APPENDIX Q Visual Resources Report

APPENDIX Q
Visual Resources Report and

Line-of-Sight Drawings
HOUNSFIELD WIND FARM

VISUAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
Prepared for:
Upstate NY Power Corp

950-A Union Street, Suite 20
West Seneca, New York 14224 - 3454
February 6, 2009
Landscape Architects, Architects,

Engineers and Planners, P.C.
Copyright All Rights Reserved Saratoga Associates

#08-009.10M
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Methodology ...................................................................................................................1
1.2 Determination of Study Area...........................................................................................2
1.2.1 Study Radius....................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.2 Inland Reach ....................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Project Description..........................................................................................................3

2.0 Landscape Character/Visual Setting..................................................................................6
2.1 Galloo Island ...................................................................................................................6
2.2 Open Water ....................................................................................................................6
2.3 Coastal Areas .................................................................................................................7
3.0 Factors Affecting Visual Impact .......................................................................................10
3.1 Visual Characteristics ...................................................................................................10
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.1.5
Distance Zones ................................................................................................................. 10

Linear Perspective ............................................................................................................ 10
Meteorological Visibility..................................................................................................... 11
Curvature of the Earth....................................................................................................... 12
Mirage Effects ................................................................................................................... 13
3.2 Viewer/User Groups......................................................................................................13

3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
Tourists, Vacationers and Recreational Users ................................................................. 13

Local Residents................................................................................................................. 14
Through Travelers............................................................................................................. 14
Commercial Mariners ........................................................................................................ 14
3.3 Duration/Frequency/Circumstances of View.................................................................14

3.3.1 Stationary Views ............................................................................................................... 14
3.3.2 Moving Views .................................................................................................................... 15
4.0 Visual Impact Assessment................................................................................................16

4.1 Viewshed Mapping (Zone of Visual Influence)..............................................................16
4.1.1 Viewshed Methodology..................................................................................................... 16
4.1.2 Verification of Viewshed Accuracy.................................................................................... 18
4.1.3 Viewshed Interpretation .................................................................................................... 18
4.2 Inventory of Visually Sensitive Resources ....................................................................22

4.2.1 Inventory Criteria............................................................................................................... 22
4.2.2 Summary of Affected Resources ...................................................................................... 29
4.3 Degree of Project Visibility ............................................................................................32

4.3.1 Field Observation and Photography ................................................................................. 32
4.3.2 Photo Simulations ............................................................................................................. 33
4.4 Character of Project Visibility ........................................................................................35

4.4.1 Compatibility with Regional Landscape Patterns.............................................................. 35
4.4.2 Visual Character during the Construction Period.............................................................. 36
5.0 Mitigation Program ............................................................................................................37

6.0 Summary and Discussion of Potential Visual Impact ....................................................39
Appendix A ....................................................................................... Photographic Simulations
Hounsfield Wind Farm
#08-009.10M
VRA February 6, 2009

Page i
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Topographic Viewshed.......................................................................................................20
Figure 2
Vegetated Viewshed ..........................................................................................................21
Figure A1
Vegetated Viewshed and Photo Simulation Locations........................................................... A-1
Figure A2
Photo Simulation VP#49 Tibbetts Point Lighthouse ........................................................ A-2
Figure A3
Photo Simulation VP#55 Eastern Ontario Waterway Access (NYS DEC Boat Launch) ........ A-4
Figure A4
Photo Simulation VP#57 Galloo Island Lighthouse.......................................................... A-6
Figure A5
Photo Simulation VP#64 Robert G. Wehle State Park (Cliff View) ................................... A-15
Figure A6
Photo Simulation VP#67 Robert G. Wehle State Park ................................................... A-17
Figure A7
Photo Simulation VP#68 Southwick Beach State Park .................................................. A-19
Figure A8
Photo Simulation VP#70 Black Pond WMA................................................................... A-21
Figure A9
Photo Simulation VP#78 Association Island ................................................................. A-23
Figure A10
Photo Simulation VP#80 Westcott Beach State Park (Camping Area North End) .......... A-25
Figure A11
Photo Simulation VP#80.1 Westcott Beach State Park (Overlook) ................................. A-27
Figure A12
Photo Simulation VP#86 Sackets Harbor State Historic Site (Battlefield)........................ A-29
Figure A13
Photo Simulation VP#101 Lake Ontario (Grenadier Island) ............................................ A-31
Figure A14
Photo Simulation VP#102 Lake Ontario (Fox Island) ..................................................... A-33
Figure A15
Photo Simulation VP#103 Lake Ontario (Isthmus Island) ............................................... A-35
Figure A16
Photo Simulation VP#104 Lake Ontario (Cliffs on North Side of Galloo Island) ................ A-37
Figure A17
Photo Simulation VP#105 Lake Ontario (North Pond) ................................................... A-48
Figure A18
Photo Simulation VP#106 Lake Ontario (Gil Harbor mile from Galloo Island) ............ A-61
Figure A19
Photo Simulation VP#107 Lake Ontario (Gil Harbor) ..................................................... A-70
Figure A20
Photo Simulation VP#108 Lake Ontario (Dock Facility) ................................................. A-83
Figure A21
Photo Simulation VP#109 Lake Ontario (Calf Island Split) ............................................. A-85
Figure A22
Photo Simulation VP#110 Lake Ontario (Approx 1/2 Mi SW of Galloo Island Lighthouse). A-90
Figure A23
Photo Simulation VP#77 NYS Route 3/Seaway Trail Scenic Byway (Overlook) ................ A-95

#08-009.10M

Page ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Demographic Summary of Study Area Municipalities (2000 census) .....................................9
Table 2
Meteorological Visibility - Summary from Jan. 1997 through Dec. 2007 Watertown, NY ....11
Table 3
Visual Resource Visibility Summary ..................................................................................24
Table 4
Key Receptors Selected for Photo Simulation ...................................................................33

#08-009.10M

Page iii
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Upstate NY Power Corp (Upstate Power) is proposing to develop a wind-powered electrical-generating

facility consisting of up to 84 turbines with a maximum capacity of generating 252 megawatts (MW) of
electricity. The proposed Project will be located on Galloo Island, Jefferson County, New York. The
Hounsfield Wind Farm Project (hereafter referred to as the Project) will provide a viable means of
generating electricity for use by customers in the New York State power pool.
To address issues of potential visual impact, Upstate Power has retained Saratoga Associates, Landscape
Architects, Architects, Engineers, and Planners, P.C. (Saratoga) to conduct a thorough and detailed Visual
Resource Assessment (VRA) of the proposed Project. The purpose of this VRA 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.
This VRA does not include an analysis of the Projects proposed transmission line. A petition for a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) will be filed for the generation portion of the
Project, pursuant to Section 68 of the New York State Public Service Law, and an Application for a
Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need has been filed for the transmission
components, pursuant to Article VII of the NYS Public Service Law. A detailed description of the
transmission line and an evaluation of its impacts can be found in the Article VII Application that was
submitted to the Public Service Commission in January 2009.
1.1 METHODOLOGY
Consistent with Visual Resource Assessment (VRA) practice, this report evaluates the potential visibility
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 (SEQR) 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 by the 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.

#08-009.10M

Page 1
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.
1.2
DETERMINATION OF STUDY AREA

1.2.1 Study Radius
The study area for this visual resource assessment includes coastal areas up to 15 miles from Galloo
Island. This highly conservative study zone extends well beyond the 5-mile background distance normally
considered the outer limit for most visual impact studies. Fifteen miles was selected as a reasonable study
limit considering distance, meteorological conditions and the curvature of the earth. Combined with the
slender form and low contrast coloration of the wind turbines, views beyond this distance are unlikely to
create an adverse impact.
Distance An object appears smaller as an observer moves further away. At some distance, depending
upon the size and degree of contrast between the object and its surroundings, the object may not be a
point of interest for most people. Eventually, at even greater distances, the human eye is incapable of
seeing the object at all.
At a distance of 15 miles, the 410 foot tall turbine (base to blade tip at apex of rotation) would measure
approximately 0.3 degrees vertically above the horizon (excluding consideration of earth curvature). This
is roughly equivalent to the width of two pennies held at arms length1. While this very small degree of
visibility might be perceptible to a distant observer, it is unlikely to be considered a point of interest at
such extended distance.
From all coastal vantage points, the project will be viewed within the far background distance zone (refer
to section 3.1.1). Beyond three to five miles, landscape elements lose detail and become less distinct.
Meteorological conditions and atmospheric perspective change colors to blue-grays, while surface
characteristics are lost.
Assume arms length equals 24 inches.

#08-009.10M

Page 2
Meteorological Conditions Meteorological conditions (e.g., fog, haze, precipitation) obscure visibility
beyond a distance of approximately nine (9) miles approximately 22 percent of all daylight hours in the
eastern Lake Ontario region (refer to section 3.1.3). Although visibility data for distances greater than to
nine (9) miles is not available, it is reasonable to conclude that views greater than 15 miles will be
obscured more frequently.
Even on the clearest of days, the sky is not entirely transparent because of the presence of atmospheric
particulate matter. With increasing distance there is a reduction in the intensity of colors and the contrast
between light and dark causing objects to appear "washed out" over great distances. Colors change to
blue-grays and surface characteristics are lost. The simple slender form and light gray coloration of the
proposed turbines take advantage of these meteorological conditions to minimize visual contrast with the
background sky.
Curvature of the Earth For an observer standing at beach elevation, the base of an object begins to fall
below the visible horizon at a distance of approximately three miles. At 15 miles, the lower 75 feet of an
object will be screened by the horizon. Although the full height of the proposed turbines will not be
completely mitigated by earth curvature within the 15-mile study radius, earth curvature reduce the
degree of turbine visibility from distant vantage points.
1.2.2 Inland Reach
Viewshed analysis indicates that most views of the proposed project will be limited to immediate
waterfront locations. In most circumstances, Project visibility is quickly screened from inland vantage
points by coastal topography and vegetation. Few publicly accessible vantage points with views of the
Lake Ontario were found more than several hundred yards inland. For this reason, the study area is
limited to mile inland from the coastline within the 15-mile study radius.
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed Project will be located on Galloo Island within the Town of Hounsfield, Jefferson County.
Galloo Island is the largest island in Lake Ontario and approximately 5.6 miles from the closest point on
the mainland.
It is anticipated that the proposed wind energy-generating turbines will be placed throughout the entire
island, which measures approximately four (4) miles by one (1) mile. Ownership of Galloo Island will be
transferred to Upstate Power resulting in the proposed turbines being located on private land. The Project
perimeter or island, hereafter may be referred to as the turbine area or Project area.
Each of the proposed turbines will include a 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 a light shade of gray (off-white). The towers will be a tapered tubular steel monopole
tower.

