33 5:17 No

634 0:24 2:21 No 702 0:34 5:28 No

635 0:25 2:24 No 703 0:35 5:41 No636 0:26 2:41 No 704 0:35 5:49 No

637 0:25 2:17 No 705 0:37 8:05 No

638 0:26 5:42 No 706 0:38 8:18 No639 1:31 75:57 No 707 0:42 9:33 No




#07-083.50M Page 59


Map

ID23

Maximum

Potential Shadow

Hours per Day

Expected

Potential Shadow

Hours per Year24

Receptor

Screened by

Intervening

Vegetation?25

Map

ID

Maximum

Potential Shadow

Hours per Day

Expected

Potential Shadow

Hours per Year

Receptor

Screened by

Intervening

Vegetation?

708 0:43 10:31 No 763 0:00 0:00 No

709 0:45 10:50 No 764 0:00 0:00 No710 0:27 3:38 No 765 0:00 0:00 No711 0:15 2:37 No 766 0:00 0:00 No

712 0:00 0:00 No 767 0:00 0:00 No

713 0:35 20:50 No 768 0:00 0:00 No714 0:42 13:18 No 769 0:00 0:00 No

715 0:25 7:41 No 770 0:00 0:00 No

716 0:25 8:01 No 771 0:00 0:00 No717 0:00 0:00 No 772 0:00 0:00 No

718 0:00 0:00 No 773 0:00 0:00 No

719 0:00 0:00 No 774 0:00 0:00 No720 0:00 0:00 No 775 0:00 0:00 No

721 0:00 0:00 No 776 0:00 0:00 No

722 0:00 0:00 No 777 0:00 0:00 No723 0:00 0:00 No 778 0:00 0:00 No

724 0:00 0:00 No 780 0:00 0:00 No

725 0:00 0:00 No 781 0:00 0:00 No728 0:00 0:00 No 782 0:00 0:00 No

729 0:00 0:00 No 783 0:00 0:00 No733 0:00 0:00 No 784 0:00 0:00 No734 0:22 6:20 No 785 0:00 0:00 No

735 0:23 6:50 No 786 0:00 0:00 No

736 0:24 7:25 No 787 0:00 0:00 No737 0:25 8:06 No 788 0:00 0:00 No

738 0:25 8:37 No 789 0:00 0:00 No

739 0:00 0:00 No 790 0:00 0:00 No740 0:00 0:00 No 791 0:00 0:00 No

741 0:00 0:00 No 792 0:00 0:00 No

742 0:00 0:00 No 793 0:00 0:00 No743 0:00 0:00 No 794 0:00 0:00 No

744 0:00 0:00 No 795 0:00 0:00 No

745 0:00 0:00 No 796 0:00 0:00 No746 0:00 0:00 No 797 0:00 0:00 No

748 0:00 0:00 No 798 0:00 0:00 No

749 0:00 0:00 No 799 0:00 0:00 No750 0:00 0:00 No 800 0:00 0:00 No

751 0:00 0:00 No 801 0:00 0:00 No

752 0:00 0:00 No 802 0:00 0:00 No753 0:00 0:00 No 803 0:00 0:00 No

754 0:00 0:00 No 804 0:00 0:00 No

755 0:00 0:00 No 805 0:00 0:00 No756 0:00 0:00 No 806 0:00 0:00 No

757 0:00 0:00 No 807 0:04 0:10 No

758 0:00 0:00 No 808 0:00 0:00 No759 0:00 0:00 No 810 0:00 0:00 No

760 0:00 0:00 No 814 0:00 0:00 No

761 0:00 0:00 No 815 0:00 0:00 No762 0:00 0:00 No 816 0:00 0:00 No

817 0:00 0:00 No




#07-083.50M Page 60

3.6.3 Shadow-Flicker Analysis

Each of the 755 structures within a 1,000-meter radius of the proposed turbine was evaluated to

determine potential shadow-flicker impact. Table 9 summarizes the number of hours per year and day

each inventoried receptor would theoretically fall within the shadow zone of the proposed turbine.

The location of each inventoried receptor is included in the figures contained in Appendix C.26

Based on Table 8, there are 755 residences identified within 1,000 meters of a proposed turbine. A

summary of their annual shadow hours is provided below:

>>>> 225 (29.8%) do not fall within the shadow zone;

>>>> 8 (1.1%) will theoretically be impacted less than 2 hrs/yr;

>>>> 260 (34.4%) will theoretically be impacted 2-10 hrs/yr;



>>>> 30 (4.0%) will theoretically be impacted 30-40 hrs/yr; and

>>>> 26 (3.4%) will theoretically be impacted greater than 40 hrs/yr.

As identified, there are 56 (7.4%) receptors that are predicted to have over 30 hours per year of

shadows.

Table 9 Shadow-Flicker Summary of Structures Exceeding 30 Hrs/yr

Map ID

Expected Potential

Shadow Hours per

Year27

Receptor Screened by

Intervening Vegetation? Map ID

Expected Potential

Shadow Hours per

Year

Receptor Screened by

Intervening Vegetation?

4 36:38 No 222 36:16 No5 32:49 No 223 30:34 No

25 32:28 No 227 48:49 No

34 30:05 No 247 42:39 No36 35:20 No 265 31:04 No

58 31:14 No 266 37:01 No

63 43:11 No 268 30:12 No64 55:38 No 285 43:21 No

65 57:38 No 320 30:09 No

66 56:53 No 327 30:25 No

67 31:22 No 375 45:59 No

68 57:12 No 376 40:15 No

69 34:05 No 377 50:47 No70 48:30 No 378 47:32 No

71 54:48 No 379 59:31 No

72 77:28 No 380 39:30 No73 58:34 No 382 31:53 No

102 31:35 No 445 36:19 No132 30:07 No 485 34:07 No193 39:31 No 518 33:34 No

194 42:03 No 520 61:45 No196 39:09 No 528 39:54 No197 36:22 No 530 57:18 No

198 39:39 No 536 41:54 No

199 41:09 No 537 40:18 No200 37:50 No 538 55:36 No201 32:32 No 544 42:48 No213 36:05 No 639 75:57 No

26 Appendix C is broken down into separate sheets based on the last digit in the receptor identification number. For example Receptor 70 can be

found on Figure C10 and Receptor 15 can be found on Figure C5.27 Hours based on maximum potential shadow hours excluding the screening value of existing vegetation.




#07-083.50M Page 61

Of these 56 structures, none will likely be screened from the turbine shadow by intervening

vegetation. It appears that 47 of these structures are owned by Project participants (noted by

italicized text in Table 9) and nine are owned by non-participating landowners. Additionally, based

on field verification (completed by BP Wind Energy), six of these non-participating structures areancillary structures (e.g., barns or outbuildings) or vacant.

As identified in Table 9, Receptor 639 has the potential to receive the most shadow of all non-

participating landowners. Figure 5 shows all hours when shadows could theoretically be evident at

this location and which turbines may affect the receptor (different colors in the graph represent

shadows from different turbines). Note that it does not include adjustments for sunshine probability,

rotor orientation, vegetation, or project operating hours that may occur from year to year. Actual

average hours, therefore may be less than this graph shows, but the graph is useful because it

illustrates the times of the day and year that shadows are physically possible to occur.

As shown by Figure 5, shadow-flicker is possible at this location during (i) late February through

March and early October through mid October between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM from turbine 7, and

(ii) beginning April through mid September between 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM from turbine 4.

Figure 5 Months and Time of Day Receptor #639 May Receive Shadow




#07-083.50M Page 62

4.0 MITIGATION PROGRAM

Professional Design

>>>> Proposed turbines will not be used for commercial advertising, or include conspicuous lettering or

corporate logos identifying the Project owner or equipment manufacturer.

>>>> BP Wind Energy will maximize to the extent possible the subsurface routing of electrical

interconnects used to transmit power from turbine locations to the Project substation. It is

estimated that over 90% of the length of the interconnects will be subsurface.

>>>> BP Wind Energy will work with the adjoining St. Lawrence Wind Power Project to identify

alignments, which could allow development of a single transmission line corridor to service both

projects, thereby reducing the potential visual impacts (as compared to multiple transmission

corridors). BP Wind Energy anticipates constructing a short .33-mile overhead transmission line

in order to connect to the proposed St. Lawrence Wind Power transmission line.

>>>> Ancillary facilities (substation, operations and maintenance yard) will be located, as feasible,

away from major transportation corridors in order to minimize the perceived visual impact from

those parts of the Project, which are often regarded as the most “industrial” aspects.

Screening

>>>> Considering the proposed Project includes 84 wind turbines that will be visible over a wide

viewshed area, traditional treatments such as fences, earthen berms and vegetative screening

cannot be applied in an effective manner to screen these major structures.

>>>> In the event visibility of the proposed substation and operations/maintenance buildings are clearly

visible from the public right-of-way and is of concern to the community, perimeter plantings may

be used to further minimize visibility of these structures.

>>>> Based on the proximity to the Project, some sensitive receptors may be screened from visual

impacts through the strategic planting of vegetation. This may still result in a short-term impact

if it takes a period of time for the vegetation to reach the mature state needed for screening

purposes.

Project Siting/Relocation

>>>> The proposed Project is located in the Town of Cape Vincent for the following reasons:

- Favorable elevation and exposure of the Project area which is well suited for receiving

prevailing winds;

- Reliable winds that meet the necessary criteria for a commercially viable wind energy

project;

- The presence of an existing and proposed (by others) transmission infrastructure which will

deliver wind generated electricity to the grid; and

By their very nature, modern wind energy projects are large and highly visible facilities. Given

the necessary scale of wind energy turbines and the number of turbines required for a sustainable




#07-083.50M Page 63

project, there is no opportunity to relocate the Project or any of its components to other sites in

the Cape Vincent area where it would be substantially less visible.

>>>> Proposed turbines will maintain a minimum setback from residential structures. Such separation

of uses assures maximum screening benefit of existing woodland vegetation, where such exists.

>>>> Turbine placement will be largely dictated by project boundaries, environmental constraints,proximity to residential structures, and the positioning of adjacent wind turbines. However,

particularly in response to impacts to specific high value resources, some repositioning of

turbines may take place to reduce or eliminate impacts.

Camouflage/Disguise

>>>> The color of the blades, nacelle, and tower will be a neutral off-white. While the FAA mandates

this color for aviation safety, this color is well suited to minimize visual contrast with the

background sky.

Low Profile/Downsizing

>>>> The proposed Project includes wind energy-generating turbines in sufficient number to produce

134.4 MW of electricity.

>>>> The profile of the wind turbines is dictated by operational efficiency. Because wind turbine power

extraction is a function of the cube of wind speed (relatively large increases in power from small

increases in wind speed), the height of a tower plays an important role in overall energy

production. Reducing the height of the turbines to a meaningful degree would substantially

reduce the amount of energy produced rendering the development of the Project impractical or

would require constructing a greater number of smaller units to be economically viable.