#08-009.10M

Page 3
The turbines themselves will be Vestas V90 and have a rated power of 3.0 MW. The turbine towers will
be approximately 263 feet tall from ground to nacelle (hub). The tower will be approximately 15 feet
wide at the base and eight (8) feet wide at the top. Each of the three turbine blades will be approximately
147 feet in length with the apex of blade rotation reaching approximately 410 feet above ground
elevation. The maximum rotation speed of the blades will be approximately 18 revolutions per minute
(rpm), or approximately one (1) revolution every three (3) seconds.
In addition to the wind turbines, the Project area will include 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, temporary and permanent housing, inlet slip
docking facility, 2.6 mile 230 kV transmission line, and an electrical substation and transition station. It
is anticipated that all of these elements will be located on Galloo Island. The interconnection cables
(between the turbines and the proposed substation) and 230 kV transmission line will be located on above
ground poles.
From the Galloo Island transition station, an approximate 9-mile sub-aquatic cable will connect the island
to the mainland (Town of Henderson). From the point of landfall, the cable from the sub-aquatic
transmission line will be converted to an overhead 230kV electric line where it will connect to a New
York Power Authority (NYPA) transmission line in the Town of Mexico, a distance of approximately 39
miles. An analysis of the 230kV transmission line can be found in the Article VII Application, which was
submitted to the Public Service Commission in January 2009.
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.
non-skeletal) 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 that
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 mile (2,640 feet). Based on these guidelines and the evaluated 84turbine layout, approximately 23 of the proposed turbines may be illuminated at night for aviation safety.2
One aviation obstruction light will be affixed to the rear portion of the nacelle on each turbine to be
illuminated.
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 it is less noticeable than a
strobe. All light fixtures within the wind energy Project must flash in unison, thus delineating the Project
The FEIS will contain a formal lighting plan. The number of lit turbines is subject to change based on this plan.
#08-009.10M

Page 4
as one large obstruction to pilots.3 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.4 For comparison purposes, a 50-watt
incandescent lightbulb used for indoor track lighting emits 510 candelas5 and vehicular daytime running
lamps that produce up to 7,000 candelas.6
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Development of Obstruction Lighting

Standards for Wind Turbine Farms (DOT/FAA/AR-TN05/50, November 2005)
4
Candela is the unit of luminous intensity, equal to one lumen per steradian (lm/sr).
5
http://www.gelighting.com - candelas vary base on lightbulb style, wattage, etc.
6
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov
#08-009.10M

Page 5
2.0
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER/VISUAL SETTING
The visual setting is defined by the basic pattern of landform, land use, vegetation, and in this application
especially, water features that make up a view. This visual setting, or existing landscape character is the
baseline condition from which visual change can be evaluated.
The project study area encompasses approximately 126 miles of shoreline along Lake Ontario in Jefferson
County, New York.
2.1 GALLOO ISLAND

Galloo Island, which measures approximately 4.3 miles long and 1.4 miles at its widest point (totaling
2,002 acres) is the largest island in Lake Ontario. The largely undeveloped island includes tracts of open
pasture and scrub brush mixed with pockets of mature trees toward the center and at the northeastern
coast. The islands topography averages 30 to 40 feet above lake level, with a high point t of
approximately 56 feet. The ten (10) mile coastline includes low rocky bluffs along the northern coastline
and gently graded gravel and sand beaches. A small natural harbor is located at the northeast end of the
island.
The inactive Galloo Island Lighthouse (currently under purchase contract with Project applicant) is found
on the southwestern tip of the island. The southeastern side of the Island also includes a 20-acre portion of
the Galloo Island Wildlife Management Area7 and the remnants of a former Coast Guard station. A
privately owned cottage is located at the southern portion of the island. The northeastern end of Galloo
Island includes a large house and landing strip.
2.2 OPEN WATER

The waters of Lake Ontario are traversed by a variety of boats and ships including pleasure craft of all
sizes as well as freighters transiting this portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Smaller vessels and
recreational boats are a common to the area. Recreational and charter fishing vessels are more common
during warm weather months.
Lake Ontario is part of the 2,342-mile long St. Lawrence Seaway, the only commercial shipping route
between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic Ocean. Galloo Island is approximately 15 miles south of the
mouth of the St. Lawrence River at Tibbetts Point in the Town of Cape Vincent. 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.8 Large
freighters are commonly visible within the study area.
Atmospheric conditions are much more noticeable over the open waters than they are over land, because
of the long visual distances and conditions inherent to open water. Haze and fog can diminish or obscure
the visibility of features on the water and inhibit the ability to discern the forms on the water, clouds, the
location of the sun, and a sharp horizon line (refer to Section 3.1.3).
7
Addition parcels of the Galloo Island Wildlife Management Area are located on nearby Little Galloo Island and
Gull Island.
8
http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com/en/pdf/mlo.pdf
#08-009.10M

Page 6
The color of the lake water is varied and seasonal, ranging from muted and brackish shades of blue-green
and gray. At distances near the horizon, water colors take on uniform gray tones. Cloud cover, wind, sun
reflectance, and surface glare also affect the color of the water. The visible texture of the water surface is
affected by the action of waves. These factors contribute to an amalgam of shimmering colors and
patterns of light that are of aesthetic interest and may command the attention of observers. They also have
the effect of obscuring discernable objects in or over the water.
2.3 COASTAL AREAS

The scenic coast of eastern Lake Ontario is a popular summertime tourist destination offering cultural,
recreational and entertainment attractions. These features, including restaurants and tourist attractions
(e.g. historical, recreation, etc), are found throughout the main land portion of the study area and are
generally clustered in the larger communities (e.g. Villages of Cape Vincent and Sackets Harbor) or
associated with State Parks and other recreation areas parcels along the waterfront.
With the exception of the Villages of Sackets Harbor and Cape Vincent, the coastal area is largely rural
and undeveloped. Broad tracts of agricultural land are either actively maintained or brush covered due to
inactivity (fallow fields). Mature deciduous woodlands are found throughout the study area, with a
significant amount found on State lands (e.g. Westcott Beach State Park) and weaving through farmed
areas and alongside creeks and rivers. Other local land cover includes hedgerows, yards, streams, small
ponds, and low-density housing. Built features typically include low-density single-family residential
structures and farmsteads.
Topography - The study area is within the Eastern Ontario Plain subdivision of the Great Lakes Plain.
The region is characterized by low-lying relief with shallow hills comprised of glacial till typical of the
eastern shore of Lake Ontario.9 The landscape generally appears relatively flat with some mild slopes
ranging upward from Lake Ontario (250 feet above sea level [asl] to over 350 feet ASL. Elevation gain
above the Lake is generally mild to moderate in slope with the exception of the northern coastline in the
Robert G. Wehle State Park, where cliffs abruptly rise roughly 60 feet above Lake Ontario.
Vegetation - Inland from the forest stands along the shoreline, 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 Plain region. These species include
oak, beech, maple, ash, elm and hemlock. In 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. Vegetation within the study
area is particularly centered on wetland plant species, grasses, and oak and pine trees. Concentrated
residential areas immediate to the lakefront may display a wider variety of trees and plants.
Water Features Water features are an important and scenic component of the visual landscape within
the coastal area. Galloo Island, at its closest point is approximately 5.6 miles off the mainland and visible
9
Thompson, p.40
#08-009.10M

Page 7
on clear days from many coastal vantage points. From more distant coastal areas, Galloo Island may
appear to fall partially below the visible horizon (depending on viewer elevation). At distances of 12-14
miles, the landmass of Galloo Island falls substantially below the horizon when viewed from beach level
vantage points.
The eastern shoreline of Lake Ontario is well known for the scenic character of its shoreline. The
coastline is irregular and characterized by a series of large bays, peninsulas and islands. The largest of
these bays include Chaumont Bay, Black River Bay, and Henderson Harbor. Numerous islands,
including Galloo Island, Grenadier Island, and Stony Island are plainly visible on clear days from many
locations along the coastline.
Transportation - The primary mainland transportation routes through the study area are NYS Routes 3
and 12E. NYS Route 3 crosses through the study area in the Town of Hounsfield and the Town of
Henderson. NYS Route 12E weaves in and out of the study area between the Town of Lyme and the
Town of Cape Vincent and crosses through the Villages of Cape Vincent and Chaumont. The study area
also includes sections of several county routes and numerous local roads. Roads are typically two-lane
with asphalt pavement.
The New York State Seaway Trail generally follows NY Rte 12E between the Village of Cape Vincent
southeast to Sacketts Harbor, then NYS Route 3 south to Port Ontario. Approximately 11 miles of the
Seaway Trail are located within the study area. View opportunities are limited and at distances exceeding
10 miles.
Roadways within the study area are relatively lightly traveled. The average daily traffic volume (AADT)
on NY Route 3 south of Sacketts Harbor is just 1,617 vehicles per day. The AADT on NY Route 12E
south of Cape Vincent is approximately 1,300 vehicles per day10.
Population Centers - This portion of New York State is generally rural with two (2) village centers
located within the study area; Cape Vincent and Sackets Harbor. The Village of Cape Vincent (population
760) is located more than 14 miles from the nearest turbine. The Village of Cape Vincent is not within the
Project viewshed.
The Village of Sackets Harbor (population 1,386) is approximately 12.2 miles east of Galloo Island. This
historic village includes over 150 structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places, including
military barracks, a battlefield, museums associated with the Sacketts Harbor Battlefield National Historic
Site. The downtown center is compact with moderate density development, tree lined streets, and historic
buildings that contain an assortment of small businesses and commercial establishments and residences.
Moderate density single-family dwellings within the village tend to be a mixture of new (some are
currently under construction) and older well-maintained residences. Density of development tapers off
quickly as one travels away from the Village center. In addition to privately owned docks and small local
marinas, the large Navy Point Marina is located just north of the Battlefield historic site. Potions of the
Village of Sacketts Harbor are within the Project viewshed, albeit at great distance.
10
http://www.dot.state.ny.us
#08-009.10M