Alternate Technologies>>>> Wind energy itself is an alternative to traditional energy sources. Meaningful development of

renewable wind energy will reduce reliance on fossil fuel combustion and nuclear fission

facilities and result in reduction in air pollutants and greenhouse gasses. A single 750-kilowatt

(0.75MW) wind turbine, operated for one year at a site with Class 4 wind speeds (winds

averaging 12.5-13.4 mph at 10 meters height), can be expected to displace a total of 1,179 tons

(2.36 million pounds) of carbon dioxide, 6.9 tons of sulfur dioxide, and 4.3 tons of nitrogen

oxides, based on the U.S. average utility generation fuel mix. More wind power means less smog,

acid rain, and greenhouse gas emissions.28

Non-specular Materials

>>>> Wind turbine towers will be painted metal structures and blades will be painted fiberglass

composite. Where specifications permit, non-specular paint will be used on all outside surfaces to

minimize reflected glare.

28 American Wind Energy Association, Wind Energy Fact Sheet, Wind Energy – the Fuel of the Future is Ready Today (http://www.awea.org).




#07-083.50M Page 64

Lighting

>>>> Due to the height of the proposed turbines, the Federal Aviation Administration requires red

flashing aviation obstruction lighting be placed atop the nacelle on approximately 45 of the 84

turbines to assure safe flight navigation in the vicinity of the Project. This federally mandated

safety feature cannot be omitted or reduced. If appropriate, alternative approved FAA lightingoptions will be evaluated to determine if they can minimize the visual impact within the study

area.

>>>> Lighting for the substation should be task oriented (e.g. maintenance and emergency).

Maintenance

>>>> How a landscape and structures in the landscape are maintained has aesthetic implications to the

long-term visual character of the Project. BP Wind Energy places a high priority on facility

maintenance, not only for operational purposes, but for aesthetic appearance as well.

Recognizing that its public image will be directly linked to the outward appearance of its facilities

and desiring to be a welcomed member of the community, BP Wind Energy will implement astrict policy of maintenance, including materials and practices that ensure a clean and well-

maintained appearance over the full life of the facility.

Decommissioning

>>>> At the end of the Project life, idled turbines could represent a significant and unnecessary visual

impact to the local area. BP Wind Energy will maintain a well-funded decommissioning plan to

ensure that these structures can be dismantled and removed from the Project area upon

termination of power generation at the site.




#07-083.50M Page 65

5.0 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL VISUAL IMPACT

Visibility Summary

The viewshed maps clearly indicate that the highpoint (i.e. blade tip in upright position) of one or

more of the proposed turbines will be theoretically visible from approximately 78 percent of the five-

mile study area (based on vegetative viewshed – See Figure 2). However, approximately 22 percent of

the study area will likely have no visibility of any wind turbines.

Turbine visibility will be most common from inland areas where cleared agricultural lands provide

long vistas in the direction of turbine groupings. The area most affected by views of the Project will

be the central portion of the turbine area where multiple turbines will be visible. Within this area, it

will be possible for 360-degree visibility around a vantage point. Multiple turbines will also be visible

from portions of the St. Lawrence River, Lake Ontario, and islands. Although a majority of the

proposed turbines will be well inland of the St. Lawrence River (2+ miles), a small number of turbines

will be located within ½ to 1 mile of the Lake Ontario coastline. Boaters within close proximity may

have direct views of multiple turbines and a significant portion of these turbines may also be visible.Overall, visibility along the River and Lake would likely be lessened to some degree by existing

clusters of localized (non-forest) vegetation. Also, the international border passes through a small

portion of the 5-mile study area and it is anticipated that visibility will occur on both sides of the

border.

The viewshed map indicates potential visibility of multiple turbines within the Villages of Cape

Vincent and Chaumont, and the hamlet of Three Mile Bay. Field observations determined the

prevalence of mature street trees and site landscaping combined with one- and two-story residential

and commercial structures, will likely block or partially screen views in the direction of the Project.

For instance, within the center to northern edge of the Village of Cape Vincent, many views southeastare block by intervening vegetation and various structures. As one moves south of NYS Route 12E

(Broadway) there is greater potential to see the proposed Project, although the nearest turbine may be

close to two miles from the viewer. As one continues to move further south towards the southern edge

of the village and east of James Street, the probability of viewing the Project continues to increase.

However, many of these views towards the Project may still be screened by localized vegetation and

structures. Similar screening potential, although maybe not quite as much, that was witnessed in the

Village of Cape Vincent, was also observed in the Village of Chaumont and the hamlet of Three Mile

Bay. Filtered or framed views of proposed turbines are likely through foreground vegetation and

buildings from the perimeter of these communities. Direct views are more prevalent on the outskirts

of these communities where localized residential and commercial structures, street trees and site

landscaping are less likely to provide a visual barrier.

Photo simulations, which are provided in Appendices A and B, illustrate that, when visible, a

substantial portion of individual turbines will be seen above intervening landform and vegetation. In

particular, from foreground vantage points (within ½ mile), most of the 263-foot tall turbine tower,

nacelle and 328-foot diameter turbine rotor will commonly be visible above intervening vegetation.

From middleground (1/2 to 3 miles) and background (3+ miles) vantage points, such as the Villages of

Cape Vincent and Chaumont, and the hamlet of Three Mile Bay, foreground vegetation, and in some




#07-083.50M Page 66

instances topography, will often screen the lower portions of the turbine structure (tower and nacelle)

limiting views to the upper portion of the rotor turning above the tree line. The high degree of Project

visibility can be attributed to the lack of significant topographic changes (e.g. hills, mountains) and

broad agricultural clearings. This is typical throughout much of the five-mile study area.

Impact on Visual Resources

Based on the viewshed analysis, the highpoint of one or more of the proposed turbines will be visible

from approximately 89 of 93 (approximately 95.7%)29 inventoried visual resources. Of those with

visibility, 40 were identified as historical resources of Statewide Significance. Considering that many

of these properties are not open to the general public, and the listed historic significance is not

associated with the cultural sensitivity of the setting (e.g., the listed historic significance of the

property is associated with a person, event, and/or architecture/engineering), the aesthetic impact of

Project visibility on these private resources is diminished.

Potentially affected resources of Statewide Significance, which are open to the public, include

resources such as:

> St. Vincent of Paul Catholic Church (place of worship);

> Tibbett’s Point Lighthouse (tourist attraction)30;

> Ashland Flats Wildlife Management Area (public open space);

> Burnham Point State Park (public park);

> Cedar Point State Park (public park);

> Long Point State Park (public park);

> French Creek State Wildlife Management Area (public open space); and

> NYSDEC Research Station & Aquarium (tourist attraction).

In addition, the study area contains two historic districts - Broadway Historic District (Village of CapeVincent) and the Three Mile Bay Historic District (hamlet of Three Mile Bay). Based on field

observations, it appears that many views in the direction of the Project will generally be screened by

the presence of mature street trees and site landscaping combined with one- and two-story residential

and commercial structures.

The proposed BP Wind Energy Project will also be visible from much of the Seaway Trail Scenic

Byway. Of the roughly 22.8 miles of the Seaway Trail (NYS Route 12E) traversing the five-mile

study area, the high point of one or more turbines will be visible from approximately 20.6 miles

(approximately 90 percent). For much of the Seaway Trail, visibility will include a substantial portion

(tower, nacelle and rotor) of multiple turbines.

The NYSDEC visual Policy states,

“Aesthetic impact occurs when there is a detrimental effect on the perceived beauty

of a place or structure. Significant aesthetic impacts are those that may cause a

diminishment of the public enjoyment and appreciation of an inventoried resource, or

one that impairs the character or quality of such a place. Proposed large facilities by

29 This is contingent on final turbine array.30 Access to top of light tower is unavailable to further confirm visibility.




#07-083.50M Page 67

themselves should not be a trigger for a declaration of significance. Instead, a

project by virtue of its siting in visual proximity to an inventoried resource may lead

staff to conclude that there may be a significant impact.”

Based on this definition, it is reasonable to conclude that simple visibility of the proposed wind farm

(albeit a large facility) from any of these affected resources of statewide significance does not result in

detrimental effect on the perceived beauty of the place or structure; nor will the Project cause the

diminishment of public enjoyment and appreciation of an inventoried resource, or impair the character

or quality of such a place.

Resources of Local Interest – Because of the number, scale and distribution of proposed turbines,

some portion of the Project will be visible from places of local interest, that do not necessarily meet

the broader statewide threshold for visual significance. Most commonly affected are roadside views

along various county and local roadways.

Views were found along portions of several county and town roads at varying distance. Most

residential neighborhoods in the villages and hamlets where the prevalence of mature street trees andsite landscaping combined with one and two story structures may substantially limit or screen distant

views.

Character of View

The Thousand Islands region of New York State is well known for the scenic beauty of its shoreline

and over 1,800 islands and offers numerous cultural, recreational and entertainment attractions. This

area has long been recognized as ideal for second homes, boating, fishing, and general enjoyment of

the waterfront environment. Although nearby communities (outside the study area) contain a greater

concentration of resorts, restaurants and tourist attractions, recreational and tourism resources are

found throughout the study area, including the Village of Cape Vincent and much of the waterfront

portion of the study area. Combined with a wide variety of passive and active recreational

opportunities, the aesthetic quality of the waterfront landscape is central to the Thousand Island

region’s appeal as a well-known and popular vacation destination.

The scenic value of waterfront property has resulted in residential development along the shorelines of

the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. Built structures include traditional single-family residences,

cottages, camps, and mobile homes; nearly all are oriented to take best advantage of potential water

views. Development density along the waterfront is variable, ranging from large wooded estate lots

set back from nearby roadways and neighboring properties, to neighborhood scale clusters of small

wood frame camps and trailer homes of varying quality, vintage and size. Shoreline areas between thewater’s edge and residential structures are commonly cleared, partly or often completely, to create

unencumbered vistas of the water. While many waterfront properties are very well maintained and

contribute to the overall beauty of the waterfront landscape, other private properties have fallen to

some degree of disrepair and detract from the visual quality of the waterfront setting.

Scenic views from waterfront homes, camps and cottages, parks and recreational facilities along the

shoreline are focused primarily on the picturesque views of the St. Lawrence River, Lake Ontario and




#07-083.50M Page 68

Islands. From affected shoreline vantage points, multiple turbines will be visible above intervening

landform and vegetation inland from the shoreline, directly away from the scenic coastal viewshed.

Within the Project area, typical views are characterized by a patchwork of working farms, old fields

and successional woodlots over a relatively flat or gently sloping landscape. Built structures consist

primarily of low-density permanent homes and manufactured housing, along with accessory structures(barns, garages, sheds, etc.). The structures are of varying vintage and quality. Poorly maintained or

dilapidated structures and properties are not uncommon sights. Generally, a component of the

background landscape, this inland area is not widely associated with scenic quality of the adjacent

waterfront landscape that is central to the Thousand Island region’s appeal as a vacation destination.

However, turbines may be located in close proximity to the Lake Ontario coastline. Although this area

may not contain a high number of visual receptors (as outlined in Tables 5 and 6), those visitors

driving along coastline roads may experience foreground views of the turbines with Lake Ontario in

the background.

The introduction of large, clearly man-made structures creates an obvious disruption of the relatively

flat agricultural landscape. The well-defined vertical form of turbines on the horizon introduces a

contrasting and distinct perpendicular element into the landscape. The proposed turbines will be the

tallest visible elements within view and will be disproportionate to other elements on the regional

landscape. The distribution of turbines across an extended area will result in the proposed Project

being perceived as a highly dominant visual element. The moderately paced sweeping rotation of the

turbine blades will heighten the conspicuity of the turbines no matter the degree of visibility.