Page 8
Population density outside of the village

centers is quite low ranging from 26 persons
per square mile in the Town of Lyme to 55
persons per square mile in the Town of
Brownville. This 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.
Outside the village centers, homes and
agricultural support buildings are either
clustered at crossroad hamlets 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,
Table 1 Demographic Summary of Study Area

Municipalities (2000 census)
Population
3,345
760
2,585
Population Density
(Persons/Sq.mi.)
59
1038
46
Chaumont Village
Town Excluding Villages
2,015
592
1,423
36
578
26
Brownville Town
Brownville Village
Dexter Village
Glen Park Village
Town Excluding Villages
5,843
1,022
1,120
487
3,214
98
1577
2705
694
56
Hounsfield
Sacketts Harbor Village
Town Excluding Village
3,323
1,386
1,937
68
606
41
Henderson Town
1,377
33
Ellisburg Town
3,541
269
400
2,872
42
266
435
35
Municipality
Cave Vincent Town
Cape Vincent Village
Lyme Town
Ellisburg Village
Mannsville Village
The study area also contains many waterfront homes that include estate homes that are setback from
roadways and adjacent properties, or small frame cottages, seasonal camps, and mobile homes of varying
vintage and quality. Boathouses and docks for recreational vessels are also common throughout the
coastal area. Shoreline properties are often cleared of vegetation to provide unencumbered views of the
waterway from residences.

#08-009.10M

Page 9
3.0
FACTORS AFFECTING VISUAL IMPACT
3.1 VISUAL CHARACTERISTICS

3.1.1 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.
Foreground (0 to 1/2 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.
With the nearest coastal vantage point more than 5.6 miles from the Project, only far offshore vessels
passing in very close proximity of Galloo Island will view the facility from the foreground distance zone.
With the outer margin of the foreground distance zone at least 4 miles off shore, the number of vessels
passing within mile of the proposed Project is expected to be very limited considering smaller
watercraft typically navigate much closer to shore.
Middleground (1/2 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.
Only boaters passing within three (3) miles will view the Project from the middleground distance zone.
Background (3 5 miles to Horizon) - At this distance, landscape elements lose detail and become less
distinct. Meteorological conditions and atmospheric perspective change 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.
All coastal vantage points will view the project from far background distances (5.6 miles and greater).
Due to its unique visual character, under clear weather conditions the proposed wind farm may be
considered a point of interest over open water from the closest coastal vantage points. However, turbine
structures will decrease in visibility, clarity and perceived importance with increasing distance up and
down the coast.
3.1.2 Linear Perspective
Linear, scientific 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 contrast between the object and its
#08-009.10M

Page 10
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.11
Exclusive of the effect of earth curvature and meteorological visibility (refer to Sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.4,
below) a proposed wind turbine on Galloo Island as viewed from the nearest coastal vantage point (5.6
miles) would measure only 0.8 degrees vertically above the horizon (base to blade tip at apex of rotation).
This is roughly equivalent to the width of a pencil held at arms length12. At 15 miles, the full height of the
turbine would measure just 0.3 degrees. This is roughly equivalent to the width of two pennies held at
arms length. While this very small degree of visibility might be perceptible to a distant observer, it is
unlikely to be considered a point of interest at such extended distance.
3.1.3 Meteorological Visibility
Visibility can be reduced by fog, snow, particulate matter, or any combination of them, and is a part of
normal atmospheric phenomena.
Table 2 summarizes the results of a meteorological visibility analysis conducted by Upstate Power for this
area of northern New York. The data was collected at the Watertown, New York ASOS Station (KART),
approximately 18 miles from Galloo Island.
Table 2 Meteorological Visibility - Summary from Jan. 1997 through Dec. 2007 Watertown,
NY
Annual
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
(Dec 21-Mar 21)
(Mar 22-Jun 21)
(Jun 22-Sept 20)
(Sept 21-Dec 20)
Hours Percent
21,050 24.9%
Hours Percent
21,472 25.4%
Hours Percent
20,864 24.7%
Total Hours
Hours Percent
84,578 100.0%
Hours
21,192
Percent
25.1%
Total Daylight Hrs1
45,987
54.4%
9,689
11.5%
13,443
15.9%
13,130
Total Night Hrs
38,591
45.6%
11,361
13.4%
8,029
9.5%
7,734
15.5%
9,725
11.5%
9.1%
11,467
13.6%
Clear Visibility (9 Miles)
65,770
77.8%
14,992
71.2%
17,474
81.4%
Limited Visibility (< 9 Miles).
18,808
22.2%
6,058
28.8%
3,998
18.6%
16,274
78.0%
17,030
80.4%
4,590
22.0%
4,162
8,616
10.2%
3,568
17.0%
1,698
19.6%
7.9%
1,598
7.7%
1,752
8.3%
35,798
77.8%
6,679
68.9%
Limited Visibility (< 9 Miles).
10,189
22.2%
3,010
31.1%
10,994
81.8%
10,384
79.1%
7,741
79.6%
2,449
18.2%
2,746
20.9%
1,984
4,850
10.5%
1,878
20.4%
19.4%
1,079
8.0%
999
7.6%
894
9.2%
All Hours (day and night)
Restricted Visibility (< 5 miles)

Daylight Hours Only2

Night Hours Only
29,972
77.7%
8,313
73.2%
6,480
80.7%
5,890
76.2%
9,289
81.0%
Limited Visibility (< 9 Miles)
8,619
22.3%
3,048
26.8%
1,549
19.3%
1,844
23.8%
2,178
19.0%
3,766
9.8%
1,690
14.9%
619
7.7%
599
7.7%
858
7.5%
1
2
11
12
Daylight hours are assumed to be 6am through 8pm during the spring and summer, and 7am through 5pm during fall and winter
Hours of precipitation included due to the reduced aesthetic associated with inclement weather.
NYSDEC Visual Policy, p. 10

Assume arms length equals 24 inches.
#08-009.10M

Page 11
Based on this data, meteorological conditions would obscure the project from all coastal receptors (five
[5] miles or greater from the facility) approximately 10 percent of the time in the eastern lake Ontario
region on an annual basis. This frequency is generally consistent throughout all seasons, ranging from 7.7
percent of the time during summer months to 17.0 percent of the time during winter months. There is also
no significant variation between day and night conditions with the frequency ranging from 10.5 percent
during daylight hours and 9.8 percent during the hours of darkness, on an annual basis.
For receptors located further up the coast, nine (9) miles or greater from the Project, visibility is further
limited. At this distance, the Project would be will be obscured by atmospheric conditions approximately
22 percent of the time, on an annual basis.
Although visibility data for distances greater than to nine (9) miles is not available, it is reasonable to
conclude that views greater than 15 miles will be obscured more frequently.
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
of this phenomenon, known as atmospheric perspective, is that objects appear "washed out" over great
distances.13 Thus, even with meteorological visibility the distance of the proposed turbines, the Project
may appear indistinct to the human eye.
The simple slender form and light gray coloration of the proposed turbines take advantage of these
meteorological conditions to further minimize visual contrast with the background sky.
3.1.4 Curvature of the Earth
From all vantage points the proposed project will be viewed over open water at great distance (greater
than 5.6 miles from any coastal vantage point). At such extended distance the curvature of the earth will
affect the visibility of proposed wind turbines. The degree of screening caused by earth curvature
depends on the elevation of the viewer above lake level (asl), the ground elevation of the turbine above
lake level and the distance of the viewer from the subject turbine.
For an observer standing at beach elevation, the base of an object begins to fall below the visible horizon
at a distance of approximately three miles. At 10 miles, the lower 25 feet of an object will be screened by
the horizon. This increases to 75 feet at a distance of 15 miles.
When viewed from mainland vantage points closest to the Project, proposed turbines will not appear to be
affected by earth curvature since Galloo Island itself would be visible above the horizon. From more
distant receptors, a portion or all of Galloo Island falls below the visible horizon. From these distances,
turbines may give the illusion of being located on open water even though they are constructed on the
island. From mid-range vantage points, turbines located on higher points of Galloo Island may appear to
be situated on land, while turbines on lower lying ground, and or more distant from the viewer may give
13
NYSDEC Visual Policy, p. 10

#08-009.10M

Page 12
the illusion of being located on open water. The photo simulation provided as Figure A14 illustrates this
phenomenon.
Because the atmosphere bends light around the earth (atmospheric refraction) allowing a viewer to see
farther, the distance to the optical horizon is slightly greater than the simple geometric calculation. The
exact amount of bending depends on several variables including elevation, and the composition of the
atmosphere (which varies with location, weather, etc.).
3.1.5 Mirage Effects
The effect of mirage will occasionally alter the appearance of the wind turbines, as well as Galloo Island
itself. A mirage is a naturally occurring optical phenomenon where distant objects appear displaced from
their true position. The bending of light rays by thermal gradients in the atmosphere causes this optical
displacement.
3.2 VIEWER/USER GROUPS

Viewers engaged in different activities while in the same setting 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.
3.2.1 Tourists, Vacationers and Recreational Users
One of the coastal areas greatest assets is the scenic quality of lake Ontario and its shoreline landscape.
The Eastern Lake Ontario region is a scenic and popular tourist destination offering a broad-spectrum of
land and water based recreational opportunities.
Popular land based activities include simple enjoyment of passive pursuits, such as picnicking, shoreline
fishing, walking along the shore, bird watching, or other forms of passive recreation while enjoying the
scenic coastal setting. Others dine at restaurants and shop in coastal villages, or a take leisurely drives.
Popular water based recreation includes fishing, paddling, sailing, and power boating.
Tourists, vacationers and recreational users, particularly those enjoying leisurely pursuits from coastal or
on-water locations will likely be most sensitive to the presence of the proposed wind energy Project.
While the sensitivity of these viewers will vary, to most quality views of the lake are an important an
integral part of the recreational experience.
The presence of the project may diminish the aesthetic experience for those that believe that the Lake and
should be used strictly for recreational purposes. For those who recognize and understand that the Lake is
a multi-purpose body, the presence of a renewable energy facility far offshore will have little aesthetic
impact on their recreational experience.
While the unique character of lake views is an important aspect of the recreational experience for most
shoreline visitors, viewers will also be cognizant of various foreground details and developments and
other visually proximate activities along the shore. Tourists, vacationers and recreational users currently
view existing on-shore power plants and other industrial uses as well as large commercial vessels that ply
the waters of the Lake Ontario within the Projects viewshed.
#08-009.10M

Page 13
Greater numbers of tourists, vacationers and recreational users will be present in the coastal area, when
the weather is clear and warm as compared to overcast, rainy or cold days. In addition, more recreational
users will be present in the coastal area on weekends and holidays than on weekdays.
3.2.2 Local Residents
The coastal area includes numerous of private residential properties (both permanent and second homes)
that are oriented to take advantage of scenic water views. Local residents are likely to have the best
understanding of the aesthetic character and existing conditions of the coastal area. Except when involved
in local travel, these viewers are likely to be stationary and may have frequent and prolonged views. They
know the waterfront and may be sensitive to particular changes to 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.
3.2.3 Through Travelers
This group includes non-local viewers such as travelers along roads with views of Lake Ontario.
However, extensive site inventory found few major thoroughfares with significant or extended views of
the Lake.
3.2.4 Commercial Mariners
Commercial fisherman and seaman transiting the Lake Ontario would typically have low sensitivity to the
presence of a wind energy project. These viewers would be engaged in activities associated with their
jobs with minimal focus on the aesthetic character of their surroundings. Moreover, commercial mariners
would be more accustomed to the presence of industrial activities within their day-to-day environment
that other viewer types.
3.3 DURATION/FREQUENCY/CIRCUMSTANCES OF VIEW

The analysis of a viewers 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.
3.3.1 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 into those of short-term and those of long-term exposure. Sites of
long-term exposure include locations where a stationary observer is likely to be regularly exposed to the
project such as from a place of residence or employment. Sites of short-term exposure include locations
where a stationary observer is only visiting, such as beaches or other coastal recreation areas. The
duration of visual impact remains at the discretion of the individual observer; however, short-term

#08-009.10M

Page 14
impacts diminish with repeated observations by the same observer (people become accustomed to
common views).
3.3.2 Moving Views
Moving views are those experienced in passing, such as from moving land-based or water-based vehicles
and craft, where the time available for a viewer to cognitively experience a particular view is limited.
Typically such views apply to motorists proceeding at a high rate of speed along a defined path through
highly complex stimuli.
Traveling at a slower speed over open water, recreational boaters may have greater opportunities to
cognitively experience their surroundings. For sailboats and very slow moving motor or paddle craft,
visual recognition may be similar to that described for stationary viewers. Though for reasons of safety
including avoidance of other vessels and surface flotsam, a boater may nevertheless still tend to focus
more on the direction of travel than other directions.

#08-009.10M

Page 15
4.0
VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
4.1 VIEWSHED MAPPING (ZONE OF VISUAL INFLUENCE)

4.1.1 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. It should be noted that visibility is not to be construed as a determination
regarding impacts. As noted in the DEC guidance and explained below, the mere visibility of the Project
does not constitute an adverse impact.
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 study area where some portion of the proposed wind energy 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 the Project to be
substantially screened by intervening forest vegetation (See Figure 2).
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
possible visibility of the proposed Project from the identified visual resources.
In this evaluation, ArcGIS 9.2 and ArcGIS Spatial Analyst software were used to generate viewshed areas
based on publicly available digital topographic and land cover datasets. Viewshed maps were created by
first importing a digital elevation model (DEM) of the Study Area. This DEM, obtained through the
United States Geological Survey from its National Elevation Dataset, represents the best publicly
available digital elevation data and is sampled at a 10-meter grid cell resolution. In order to run viewshed
analyses, this dataset was projected to the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system with
a nominal resolution of 10 meters. The computer then scanned from each control point to all cells within
this DEM, distinguishing between grid cells that would be hidden from view and those that would be
visible based solely on topography. A conservative offset of 2 meters was applied to each DEM cell to
simulate the height of a human observer. All grid cells within the study area were coded based on the

#08-009.10M

Page 16
number of turbines that would be visible to a theoretical observer whose eye height is two meters above
ground level.
Vegetation data was extracted from the National Land Cover Data Set 2001. 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.14 The screening effect of vegetation was
incorporated by including an additional 40 feet (12.2 meters) of height for those DEM grid cells that are
completely 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.
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 sitespecific vegetative cover such as small hedgerows, street trees and individual trees and other areas of nonforest tree cover may not be represented in the viewshed analysis. Furthermore, the NLCD dataset does
not include the screening value of existing structures. This is a particularly important distinction in the
populated areas such as the Village of Sackets Harbor, 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 multispectral 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 investigation is appropriate. Such topographyonly viewshed maps are not generally intended or appropriate for public interpretation of 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 viewers distance from each visible turbine or the
aesthetic character of what may be seen.
14
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 five-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)
#08-009.10M

Page 17
4.1.2 Verification of Viewshed Accuracy

Because 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.15
To help determine the accuracy of the vegetation data used for viewshed development, the NLCD data set
was overlaid on color aerial images (2004) of the study area and reviewed for consistency. While minor
inconsistencies were noted, including areas of recently cleared lands, areas of inactive/abandoned
agricultural land showing a degree of pioneer species growth, and areas of non-forest vegetative cover
(e.g. Village of Sackets Harbor), the vast majority of woodland areas visible on the satellite image were
consistent with the NLCD overlay.
4.1.3 Viewshed Interpretation
The viewshed illustrates that the vast majority of views of the proposed project will be limited to
immediate shoreline locations. In most areas project visibility is quickly screened from potential inland
vantage points by dense coastal vegetation and topography. Few publicly accessible vantage points with
views of the Lake were found more than several hundred yards inland. While there are discrete exceptions
(locations where large expanses of agricultural land extend to the lakeshore), viewshed analysis
demonstrates that views of the proposed wind energy Project will be substantially limited to shoreline
locations.
Approximately 126 miles of mainland coastline falls within the 15-mile radius study area. Based on
viewshed analysis, the proposed Project will be visible (at distances ranging from 5.6 to 15 miles) from
approximately 77 miles of mainland coastline (61%). Intervening islands, peninsulas and coves will
screen the Project from approximately 49 miles (39%) of mainland coastline.
Areas of non-visibility include concave bays, inlets and peninsulas where views of the main body of Lake
Ontario in the direction of Galloo Island is screened by intervening landform and vegetation. In some
affected areas, coastal orientation would likely direct views away from Galloo Island. For example,
principal lake views are oriented in a westerly direction from Southwick Beach State Park and much of
the coastal area in the Town of Ellisburg. In this area, Galloo Island is visible obliquely up the coast to
the north-northwest. While the Project viewshed affects this portion of the shoreline, view orientation
diminishes impact.
When visible from coastal areas, views are at great distance over open water. The closest mainland
vantage point is Point Peninsula, 5.6 miles northeast of Galloo Island and Stony Point, 6.1 miles southeast
of Galloo Island. All mainland vantage points fall within the background distance zone (refer to Section
3.1.1), where turbines will be less visually distinct and lack visual clarity due to atmospheric and linear
perspective.
15
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.
#08-009.10M

Page 18
Project visibility is also found within discrete agricultural upland areas inland from the coast. Such
visibility is substantially limited by coastal vegetation at great distance. Open views of the Project will
be available from offshore vantage points on Lake Ontario. The greatest potential for close proximity
views will be from those boating on Lake Ontario.

#08-009.10M

Page 19
4.2 INVENTORY OF VISUALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES

4.2.1 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 cultural
and/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 are typically viewpoints
accessible to the general public16 and 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.
16
National/State Register sites are frequently private properties not open to the general public.
#08-009.10M

Page 22
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 are public viewpoints and are 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 of these were 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. Visibility Evaluation of Inventoried Resources
Table 3 lists 111 visually sensitive resources located within the 15-mile radius study area. The location of
these visual resources is referenced by numeric code within Figure 2. Each inventoried visual resource
was evaluated to determine whether the Project might be visible from these locations. This potential

#08-009.10M

Page 23
visibility analysis included review of viewshed maps and field observation to determine whether or not
individual resources would have a view of the proposed Project.
Of the 112 visual resources inventoried, 52 would likely be screened from the proposed Project by either
intervening landform or vegetation/structures and are thus eliminated from further study.
Table 3
Visual Resource Visibility Summary

Potential Visibility
Key
Visibility Indicated
No Visibility Indicated
Filtered view through trees or limited view through structures possible (field observed)
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 View
Likely Based
on Field
Confirmation
of Existing
Line-of-sight17
Cultural Resources
17
Point Salubrious Historic District
Town of Cape Vincent
Statewide Significance
Chaumont Historic District
Village of Chaumont
Chaumont House
Village of Chaumont
Evans, Gaige, Dillenbeck House
Village of Chaumont
George House
Village of Chaumont
Cedar Grove Cemetery
Village of Chaumont
12
Taylor Boathouse
Town of Lyme
13
Taft House
Town of Lyme
14
Menzo Wheeler House
Town of Lyme
16
Old Stone Shop
Town of Lyme
17
Three Mile Bay Historic District
Town of Lyme
19
The Row
Village of Chaumont
20
Wilcox Farmhouse
Town of Lyme
23
Johnson House
Village of Cape Vincent
24
Captain Louis Peugnet House
25
St. Vincent of Paul Catholic

Church
26
St. John's Episcopal Church
28
Broadway Historic District
Field confirmation of potential visibility was conducted on August 27, 2008, September 2 and 11, 2008, and
October 8, 2008. Refer to Section 4.3.1 for additional information.
#08-009.10M