Affected Viewers

The Towns of Cape Vincent, Lyme, and Clayton are quite rural with a very small year round

population. The year-round population of the Town of Cape Vincent is just 3,345, with a populationdensity of 59.2 persons per square mile. However, it is anticipated that the population of the Town

will increase to more than 8,000 during the summer tourist season. The year-round population

compares with a population density of 88 persons per square mile for Jefferson County and 402

persons per square mile for New York State, as a whole. Highways within the study area are relatively

lightly traveled. NYS Route 12E has an average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume of less than

1,400 vehicles in the Village of Cape Vincent. While the proposed Project will be frequently visible

to local residents and travelers, the total number of potentially affected permanent year-round viewers

within the study area is relatively small when compared to other regions of New York State.

While the Project is generally located inland, away from the majority of the tourist attractions and

traffic, visitors do come to the area specifically to enjoy the historic, recreational, and scenic resources

of the lake, river and islands. In the event tourists drive along the north/south portion of NYS Route

12E they will have foreground views of the proposed turbines for relatively short distances (between

Favret Road and the Town of Cape Vincent/Lyme municipal boundary). The sensitivity of these

individuals to visual quality is variable; but to many, visual quality is an important and integral part of

their outdoor experience. The presence of wind turbines may diminish the aesthetic experience for

those that believe that the rural landscape should be preserved for agricultural, rural residential, open

space and similar uses. Such viewers will likely have high sensitivity to the visual quality and




#07-083.50M Page 69

landscape character, regardless of the frequency of duration of their exposure to the proposed Project.

For those with strong utilitarian beliefs, the presence of the proposed Project may have little aesthetic

impact on their recreational experience.

While visitors will certainly enjoy the outstanding scenic quality of the waterfront, visitors and

recreational users will also be cognizant of existing roadside and shoreline residential and commercialuses of varying aesthetic quality, as well as utility infrastructure.

Other Project Components

Construction Related Impacts – Construction of the proposed wind turbines will require use of large

mobile cranes and other large construction vehicles. Turbine components will be delivered in sections

via large semi-trucks. A construction, a laydown area will be constructed along NYS Route 12E in the

Town of Cape Vincent to provide a base of operations for the Project. It is anticipated that the

construction period will be relatively short; therefore the potential visual impacts will be brief and are

not expected to result in prolonged adverse visual impact to area residents or visitors.

The Project includes interconnection cables and one 80-meter tall meteorological tower. It is

anticipated that the majority of the interconnection cables will be buried and will not be visible. The

meteorological tower is a relatively minor component of the Project and will generally be visible to

local residents and passers-by in the immediate area.

O&M Building and Electrical Substation – Visibility of these two components will most likely be

common from adjacent properties or in close proximity along local roadways where roadside

vegetation is lacking. It is anticipated that local residents and passer-bys will see both the O&M

building and substation.

115 kV Transmission Line – Although the proposed 115 kV overhead transmission line is short in

length (0.33 miles), it will be visible along Burnt Rock Road. While the aboveground transmission

structures are new elements in the landscape, they will likely be similar in nature to the transmission

lines within the existing transmission line ROW at its terminus.

Roadways – Access roadways to each turbine will be constructed in order for personnel to perform

maintenance. The roadways will be similar in characteristic to existing farm driveways/roads seen

throughout the study area. These are relatively minor components of the Project and will not be highly

visible.

Night Lighting – While red flashing aviation obstruction lighting on communications towers are

commonly visible nighttime elements almost everywhere, the concentration of lights within the

turbine area would be somewhat unique. Up to 45 red lights flashing in unison will be conspicuous

and somewhat discordant with the current dark nighttime conditions. The night lighting of the BP

Wind Energy project is likely to be similar to the Wolf Island wind project, located approximately 3

miles north of the Village of Cape Vincent. While aviation obstruction lighting is generally directed

upward, relatively low intensity and will not create atmospheric illumination (sky glow).




#07-083.50M Page 70

Viewshed mapping (Figure 3) indicates that one or more of the 45 turbine FAA lights (height: 269

feet) will be theoretically visible during nighttime hours from approximately 74.1 percent of the five-

mile radius study area. Approximately 25.9 percent of the study area will likely have no visibility of

any FAA lights due to intervening landform or vegetation. Additionally:

>>>> 1-5 turbine FAA lights would be visible from 6.8 percent of the five-mile study area;>>>> 6-10 turbine FAA lights would be visible from 5.4 percent of the five-mile study area;

>>>> 11-15 turbine FAA lights would be visible from 5.3 percent of the five-mile study area;

>>>> 16-30 turbine FAA lights would be visible from 17.1 percent of the five-mile study area; and

>>>> 31- 45 turbine FAA lights would be visible from 39.5 percent of the five-mile study area.

The magnitude of this impact will depend on how many lighted turbines are visible at a specific

location and existing ambient lighting conditions present within the view. Local residents quietly

enjoying the rural nighttime setting will likely be more affected by this condition than would motorists

traveling thorough the area after dark. These are federally mandated safety features and cannot be

omitted of reduced. Daytime lighting of the turbines is not required.

Shadow-Flicker

Based on Table 8 and the figures contained in Appendix C, of the 755 studied shadow receptors

located within 1,000-meters (3,609-feet) of any turbine:

>>>> 225 (29.8%) do not fall within the shadow zone;

>>>> 8 (1.1%) will theoretically be impacted less than 2 hrs/yr;




>>>> 30 (4.0%) will theoretically be impacted 30-40 hrs/yr; and

>>>> 26 (3.4%) will theoretically be impacted greater than 40 hrs/yr.