Page 24
Table 3

Key
Map ID
18
Receptor Name
Municipality
Inventory Type
29
Jean Philippe Galband du Fort

House
30
John Borland House
31
Vincent LeRay House
32
Otis Starkey House
Village Cape Vincent
33
James Buckley House
35
Roxy Hotel
36
Glen Building
39
E. K. Burnham House
40
Aubertine Building
41
Lewis House
42
Cornelius Sacket House
45
Levi Anthony Building
46
Duvillard Mill
49
Tibbetts Point Light
50
Rogers Brothers Farmstead
57
Galloo Island Lighthouse
Town of Hounsfield
60
Lance Farm
Town of Lyme
61
Angell Farm
Town of Lyme
62
Getman Farmhouse
Town of Lyme
66
Stoney Point Lighthouse
Town of Henderson
73
Naval Operations of the Great

Lakes Seaway Trail Site18
Town of Henderson
Local Importance
81
Bedford Creek Bridge
Town of Hounsfield
86
Sackets Harbor State Historic Site

(Battlefield)
Village of Sackets
Harbor
Theoretical
View Indicated
Existing
Vegetation
(See Figure 1)
Theoretical
View Indicated
Existing
Vegetation
(See Figure 2)
Actual View
Likely Based
on Field
Confirmation
of Existing
Line-of-sight17
Not Visited
Not Visited
Not Visited
Not Visited
Not Visited
The exact location of this resource could not be verified in the field. Signage for this resource had been
temporarily removed.
#08-009.10M

Page 25
Table 3

Key
Map ID
Receptor Name
Municipality
Inventory Type
87
Shore Farm
Village of Sackets
Harbor
88
Madison Barracks
Village of Sackets
Harbor
89
Sackets Harbor Battlefield
Village of Sackets
Harbor
93
Fort Volunteer and Fort Pike
Village of Sackets
Harbor
Local Importance
94
Sackets Harbor Historic District
Village of Sackets
Harbor
96
Elisha Camp House
Village of Sackets
Harbor
97
Union Hall
Town of Lyme
98
United Methodist Church - Point

Peninsula
Town of Lyme
Theoretical
View Indicated
Existing
Vegetation
(See Figure 1)
Theoretical
View Indicated
Existing
Vegetation
(See Figure 2)
Not Visited
Actual View
Likely Based
on Field
Confirmation
of Existing
Line-of-sight17
Not Visited
Not Visited
Recreational and Tourist Resources

1
Long Point State Park
Town of Lyme
State Boat Launch
Town of Chaumont
18
State Boat Launch
Village of Chaumont
34
Cape Vincent Fisheries Research

Station (NYS DEC)
37
Cape Vincent Village Green
Local Importance
38
North Market Street, Swimming

Area
Local Importance
47
Waterfront Park
Local Importance
48
Cape Vincent Village Ramp Public

Boat Launch
Local Importance
52
Lake Ontario Waterway Access

(NYS DEC Boat Launch)
54
Grenadier Island Grassland

Preserve (Thousand Islands Land
Trust)
55
Eastern Ontario Waterway Access

(NYS DEC Boat Launch)
Town of Lyme
56
Point Peninsula WMA
Town of Lyme
58
Galloo Island WMA
Town of Hounsfield
59
Little Galloo Island Unique Area
Town of Hounsfield
64
Robert G. Wehle State Park (Cliff

View)
Town of Henderson
65
Henderson Shores Unique Area
Town of Henderson
Local Importance

#08-009.10M

Page 26
Table 3

Key
Map ID
Receptor Name
Municipality
Inventory Type
67
Robert G. Wehle State Park
Town of Henderson
68
Southwick Beach State Park
Town of Ellisburg
69
Lakeview State WMA
Town of Ellisburg
70
Black Pond WMA
Town of Henderson
71
Stoney Creek Boat Launch
Town of Henderson
72
El Dorado Beach Preserve (Nature

Conservancy)
Town of Henderson
Local Importance
75
Henderson Boat Launch
Town of Henderson
Local Importance
78
Association Island
Town of Henderson
Local Importance
80
Westcott Beach State Park

(Camping Area North End)
Town of Henderson
80.1

(Overlook)
Town of Henderson
82
Seaway Trail Scenic Byway
Town of Henderson
83
Bedford Creek Marina and

Campground
Town of Hounsfield
Local Importance
84
Willows Campground
Town of Henderson
Local Importance
85
Bedford Creek Golf Course
Town of Hounsfield
Local Importance
90
Seaway Trail Discovery Center
Village of Sackets
Harbor
91
Sackets Harbor Visitor Center
Village of Sackets
Harbor
Local Importance
99
Rustic Golf and Country Club
Town of Dexter
100
Dexter Marsh WMA
Town of Dexter
101
Lake Ontario (Grenadier Island)
102
Lake Ontario (Fox Island)
103
Lake Ontario (Isthmus Island)
Town of Lyme
104
Lake Ontario (Cliffs on North

Side of Galloo Island)
Town of Hounsfield
105
Lake Ontario (North Pond)
Town of Hounsfield
106
Lake Ontario (Gil Harbor

mile from Galloo Island)
Town of Hounsfield
107
Lake Ontario (Gil Harbor)
Town of Hounsfield

#08-009.10M
Local Importance
Theoretical
View Indicated
Existing
Vegetation
(See Figure 1)
Theoretical
View Indicated
Existing
Vegetation
(See Figure 2)
Actual View
Likely Based
on Field
Confirmation
of Existing
Line-of-sight17
Not Visited
Not Visited
Not Visited

Page 27
Table 3

Key
Map ID
Receptor Name
Municipality
Inventory Type
108
Lake Ontario (Dock Facility)
Town of Hounsfield
109
Lake Ontario (Calf Island Spit)
Town of Hounsfield
110
Lake Ontario (1/2 Mile

Southwest of Galloo Island
Lighthouse)
Town of Hounsfield
Theoretical
View Indicated
Existing
Vegetation
(See Figure 1)
Theoretical
View Indicated
Existing
Vegetation
(See Figure 2)
Actual View
Likely Based
on Field
Confirmation
of Existing
Line-of-sight17
Highway Corridors/Roadside Receptors

4.1
NYS Route 12E
Village of Chaumont
Local Importance
51
Stony Point Road
Other Places for

Analysis
53
CR 57
Town of Lyme
Other Places for

Analysis
63
Shore Road
Town of Lyme
Other Places for

Analysis
76
CR 123
Town of Henderson
Other Places for

Analysis
77
NYS Route 3/Seaway Trail Scenic

Byway (Overlook)
Town of Henderson
79
CR 59 near Pillar Pt
Town of Henderson
Other Places for

Analysis
Residential/Community Resources
9
Lyme Central School
Town of Lyme
Local Importance
10
Herrick Grove
Town of Lyme
Local Importance
11
Three Mile Point Bay (Residential)
Town of Lyme
Local Importance
15
Three Mile Point Bay
Town of Lyme
Local Importance
21
Bedford Corners
Local Importance
22
Mud Bay - Martin's Marina
Local Importance
27
Elementary School and

Recreational Park
Local Importance
43
Cape Vincent Historical Museum
Local Importance
44
Ferry to Wolfe Island - Marina - US

Coast Guard Station
Local Importance
74
Henderson Harbor
Town of Henderson
Local Importance
92

Museum
Village of Sackets
Harbor
Local Importance
95
Sackets Harbor Central School
Village of Sackets
Harbor
Local Importance

#08-009.10M
Not Visited
Not Visited

Page 28
4.2.2 Summary of Affected Resources

As listed in Table 3, of the original 112 inventoried visual resources, 52 would likely be screened from
the proposed Project by either intervening landform or vegetation/structures and are thus eliminated from
further study. Error! Reference source not found. summarizes the factors affecting visual impact
(viewer group, distance zone and duration/frequency/circumstances of view) described above for each
visual resource determined to have a potential view of the proposed Project.
All potentially impacted visual resources of statewide significance and local importance located on the
mainland, more than 5.6 miles from Galloo Island, within the far background distance zone. Only visual
resources on Galloo and nearby Islands, and Lake Ontario itself offer project views within the foreground
and middleground distance zones. The following summaries the nature and public access opportunities
for each identified resource located within five miles of the Project.
! Galloo Island Lighthouse The Galloo Island lighthouse and keepers quarters, are listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. The lighthouse property is privately owned. Structures are
uninhabited and in a state of disrepair. Public access is not permitted.
! Galloo Island Wildlife Management Area This 26-acre WMA is located at the southwestern
end of Galloo Island and serves as a preserved habitat for the Islands numerous wildlife species.
Access to the Galloo Island WMA is not readily available to the general public.
! Little Galloo Island Unique Area This 45-acre Unique Area is comprised of an island just east
of Galloo Island. The Island is home to the Lake Ontario Islands Bird Conservation Area,
managed by the NYS DEC. Access to the Little Galloo Island Unique Area is available by boat
and is currently restricted.
! Lake Ontario Lake Ontario is the overarching scenic feature of the eastern Lake Ontario region
and principal source of regional tourism. As such it must be considered an important aesthetic
resource. The vast majority of recreational and scenic opportunities are afforded to the general
public from coastal vantage points a minimum of 5.6 miles distant from the Project site. Only
recreational powerboats and sailing craft will have opportunity to venture closer to the Galloo
Island. While on water recreational viewers will have direct views of the project when within
immediate proximity to Galloo Island, boaters venturing five miles off-shore represent a
relatively small percentage of the general visiting the study area.
The presence of the project may, to some degree diminish the aesthetic experience of boaters for
the time they are within immediate proximity of the Project. However, such impact is transient
and will diminish with distance. Multiple photo simulations illustrating project visibility from
various locations on Lake Ontario are provided in Appendix A.
The Project will also be visible from segments of the Seaway Trail Scenic Byway on the mainland (refer
to Figure A23). Of the approximately 11 miles of the Seaway Trail Scenic Byway traversing the study
area, the high point of one or more turbines will be visible from approximately 3.8 miles (approximately
35 percent). At its closest point, the Seaway Trail is approximately 10 miles from the closest proposed
turbine. At this distance the Project will have minimal visual impact on this byway.