Of the 56 structures identified in Table 9 as having 30 or more hours of potential shadow-flicker, none

will likely be screened from the turbine shadow by intervening vegetation. It appears that Project

participants own 47 of these structures and non-participating landowners own nine. It is possible that

five of these non-participating structures are ancillary structures (e.g., barns or outbuildings) or vacant.

There are no local regulations or guidelines that establish an acceptable degree of shadow-flicker

impact on a potential receptor. Shadow-flicker is not expected to create an adverse impact on most

nearby non-participating residential dwellings.

For residences where shadow-flicker is the greatest, this impact might be considered an annoyance by

some, and unnoticed by others. Mitigation options include window shades, awnings and/or

strategically placed vegetation. Potential mitigation should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.




#07-083.50M Page 71

Comparison of DEIS VRA and SEIS VRA

Since the submission of the DEIS, BP Wind Energy revised the Project layout resulting in fewer

turbines. Based on the combined changes to the Project layout, including a reduction in the number of

wind turbines and relocation of several access roads and power collection line corridors, it was

determined that a Supplemental Visual Resource Assessment should be prepared to describe the

revised Project and its associated impacts.

Viewshed Analysis – The current Project layout includes 56 fewer turbines than the original layout

analyzed in the DEIS. However, despite the reduced Project scale, all visual resources identified in

the DEIS as having Project visibility will still likely view one or more turbines. The current layout

does result in visibility to six additional resources previously identified having no visibility. While the

number of turbines visible from individual receptors may have changed due to layout changes, this is

not expected to result in a significant increase in potential visual impact from those resources that had

visibility identified during the DEIS.

The viewshed completed for the currently proposed Project shows that approximately 98,789 acres

could theoretically have some degree of Project visibility (based on vegetated viewshed). Although

slightly higher, this is similar to the total area (93,387 acres) theoretically affected based on the DEIS

layout (based on the vegetated viewshed). Therefore the affected area is not expected to change

significantly. Table 9 contains additional information of the potentially affected area within the study

area.

Photo Simulations – Simulations illustrating the Project were created from nine locations. Six of

which were contained in the DEIS VRA and revised in order to illustrate the change in potential visual

impact caused by the current layout. As illustrated in the simulations contained in Appendix A, the

Project will still be visible from the selected locations; however, the revised layout of the turbines is

evident. It is anticipated that while some locations may benefit from the revised layout (e.g. turbinesare further away), it can also be expected that turbines may be more noticeable in other locations (e.g.

turbines are closer).

Cumulative Photo Simulations – Simulations containing the Project and the proposed St. Lawrence

Wind Farm were prepared from all nine simulated locations (Appendix A). However, only five of

these locations have potential visibility of the St. Lawrence Wind Farm. These five locations show

that in some views, the proposed St. Lawrence Wind Farm will add significant turbine visibility. For

example, from Viewpoint 1 – Burnham Point State Park and Campground, Figure A2-b illustrates the

proposed Project with minimal turbine visibility. However, from the same view, Figure A2-c shows

that the proposed St. Lawrence Wind Farm will have visibility of several foreground and

middleground turbines, thus increasing the visibility of turbines. On the other hand, views fromViewpoint 66 – Broadway Historic District (Figure A8-c) shows that only a portion of a few turbines

from the St. Lawrence Wind Farm will be visible through the trees.

Combined, these projects will likely result in an increased area of visibility and number of potentially

visible turbines within the Study Area. Due to their proximity to each other, it is less likely that only

one project will be visible from a particular location, but as the simulations illustrate, there are several

exceptions.




#07-083.50M Page 72

Visual Impact Conclusion

The U.S. Department of Energy and New York State Public Service Commission have mandated that

renewable energy sources, such as wind turbines, will provide an increasing percentage of the nation’s

electricity in the coming years. Meaningful development of renewable wind energy will reduce the

reliance on fossil fuel combustion and nuclear fission facilities and result in reduction in air pollutants

and greenhouse gasses. This Project is proposed to meet, in small part, this ambitious federal and state

objective to provide an environmentally friendly and renewable energy source to help meet the

growing energy needs for New York State residents and business.

By their very nature, modern wind energy projects are large and highly visible facilities. The need to

position these tall moving structures in highly visible locations cannot be readily avoided. The siting

of wind turbines within a rural agricultural area provides increased opportunity for potentially

discordant views both near and far. While the use of mitigation techniques may help to minimize

adverse visual impact, the construction of the Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project will be an

undeniable visual presence on the landscape. However, unlike development projects such as housing

complexes and commercial centers, the proposed wind energy facility can and will be

decommissioned and removed at the end of its useful working life. All of the towers will be removed

and the project area restored to as near its present condition as possible, thus restoring the landscape to

its original condition.




#07-083.50M Page 73

Glossary31

Aesthetic impact: Aesthetic impact occurs when there is a detrimental effect on the perceived beauty of aplace or structure. Mere visibility, even startling visibility of a project proposal, should not be a threshold

for decision-making. Instead a project, by virtue of its visibility, must clearly interfere with or reduce the

public's enjoyment and/or appreciation of the appearance of an inventoried resource (e.g. cooling tower

plume blocks a view from a State Park overlook).

Aesthetically significant place: A formally designated place visited by recreationists and others for the

express purpose of enjoying its beauty. For example, millions of people visit Niagara Falls on an annual

basis. They come from around the country and even from around the world. By these measurements, one

can make the case that Niagara Falls (a designated State Park) is an aesthetic resource of national

significance. Similarly, a resource that is visited by large numbers who come from across the stateprobably has statewide significance. A place visited primarily by people whose place of origin is local

generally is generally of local significance. Unvisited places either have no significance or are "no

trespass" places.