#08-009.10M

Page 29
Map
ID
2
Distance (miles)
/Distance Zone
Receptor Name
Municipality
Inventory Type
Viewer/User Group(s)
Moving/
Stationary
State Boat Launch
Town of Chaumont
recreational
(nearest turbine)
15.3/Background
NYS Route 12E
Village of Chaumont
Local Importance
travelers, local residents, tourists
16.0/Background
Moving
Chaumont House
Village of Chaumont
local residents
15.8/Background
Stationary
10
Herrick Grove
Town of Lyme
Local Importance
travelers, local residents
13.5/Background
Stationary
11
Three Mile Point Bay (Residential)
Town of Lyme
Local Importance
local residents
14.0/Background
Stationary
12
Taylor Boathouse
Town of Lyme
local residents
14.1/Background
Stationary
13
Taft House
Town of Lyme
local residents
14.1/Background
Stationary
14
Menzo Wheeler House
Town of Lyme
local residents
14.3/Background
Stationary
4.1
5
Stationary
15
Three Mile Point Bay
Town of Lyme
Local Importance
local residents
14.2/Background
Stationary
16
Old Stone Shop
Town of Lyme
local residents
14.4/Background
Stationary
17
Three Mile Bay Historic District
Town of Lyme
local residents, tourists
14.3/Background
Stationary
18
State Boat Launch
Village of Chaumont
recreational
13.6/Background
Stationary
21
Bedford Corners
Local Importance
10.3/Background
Stationary
49
Tibbetts Point Lighthouse
local residents, tourists
12.4/Background
Stationary
50
Rogers Brothers Farmstead
local residents
11.2/Background
Stationary
51
Stony Point Road
Other Places for Analysis
local residents
10.6/Background
Moving
53
CR 57
Town of Lyme
9.2/Background
Moving
54
Grenadier Island Grassland Preserve (Thousand Islands Land

Trust)
Local Importance
local residents
8.3/Background
Stationary
55
Eastern Ontario Waterway Access (NYS DEC Boat Launch)
Town of Lyme
recreational
7.7/Background
Stationary
56
Point Peninsula WMA
Town of Lyme
recreational
7.8/Background
Stationary
57
Town of Hounsfield
local residents
0.2/Foreground
Stationary
58
Galloo Island WMA
Town of Hounsfield
recreational
0.1/Foreground
Stationary
59
Little Galloo Island Unique Area
Town of Hounsfield
recreational
1.2/Middleground
Stationary
60
Lance Farm
Town of Lyme
local residents
7.1/Background
Stationary
61
Angell Farm
Town of Lyme
local residents
6.7/Background
Stationary
62
Getman Farmhouse
Town of Lyme
local residents
6.5/Background
Stationary
63
Shore Road
Town of Lyme
local residents
8.5/Background
Stationary
64
Robert G. Wehle State Park (Cliff View)
Town of Henderson
recreational
6.4/Background
Stationary
65
Henderson Shores Unique Area
Town of Henderson
recreational
7.4/Background
Stationary
66
Stoney Point Lighthouse
Town of Henderson
local residents
6.7/Background
Stationary
67
Town of Henderson
recreational
6.0/Background
Stationary
68
Town of Ellisburg
recreational
13.3/Background
Stationary
69
Lakeview State WMA
Town of Ellisburg
recreational
14.2/Background
Stationary
70
Black Pond WMA
Town of Ellisburg
recreational
10.9/Background
Stationary

#08-009.10M

Page 30
Map
ID
Moving/
Stationary
Receptor Name
Municipality
Inventory Type
Viewer/User Group(s)
72
El Dorado Beach Preserve (Nature Conservancy)
Town of Henderson
Local Importance
recreational
10.5/Background
Stationary
76
CR 123
Town of Henderson
10.8/Background
Moving
77
NYS Route 3/Seaway Trail Scenic Byway (Overlook)
Town of Henderson
10.2/Background
Moving
78
Association Island
Town of Henderson
Local Importance
recreational
8.2/Background
Stationary
79
CR 59 near Pillar Pt
Town of Henderson
9.6/Background
Moving
80
Westcott Beach State Park (Camping Area North End)
Town of Henderson
recreational
12.4/Background
Stationary
Stationary
80.1
19
Distance (miles)
/Distance Zone
(nearest turbine)
Westcott Beach State Park (Overlook)
Town of Henderson
13.0/Background
82
Seaway Trail Scenic Byway
Town of Henderson
11.4/Background
Moving
83
Bedford Creek Marina and Campground
Town of Hounsfield
Local Importance
recreational
12.9/Background
Stationary
84
Willows Campground
Town of Henderson
Local Importance
recreational
12.3/Background
Stationary
86
Sackets Harbor State Historic Site (Battlefield)
Village of Sackets Harbor
local residents, recreational, tourists
12.7/Background
Stationary
88
Madison Barracks
13.6/Background
Stationary
89
12.4/Background
Stationary
92
Sackets Harbor Battlefield Museum
Local Importance
12.6/Background
Stationary
93
Fort Volunteer and Fort Pike
Local Importance
13.5/Background
Stationary
100
Dexter Marsh WMA
Town of Dexter
recreational
16.5/Background
Stationary
101
recreational
7.4/Background
Moving/Stationary19
102
recreational
7.8/Background
Moving/Stationary
103
Town of Lyme
recreational
6.7/Background
Moving/Stationary
104
Lake Ontario (Cliffs on North Side of Galloo Island)
Town of Hounsfield
recreational
0.6/Middleground
Moving/Stationary
105
Town of Hounsfield
recreational
0.2/Foreground
Moving/Stationary
106
Lake Ontario (Gil Harbor mile from Galloo Island)
Town of Hounsfield
recreational
0.5/Middleground
Moving/Stationary
107
Town of Hounsfield
recreational
0.2/Background
Moving/Stationary
108
Town of Hounsfield
recreational
0.3/Background
Moving/Stationary
109
Town of Hounsfield
recreational
2.7/Middleground
Moving/Stationary
110
Lake Ontario (1/2 Mile Southwest of Galloo Island

Lighthouse)
Town of Hounsfield
recreational
0.7/Middleground
Moving/Stationary
Views from receptors 101-110 may be both Moving and/or Stationary. It is anticipated that many of the views will be from moving watercrafts, those that enjoy the
sport of fishing may be stationary for long periods of time.
#08-009.10M

Page 31
4.3 DEGREE OF PROJECT VISIBILITY

4.3.1 Field Observation and Photography
On August 27, 2008, September 2 and 11, 2008, and October 8, 2008 a field crew drove public roads and
visited many of the locations from which the project might be visible (as determined through viewshed
mapping) to document existing visibility in the direction of proposed wind turbines. All photographs were
taken from these sites using a 12.2-mega pixel digital camera with a lens setting of approximately
50mm20 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 site. 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 cameras 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.
20
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).
#08-009.10M
VRA January 31, 2009

Page 32
4.3.2 Photo Simulations

Selection of Key Receptors for Photo Simulation To demonstrate how the actual turbines will appear
from a variety of distances and locations, representative photo simulations were prepared from 22
locations. The specific location of these simulations was chosen for their relevance to the factors affecting
visual impact (viewer/user groups, distance zones and duration/frequency) and circumstances of view
discussed above. Many of these sites were selected based on consultation with NYS DEC. 21
These simulations do not include views from all potentially affected visual resources, but rather provide
representative examples of how the
Table 4 Key Receptors Selected for Photo Simulation
proposed Project will appear under
Map ID
Receptor Name
varying circumstances of distance and
49
Tibbetts Point Lighthouse
55
Eastern Ontario Waterway Access (NYS DEC Boat Launch)
landscape character. Table 4 lists the
57
key receptors selected for photo
64
Robert G. Wehle State Park (Cliff View)
67
simulation.
68
Because the visibility of the proposed
wind turbines will most commonly be
available from the shoreline, many
views from resources of Statewide
Significance (e.g. Robert G. Wehle
State Park) were chosen for photo
simulations. Also, open views of the
Project from Lake Ontario were also
simulated.
70
77
78
80
80.1
86
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
Black Pond WMA

NYS Route 3/Seaway Trail Scenic Byway (Overlook)
Association Island
Westcott Beach State Park (Camping Area North End)
Sackets Harbor State Historic Site (Battlefield)
Lake Ontario (Cliffs on North Side of Galloo Island)
Lake Ontario (Gil Harbor mile from Galloo Island)
Lake Ontario (Approximately Mile Southwest from Galloo Island Lighthouse)
The location of simulated views, as well as all photo simulations are presented in Appendix A.
Photo Simulation Methodology A photo simulation of the proposed Project22 was prepared from each
key receptor location. Photo simulations were developed by superimposing a rendering of a threedimensional computer model of the proposed Project into the base photograph taken from each
corresponding visual resource (see section 4.3.1). The three-dimensional computer model was developed
in Autodesk Architectural Desktop, Land Development Desktop, Autodesk Viz (Viz), and Virtual Nature
Studio (VNS) software.
21
The EIS Scope approved by the NYS DEC identified views from the following locations to be simulated: NYS
land adjacent to the Galloo Island lighthouse, Sackets Harbor Battlefield, Seaway Trail along NYS Route 3,
Association Island, Stony Point Lighthouse, Southwick Beach State Park, Black Pond WMA, Robert G. Wehle
State Park (High Rocks), Point Peninsula WMA, Tibbetts Point Lighthouse, water view looking towards Galloo
Island Lighthouse, water view from Isthmus Island, water view from Fox/Grenadier Islands, water view from Calf
Island spit. Due to access and visibility issues, the Eastern Ontario Waterway Access (NYS DEC boat launch)
and two (2) locations in the Westcott Beach State Park were simulated in place of Stony Point Lighthouse and
Point Peninsula WMA. Also, due to vegetation screening a simulation was completed from the top of the Galloo
Island Lighthouse instead of at ground level.
22
Analysis of transmission infrastructure is contained in the VRA prepared for the Article VII Application
submitted in January 2009.
#08-009.10M

Page 33
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 (e.g. 50mm). Precisely matching these parameters assures
scale accuracy between the base photograph and the subsequent simulated view. The cameras target
position was set to match the bearing of the corresponding existing condition photograph as recorded in
the field. With the existing conditions photograph displayed as a viewport background, 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.
The appearance of the turbines is based on the specifications of Vestas V90 3.0 MW turbines with a 80 m
(263 ft.) hub height and 90 m (295 ft.) diameter blades. The blade tip height (blade in upright position)
used in the simulations was 410 feet.
The proposed condition model was rendered using the base photograph as a background environment
map. The 3D model was rendered using sunlight settings approximating the date and time of day the base
photograph was taken. To the extent practicable, and to the extent necessary to reveal impacts, design
details of the proposed 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. The rendered view was then opened using Adobe Photoshop
CS2 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 an 11x17
page format. At this image size, the page should be held at approximately arms length23 so 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 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.
23
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. Arms length is assumed to be approximately 22.5 inches from the eye.
Arms length varies for individual viewers.
#08-009.10M

Page 34
4.4 CHARACTER OF PROJECT VISIBILITY

4.4.1 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 Project region
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 Appendix A.
Form The form of the regional landscape within the Project is generally comprised of Lake Ontario, the
coastline, and islands. The patterns of the open water are temporal, changing with wind, sun angle, cloud
cover, and other factors that affect the texture and colors of the surface. Visible shorelines (mainland and
islands) may vary from a subtle linear form low on the horizon to an undulating landform along the
coastline.
The proposed wind energy Project will be comprised of 84 thin tapered vertical structures topped with
large rotating blades located within the boundaries of Galloo Island. Although the Project is relatively
small within the context of Lake Ontario, the introduction of such clearly man-made and kinetic structures
can, dependent on distance and meteorological conditions, create a visible visual disruption above the
horizon and contrasts with the expansive planar form of the lake and sky.
Line Both the shoreline (mainland and islands) and horizon are defining linear elements. At foreground
distances, the visual composition of the Project will be up to 84 well-defined vertical forms with rotating
blades. From distant vantage points, views will commonly include the island and a significant number of
turbines or the entire Project. However, due to atmospheric perspective (hazing) there is little discernable
distinction between land, water and sky at the distant horizon.
Color Generally, from ground level, 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. When the turbines are backlit (turbine facing viewer is in shade) it is anticipated
that it will be less compatible with the background sky as the turbines will have the potential to be a dark
object being viewed against a light background. Color contrast will decrease with increasing distance.
In addition, color contrast from on-water or the nearest shoreline receptors will diminish or disappear
completely during periods of haze, fog or precipitation.
#08-009.10M

Page 35
Texture The texture of the open water viewed out to the horizon is smooth. 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. From most foreground and middleground vantage points (within Lake Ontario and on closer
islands) the proposed turbines will be perceived as a highly dominant visual element. When viewed from
background vantage points, the turbines perceived scale and spatial dominance are lessened. Also, when
viewed from background and far background vantage points, when the Project is discernable under clear
atmospheric conditions, the Project will be visually subordinate to the expansive Lake Ontario.
4.4.2 Visual Character during the Construction Period
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 watercrafts. 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.

#08-009.10M

Page 36
5.0
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.
! Ancillary facilities (e.g. substation, transition station, operations and maintenance, etc) will be
located on Galloo Island, which is over 5.6 miles from the mainland in order to minimize the
perceived visual impact from those parts of the Project, from most potential viewers.
Screening
! Considering the proposed Project includes up to 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 on Galloo Island in an effective manner to screen these major structures from
nearby islands, or the mainland.
Project Siting/Relocation
! The proposed Project is located on Galloo Island 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;
Its distance to the nearest point along the mainland exceeds 5 miles lessening the potential for
visual impact; 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 Project, there is no opportunity to relocate the wind energy Project to another site
owned by the applicant where it would be substantially less visible.
! Turbine placement on Galloo Island will be largely dictated by environmental constraints.

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
up to252 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

#08-009.10M

Page 37
production. Reducing the height of the turbines to a meaningful degree would substantially
reduce the amount of energy produced rendering the development of the wind energy Project
impractical or would require constructing a greater number of smaller units to be economically
viable. Moreover, given the exposed location on Galloo Island, a reduction in tower height would
not result in a commensurate or meaningful reduction in the affected viewshed.
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.24
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.
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 23 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.
Maintenance
! How a landscape and structures in the landscape are maintained has aesthetic implications to the
long-term visual character of a Project. 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, a strict policy of maintenance, including materials and practices that
ensure a clean and well-maintained appearance over the full life of the facility will be
implemented.
Decommissioning
! At the end of the Project life, idled turbines could represent a significant and unnecessary visual
impact to the area. Upstate Power 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.
24
American Wind Energy Association, Wind Energy Fact Sheet, Wind Energy the Fuel of the Future is Ready
Today (http://www.awea.org)
#08-009.10M

Page 38
6.0
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL VISUAL IMPACT
Visibility Summary
Distance - The proposed Hounsfield Wind Farm is located on Galloo Island, a minimum of 5.6 miles
offshore from all coastal vantage points, the project will be viewed within the far background distance
zone. From this distance, landscape elements lose detail and become less distinct.
From ground level vantage points along the coast, the project will appear very low to the horizon. A
proposed wind turbine on Galloo Island, as viewed from the nearest coastal vantage point would measure
only 0.8 degrees vertically above the horizon (base to blade tip at apex of rotation). This is roughly
equivalent to the width of a pencil held at arms length. At 15 miles, the full height of the turbine would
measure just 0.3 degrees. This is roughly equivalent to the width of two pennies held at arms length.
While this very small degree of visibility might be perceptible to a distant observer, it is unlikely to be
considered a point of interest at such extended distance.
Meteorological Factors - Visibility can be reduced by fog, snow, particulate matter, or any combination of
them, and is a part of normal atmospheric phenomena. Meteorological conditions would obscure the
project from all coastal receptors approximately 10 percent of the time on an annual basis. For receptors
nine (9) miles or greater from the Project, visibility is further limited. At this distance, the Project would
be will be obscured by meteorological conditions approximately 22 percent of the time on an annual
basis. Although visibility data for distances greater than to nine (9) miles is not available, it is reasonable
to conclude that views further than nine (9) miles will be obscured more frequently.
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
of this phenomenon, known as atmospheric perspective, is that objects appear "washed out" over great
distances. Thus, even under generally clear meteorological conditions, at more than 5.6 mile offshore, the
Project may appear indistinct to the human eye. The simple slender form and light gray coloration of the
proposed turbines takes advantage of these meteorological conditions to further minimize visual contrast
with the background sky.
Viewshed Analysis - The viewshed illustrates that the vast majority of views of the proposed project will
be limited to immediate shoreline locations. In most areas project visibility is quickly screened from
potential inland vantage points by dense coastal vegetation and topography. Few publicly accessible
vantage points with views of the Lake were found more than several hundred yards inland. While there
are discrete exceptions (locations where large expanses of agricultural land extend to the lakeshore),
viewshed analysis demonstrates that publicly accessible views of the proposed wind energy Project will
be substantially limited to shoreline locations.
en views of the Project will be available from offshore vantage points on Lake Ontario. The greatest
potential for close proximity views will be for those boating on Lake Ontario.

#08-009.10M

Page 39
When visible from coastal areas, views are at great distance over open water. The closest mainland
vantage point is Point Peninsula, 5.6 miles northeast of Galloo Island and Stony Point, 6.1 miles southeast
of Galloo Island. All mainland vantage points fall within the background distance zone, where turbines
will be less visually distinct and lack visual clarity due to atmospheric and linear perspective.
Approximately 126 miles of mainland coastline falls within the 15-mile radius study area. Based on
viewshed analysis, the proposed Project will be visible (at distances ranging from 5.6 to 15 miles) from
approximately 77 miles of coastline (61%). Intervening islands, peninsulas and coves will screen the
Project from approximately 49 miles (39%) of mainland coastline.
Impact on Visual Resources
111 receptors generally meeting the defined criteria for visual resources of statewide significance or local
importance were identified within the 15-mile radius study area. Fifty-four (54) of these places were
determined through viewshed analysis and field confirmation to be screened from the Project by
intervening landform and vegetation. Of the remaining potentially affected resources, the vast majority is
located on the mainland, a minimum of 5.6 miles from Galloo Island; within the far background distance
zone. As such impact on these resources located on the mainland is expected to be minimal to negligible.
The Project will be visible from segments of the Seaway Trail Scenic Byway (refer to Figure A23). Of
the approximately 11 miles of the Seaway Trail Scenic Byway traversing the study area, the high point of
one or more turbines will be visible from approximately 3.8 miles (approximately 35 percent). At its
closest point, the Seaway Trail is approximately 10 miles from the closest proposed turbine. At this
distance the Project will have minimal visual impact on this byway.
Only visual resources on Galloo and nearby islands, and Lake Ontario itself offer views of the Project
from the foreground and middleground distance zones. The following summarizes the resource type and
public access opportunities for each resource located within five miles of the Project.
! Galloo Island Lighthouse The Galloo Island lighthouse and keepers quarters, are listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. The lighthouse property is privately owned. Structures are
uninhabited and in a state of disrepair. Public access is not permitted.
! Galloo Island Wildlife Management Area This 26-acre WMA is located at the southwestern
end of Galloo Island and serves as a preserved habitat for the Islands numerous wildlife species.
Access to the Galloo Island WMA is by boat only and due to the remoteness of the island and
difficult access (there are no docking facilities on this rocky coastline) the WMA is not readily
available to the general public.
! Little Galloo Island Unique Area This 45-acre Unique Area is located approximately mile
south of Galloo Island. The Unique Area includes the Lake Ontario Islands Bird Conservation
Area, managed by the NYS DEC. Access to the Little Galloo Island Unique Area is available by
boat and is currently restricted.
! Lake Ontario Lake Ontario is the overarching scenic feature of the eastern Lake Ontario region
and principal source of regional tourism. As such it must be considered an important aesthetic

#08-009.10M

Page 40
resource. The vast majority of recreational and scenic opportunities are afforded to the general
public from coastal vantage points a minimum of 5.6 miles distant from the Project site. Only
recreational powerboats and sailing craft have opportunity to venture closer to the Galloo Island.
While on water recreational viewers will be directly impacted by views of the project when
within immediate proximity to Galloo Island, boaters traveling five miles offshore represent a
relatively small percentage of the general visiting the study area. Furthermore this sort of travel
is further restricted by the inclement weather prevalent in the region, especially during the winter
months.
The presence of the project may, to some degree diminish the aesthetic experience of boaters for
the time they are within immediate proximity of the Project. However, such impact is transient
and will diminish with distance. Multiple photo simulations illustrating project visibility from
various locations on Lake Ontario are provided in Appendix A.
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
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. Given the significant distance of the
project from virtually all publicly accessible vantage points, the project will not cause the diminishment
of public enjoyment and appreciation of an inventoried resource, or impair the character or quality of such
a place.