Aesthetic Quality: There is a difference between the quality of a resource and its significance level. The

quality of the resource has to do with its component parts and their arrangement. The arrangement of thecomponent parts is referred to as composition. The quality of the resource and the significance level are

generally, though not always, correlated.

Atmospheric perspective: Even on the clearest of days, the sky is not entirely transparent because of the

presence of atmospheric particulate matter. The light scattering effect of these particles causes

atmospheric or aerial perspective, the second important form of perspective. In this form of perspective

there is a reduction in the intensity of colors and the contrast between light and dark as the distance of

objects from the observer increases. Contrast depends upon the position of the sun and the reflectance of

the object, among other items. The net effect is that objects appear "washed out" over great distances.

Control Points: The two end points of a line-of-sight. One end is always the elevation of an observer’s

eyes at a place of interest (e.g. a high point in a State Park) and the other end is always an elevation of aproject component of interest (e.g. top of a stack of a combustion facility or the finished grade of a

landfill).

Line-of-sight profile: A profile is a graphic depiction of the depressions and elevations one would

encounter walking along a straight path between two selected locations. A straight line depicting the path

of light received by the eye of an imaginary viewer standing on the path and looking towards a

predetermined spot along that path constitutes a line-of-sight. The locations along the path where the

viewer stands and looks are the control points of the line-of-sight profile.

Scientific Perspective: Scientific, linear, or size perspective is the reduction in the apparent size of

objects as the distance from the observer increases. An object appears smaller and smaller as an observer

moves further and further from it. At some distance, depending upon the size and degree of contrastbetween the object and its surroundings, the object may not be a point of interest for most people. At this

hypothetical distance it can be argued that the object has little impact on the composition of the landscape

of which it is a tiny part. Eventually, at even greater distances, the human eye is incapable of seeing the

object at all.

Viewshed: A map that shows the geographic area from which a proposed action may be seen is a

viewshed.

31 NYSDEC Visual Policy (2000) pp. 9-11.




#07-083.50M Page 74

Visual Assessments: Analytical techniques that employ viewsheds, and/or line-of-sight profiles, and

descriptions of aesthetic resources, to determine the impact of development upon aesthetic resources; and

potential mitigation strategies to avoid, eliminate or reduce impacts on those resources.

Visual impact: Visual impact occurs when the mitigating effects of perspective do not reduce the

visibility of an object to insignificant levels. Beauty plays no role in this concept. A visual impact mayalso be considered in the context of contrast. For instance, all other things being equal, a blue object seen

against an orange background has greater visual impact than a blue object seen against the same colored

blue background. Again, beauty plays no role in this concept.




#07-083.50M Page 75

References

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), 1992. The SEQR

Handbook.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Not dated. D.E.C.

Aesthetics Handbook . NYSDEC. Albany, NY.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), July 31, 2000, Program

Policy Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts, (DEP 00-2) NYSDEC, Albany, NY.

New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). 1988. Engineering Instruction (EI)

88-43 – Visual Assessment. NYSDOT. Albany, NY.

Smardon, R.C. and J.P. Karp. 1993. The Legal Landscape: Guidelines for Regulating

Environmental and Aesthetic Quality. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.

Saratoga Associates, Landscape Architects, Architects, Engineers, and Planners, P.C. January 7,

2007, St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Visual Resource Assessment

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsville Division (ACOE). Undated. Aesthetic Resources:

Identification, Analysis, and Evaluation.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Forest Service. 1974. Forest Service

Landscape Management: The Visual Management System, Handbook #462, Vol.2.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Forest Service, 1995. Landscape

Aesthetics – A Handbook for Scenery Management . Agricultural Handbook No. 701. Washington,

D.C.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1980. Visual ResourceManagement Program. U.S. Government Printing Office 1980 0-302-993. Washington, D.C.

United States Department of Transportation, Federal highway Administration, 1981. Visual

Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. Office of Environmental Policy. Washington, D.C.

Microsoft Streets and Trips (11.00.18.1900), Microsoft Corporation, 1988-2003

NPS. 2003. National Natural Landmarks. New York State. National Park Service website:

http://www.nature.nps.gov/nnl/Registry/USA_Map/States/NewYork/new_york.htm

NYSDEC. 2000. Assessing and mitigating visual impacts. Issued by Division/Office of

Environmental Permits, Albany, NY.



Appendix A

SVRA Photographic Simulations



Lake

Ontario

St. Lawrence

River

UNITE

DST

ATES

OFAM

ERIC

A

CANA

DA

5Miles

4Miles

3Miles

2Mi les

1Mile

Mud Bay

W

ilson Bay

Fulle

r Bay

Chaumont Bay

Three Mile

Bay

Duck Bay

Sawm

ill B

ay

Chaumont

9

87

654

1

2A

86

85

84

83

82

81

80

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

65

63

62

61

60

59 5

8

57

56

55

54

5

3

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

424

1

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25 2

423

22

21

20

191

8

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

87

66

¯

0

2.5

5

1.25

Miles


Project

Figure A1

Vegetated Viewshed* with Photo Simulation

Locations


(Layout 10/28/2010)







PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M


File Location: B:\2007\07083\Maps\Viewshed_Veg101112_BT_Photo.mxd

January 2011

Village Of

Cape Vincent

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

""

"

""69

"78

"77

"61

"71

"84

"83

"81"82

"80

"67

"65

"64

"63

"74

"73"72

"70

"68

"66

"76"75

Broadway

Joseph St

Real St

Kelsey Ln

Point St

Gouvello St

Esselty

ne St

Murray

St

Kanady

St

Ainsworth Ln

Vincen

t St

Kent Ln

Lake St


0

1,000

2,000

500

Feet


Key


1 - 5

6 - 10

11 - 15

16 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 50

51 - 70

71 - 84

"

Receptor

!