#08-009.10M

Page 41
Glossary25
Aesthetic impact: Aesthetic impact occurs when there is a detrimental effect on the perceived beauty of a
place 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 state
probably 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 the
component 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 observers
eyes at a place of interest (e.g. a high point in a State Park) and the other end is always an elevation of a
Project 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 contrast
between 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.
25
NYSDEC Visual Policy (2000) pp. 9-11.

#08-009.10M

Page 42
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 may
also 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.

#08-009.10M

Page 43
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 Resource
Management 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.

#08-009.10M

Page 44
Appendix A
Photographic Simulations
Hounsfield Wind Farm (08-009.10M)
Existing Condition
FIGURE A2-a
Photo Simulation
VP#49Tibbetts Point Lighthouse
Approximately 12.4 miles from the nearest turbine
Visual Resource Assessment
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A2-b
Photo Simulation
VP#49Tibbetts Point Lighthouse
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A3-a
Photo Simulation
VP#55Eastern Ontario Waterway Access (NYS DEC Boat Launch)
Town of Lyme
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A3-b
Photo Simulation
VP#55Eastern Ontario Waterway Access (NYS DEC Boat Launch)
Town of Lyme
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A4-a
Photo Simulation
VP#57Galloo Island Lighthouse
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A4-b
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A4-c
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A4-d
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A4-e
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A4-f
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A4-g
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A4-h
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A4-i
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A5-a
Photo Simulation
VP#64Robert G. Wehle State Park (Cliff View)
Town of Henderson
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A5-b
Photo Simulation
VP#64Robert G. Wehle State Park (Cliff View)
Town of Henderson
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A6-a
Photo Simulation
VP#X67Robert G. Wehle State Park
Town of Henderson
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A6-b
Photo Simulation
VP#X67Robert G. Wehle State Park
Town of Henderson
January 200908
Existing Condition
FIGURE A7-a
Photo Simulation
VP#68Southwick Beach State Park
Town of Ellisburg
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A7-b
Photo Simulation
VP#68Southwick Beach State Park
Town of Ellisburg
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A8-a
Photo Simulation
VP#70Black Pond WMA
Town of Ellisburg
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A8-b
Photo Simulation
VP#70Black Pond WMA
Town of Ellisburg
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A9-a
Photo Simulation
VP#78Association Island
Town of Henderson
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A9-b
Photo Simulation
VP#78Association Island
Town of Henderson
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A10-a
Photo Simulation
VP#80Westcott Beach State Park (Camping AreaNorth End)
Town of Henderson
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A10-b
Photo Simulation
VP#80Westcott Beach State Park (Camping AreaNorth End)
Town of Henderson
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A11-a
Photo Simulation
VP#80.1Westcott Beach State Park (Overlook)
Town of Henderson
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A11-b
Photo Simulation
VP#80.1Westcott Beach State Park (Overlook)
Town of Henderson
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A12-a
Photo Simulation
VP#86Sackets Harbor State Historic Site (Battlefield)
Town of Henderson
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A12-b
Photo Simulation
VP#86Sackets Harbor State Historic Site (Battlefield)
Town of Henderson
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A13-a
Photo Simulation
VP#101Lake Ontario (Grenadier Island)
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A13-b
Photo Simulation
VP#101Lake Ontario (Grenadier Island)
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A14-a
Photo Simulation
VP#102Lake Ontario (Fox Island)
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A14-b
Photo Simulation
VP#102Lake Ontario (Fox Island)
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A15-a
Photo Simulation
VP#103Lake Ontario (Isthmus Island)
Town of Lyme
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A15-b
Photo Simulation
VP#103Lake Ontario (Isthmus Island)
Town of Lyme
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A16-a
Photo Simulation
VP#104Lake Ontario (Cliffs on North Side of Galloo Island)
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A16-b
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A16-c
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A16-d
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A16-e
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A16-f
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A16-g
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A16-h
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A16-i
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A16-j
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
Photo Simulation
N ote: D ue to boatdriftbetw een im ages,the view erangle

m ay vary from one photo to the next.
FIGURE A16-k
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A17-a
Photo Simulation
VP#105Lake Ontario (North Pond)
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A17-b
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A17-c
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A17-d
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A17-e
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A17-f
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A17-g
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A17-h
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A17-i
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A17-j
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A17-k
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A17-l
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
Photo Simulation
N ote: D ue to boatdriftbetw een im ages,the

view erangle m ay vary from one photo to the next.
FIGURE A17-m
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A18-a
Photo Simulation
VP#106Lake Ontario (Gil HarborApproximately 1/2 mile from Galloo Island)
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A18-b
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A18-c
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A18-d
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A18-e
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A18-f
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A18-g
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A18-h
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
Photo Simulation
Note: Due to boat drift between images, the viewer
angle may vary from one photo to the next.
FIGURE A18-i
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A19-a
Photo Simulation
VP#107Lake Ontario (Gil Harbor)
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A19-b
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A19-c
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A19-d
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A19-e
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A19-f
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A19-g
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A19-h
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A19-i
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A19-j
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A19-k
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A19-l
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
Photo Simulation
N ote: D ue to boatdriftbetw een im ages,the

view erangle m ay vary from one photo to the next.
FIGURE A19-m
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A20-a
Photo Simulation
VP#108Lake Ontario (Dock Facility)
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A20-b
Photo Simulation
VP#108Lake Ontario (Dock Facility)
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A21-a
Photo Simulation
VP#109Lake Ontario (Calf Island Spit)
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A21-b
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A21-c
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A21-d
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A21-e
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A22-a
Photo Simulation
VP#110Lake Ontario (1/2 Mile Southwest of Galloo Island Lighthouse)
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A22-b
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A22-c
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A22-d
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A22-e
Photo Simulation
Town of Hounsfield
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A23-a
Photo Simulation
VP#77NYS Route 3/Seaway Trail Scenic Byway (Overlook)
Town of Henderson
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A23-b
Photo Simulation
VP#77NYS Route 3/Seaway Trail Scenic Byway (Overlook)
Town of Henderson
January 2009
Line of Sight Drawings

APPENDIX Q Visual Resources Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

APPENDIX Q Visual Resources Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

APPENDIX Q

Visual Resources Report and

HOUNSFIELD WIND FARM

Upstate NY Power Corp

Landscape Architects, Architects,

Copyright All Rights Reserved Saratoga Associates

1.3 Project Description..........................................................................................................3

Distance Zones ................................................................................................................. 10

3.2 Viewer/User Groups......................................................................................................13

Tourists, Vacationers and Recreational Users ................................................................. 13

3.3 Duration/Frequency/Circumstances of View.................................................................14

4.0 Visual Impact Assessment................................................................................................16

4.2 Inventory of Visually Sensitive Resources ....................................................................22

4.3 Degree of Project Visibility ............................................................................................32

4.4 Character of Project Visibility ........................................................................................35

5.0 Mitigation Program ............................................................................................................37

VRA February 6, 2009

Vegetated Viewshed ..........................................................................................................21

Vegetated Viewshed and Photo Simulation Locations........................................................... A-1

Photo Simulation VP#49 Tibbetts Point Lighthouse ........................................................ A-2

Photo Simulation VP#57 Galloo Island Lighthouse.......................................................... A-6

Photo Simulation VP#67 Robert G. Wehle State Park ................................................... A-17

Photo Simulation VP#68 Southwick Beach State Park .................................................. A-19

Photo Simulation VP#70 Black Pond WMA................................................................... A-21

Photo Simulation VP#78 Association Island ................................................................. A-23

Photo Simulation VP#101 Lake Ontario (Grenadier Island) ............................................ A-31

Photo Simulation VP#102 Lake Ontario (Fox Island) ..................................................... A-33

Photo Simulation VP#103 Lake Ontario (Isthmus Island) ............................................... A-35

Photo Simulation VP#105 Lake Ontario (North Pond) ................................................... A-48

Photo Simulation VP#107 Lake Ontario (Gil Harbor) ..................................................... A-70

Photo Simulation VP#108 Lake Ontario (Dock Facility) ................................................. A-83

Hounsfield Wind Farm

VRA February 6, 2009

Demographic Summary of Study Area Municipalities (2000 census) .....................................9

Visual Resource Visibility Summary ..................................................................................24

Key Receptors Selected for Photo Simulation ...................................................................33

Hounsfield Wind Farm

VRA February 6, 2009

Upstate NY Power Corp (Upstate Power) is proposing to develop a wind-powered electrical-generating

Hounsfield Wind Farm

VRA February 6, 2009

The visual impact assessment includes the following steps:

DETERMINATION OF STUDY AREA

Assume arms length equals 24 inches.

VRA February 6, 2009

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Hounsfield Wind Farm

VRA February 6, 2009

VRA February 6, 2009

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Development of Obstruction Lighting

VRA February 6, 2009

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER/VISUAL SETTING

2.1 GALLOO ISLAND

2.2 OPEN WATER

VRA February 6, 2009

2.3 COASTAL AREAS

VRA February 6, 2009

VRA February 6, 2009

Population density outside of the village

Table 1 Demographic Summary of Study Area

Hounsfield Wind Farm

VRA February 6, 2009

FACTORS AFFECTING VISUAL IMPACT

3.1 VISUAL CHARACTERISTICS