Snowmobile Trail

Municipal Boundary


State Park

Waterway Access


Approximate Viewer Angle

1 32





Existing Conditions

January 2011

FIGURE A2-a

Photo SimulationVP #1 - Burnham Point State Park and Campground


SVRA Simulation

January 2011

FIGURE A2-b

Photo SimulationVP #1 - Burnham Point State Park and Campground


Cumulative Simulation

January 2011

FIGURE A2-c

Proposed Cape Vincent and St. Lawrence Wind FarmsVP #1 - Burnham Point State Park and Campground




Existing Conditions

January 2011

FIGURE A3-a

Photo SimulationVP #4 - Hamlet of Rosiere


SVRA Simulation

January 2011

FIGURE A3-b

Photo SimulationVP #4 - Hamlet of Rosiere



January 2011

FIGURE A3-c

Proposed Cape Vincent and St. Lawrence Wind Farms*VP #4 - Hamlet of Rosiere


Note:* St.Lawrence Wind Farm not visible in simulated view.



Existing Conditions

January 2011

FIGURE A4-a

Photo SimulationVP #12a - Intersection of Millens Bay Road and Mason Road


SVRA Simulation

January 2011

FIGURE A4-b

Photo SimulationVP #12a - Intersection of Millens Bay Road and Mason Road



January 2011

FIGURE A4-c

Proposed Cape Vincent and St. Lawrence Wind FarmsVP #12a - Intersection of Millens Bay Road and Mason Road




Existing Conditions

January 2011

FIGURE A5-a

Photo SimulationVP #39 - Long Point State Park

Town of Lyme

SVRA Simulation

January 2011

FIGURE A5-b

Photo SimulationVP #39 - Long Point State Park

Town of Lyme


January 2011

FIGURE A5-c

Proposed Cape Vincent and St. Lawrence Wind FarmsVP #39 - Long Point State Park

Town of Lyme



Existing Conditions

January 2011

FIGURE A6-a

Photo SimulationVP #49 - Reuter Dyer House


SVRA Simulation

January 2011

FIGURE A6-b

Photo SimulationVP #49 - Reuter Dyer House



January 2011

FIGURE A6-c

Proposed Cape Vincent and St. Lawrence Wind FarmsVP #49 - Reuter Dyer House





Existing Conditions

January 2011

FIGURE A7-a

Photo SimulationVP #59 - Cape Vincent Town Hall


SVRA Simulation

January 2011

FIGURE A7-b

Photo SimulationVP #59 - Cape Vincent Town Hall



January 2011

FIGURE A7-c

Proposed Cape Vincent and St. Lawrence Wind FarmsVP #59 - Cape Vincent Town Hall




Existing Conditions

January 2011

FIGURE A8-a

Photo SimulationVP #66 - Broadway Historic District

Village of Cape Vincent

SVRA Simulation

January 2011

FIGURE A8-b

Photo SimulationVP #66 - Broadway Historic District



January 2011

FIGURE A8-c

Proposed Cape Vincent and St. Lawrence Wind FarmsVP #66 - Broadway Historic District




Existing Conditions

January 2011

FIGURE A9-a

Photo SimulationVP #82 - Aubertine Building


SVRA Simulation

January 2011

FIGURE A9-b

Photo SimulationVP #82 - Aubertine Building



January 2011

FIGURE A9-c

Proposed Cape Vincent and St. Lawrence Wind FarmsVP #82 - Aubertine Building





Existing Conditions

January 2011

FIGURE A10-a

Photo SimulationVP #91 - Mud Bay Residential Area


SVRA Simulation

January 2011

FIGURE A10-b

Photo SimulationVP #91 - Mud Bay Residential Area



January 2011

FIGURE A10-c

Proposed Cape Vincent and St. Lawrence Wind FarmsVP #91 - Mud Bay Residential Area






#07-083.50M

Appendix B

DEIS VRA Photographic Simulations

(VRA Photographic Simulations are available on Project website.)



PREL

IMIN

ARY

KEY

NO. OF TURBINES VISIBLE

1 - 5

6 - 10

11 - 15

16 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 50

51 - 70

71 - 86

RECEPTOR

SNOWMOBILE TRAIL

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

RIVER / STREAM / CREEK

STATE PARK

WATERWAY ACCESS

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA

Lake O

ntario

St. Law

rence

River

UNITE

DST

ATES

OFAM

ERIC

A

CANA

DA

5Miles

4Miles

3Miles

2Miles

1Mile

Mud Bay

Wilson Bay

Fuller Bay

Chaumont Bay

Three Mile

Bay

Duck Bay

Sawm

ill B

ay

Lyme

Clayton

Brownville

Cape Vincent

Chaumont

0

2.5

5

1.25

Miles


Project

Figure B1

Vegetated Viewshed* and Photo

Simulation Locations


(Layout 10/29/2007)







PROJECT # 2007 - 083.10M


File Location: S:\GIS\07083\Viewshed_Veg110807_with_PhotoAngles.mxd

November 2007

Village Of

Cape Vincent

69

78

77

61

71

84

83

81

82

80

67

65

64

63

74

73

72

70

68

66

7675

Broadway

Joseph St

Real St

Kelsey Ln

Point St

Gouvello St

Esselty

ne St

Murray

St

Kanady

St

Ainsworth Ln

Vincen

t St

Kent Ln

Lake St


0

1,000

2,000

500

Feet


1

APPROXIMATE VIEWER ANGLE






#07-083.50M

Appendix C

Topographic and Vegetated Shadow-Flicker Analysis









































Documents

BP SDEIS App G Visual Resource Assessment-Saratoga Cape Vincent