BP SDEIS App G Visual Resource Assessment-Saratoga Cape Vincent

Visual Resource Assessment – Saratoga Associates
Appendix G
February 2011
Project No. 0092352
Environmental Resources Management Southwest, Inc.

206 East 9th Street, Suite 1700
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 459-4700
CAPE VINCENT WIND ENERGY PROJECT
SUPPLEMENTAL VISUAL
RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
Prepared for:
ERM
Capitol Tower
206 E. 9th Street, #1700
Austin, Texas 78701
January 17, 2010
Landscape Architects, Architects, ©Copyright All Rights Reserved Saratoga Associates

Engineers and Planners, P.C. #07-083.50
Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project – Supplemental Visual Resource Assessment
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 5
1.2 Project Description ....................................................................................................... 6
1.2.1 Aviation Obstruction Marking and Lighting ......................................................................... 7
2.0 Landscape Character/Visual Setting ............................................................................... 9

2.1 Topography.................................................................................................................. 9
2.2 Vegetation.................................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Water Features ...........................................................................................................10
2.4 Transportation.............................................................................................................10
2.5 Population Centers......................................................................................................11
2.6 Existing Wolf Island Wind Farm...................................................................................12
3.0 Visual Impact Assessment ..............................................................................................13
3.1 Viewshed Mapping (Zone of Visual Influence).............................................................13
3.1.1 Viewshed Methodology..................................................................................................... 13
3.1.2 Nighttime Visibility ............................................................................................................. 15
3.1.3 Verification of Viewshed Accuracy.................................................................................... 15
3.1.4 Viewshed Interpretation .................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Inventory of Visually Sensitive Resources ...................................................................22
3.2.1 Inventory Criteria............................................................................................................... 22
3.2.2 Summary Characteristics of Inventoried Resources......................................................... 24
3.2.3 Visibility Evaluation of Inventoried Resources .................................................................. 27
3.3 Factors Affecting Visual Impact ...................................................................................33
3.3.1 Landscape Units ............................................................................................................... 33
3.3.2 Viewer/User Groups.......................................................................................................... 36
3.3.3 Distance Zones ................................................................................................................. 37
3.3.4 Duration/Frequency/Circumstances of View..................................................................... 38
3.3.5 Summary of Affected Resources ...................................................................................... 38
3.4 Degree of Project Visibility ..........................................................................................43
3.4.1 Field Observation and Photography ................................................................................. 43
3.4.2 Photographic Simulations ................................................................................................. 43
3.4.3 Cumulative Photo Simulations .......................................................................................... 45
3.5 Character of Project Visibility.......................................................................................46
3.5.1 Compatibility with Regional Landscape Patterns.............................................................. 46
3.5.2 Visual Character during the Construction Period.............................................................. 47
3.6 Shadow Flicker Analysis .............................................................................................47
3.6.1 Shadow-Flicker Methodology............................................................................................ 51
3.6.2 Shadow-Flicker Impact on Existing Structures ................................................................. 53
3.6.3 Shadow-Flicker Analysis ................................................................................................... 60
4.0 Mitigation Program ..........................................................................................................62

5.0 Summary and Discussion of Potential Visual Impact....................................................65
Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

#07-083.50M Page 1
Appendix A SVRA Photographic Simulations
Appendix B DEIS VRA Photographic Simulations
Appendix C Topographic and Vegetated Shadow-Flicker Analysis

#07-083.50M Page 2
List of Figures
Figure 1 Topography Only Viewshed .............................................................................................19

Figure 2 Vegetated Viewshed .......................................................................................................20
Figure 3 FAA Vegetated Viewshed.................................................................................................21
Figure 4 Typical Shadow Pattern From Turbine #30 .......................................................................50
Figure 5 Months and Time of Day Receptor #639 May Receive Shadow ..........................................61
Figure A1 Vegetated Viewshed and Photo Simulation Locations ....................................................... A-1
Figure A2 Photo Simulation – VP#1 - Burnham Point State Park and Campground.............................. A-2
Figure A3 Photo Simulation – VP#4 - Hamlet of Rosiere ................................................................... A-5
Figure A4 Photo Simulation – VP #12a - Intersection of Millens Bay Road and Mason Road................. A-8
Figure A5 Photo Simulation – VP #39 - Long Point State Park ........................................................ A-11
Figure A6 Photo Simulation – VP #49 - Reuter Dyer House ............................................................ A-14
Figure A7 Photo Simulation – VP #59 - Cape Vincent Town Hall...................................................... A-17
Figure A8 Photo Simulation – VP #66 - Broadway Historic District .................................................. A-20
Figure A9 Photo Simulation – VP #82 - Aubertine Building .............................................................. A-23
Figure A10 Photo Simulation – VP #91 - Mud Bay Residential Area ................................................... A-26
Figure B1 Vegetated Viewshed and Photo Simulation Locations ....................................................... B-1
Figure B2 Photo Simulation – VP#1 - Burnham Point State Park and Campground.............................. B-2
Figure B3 Photo Simulation – VP#4 - Hamlet of Rosiere ................................................................... B-4
Figure B4 Photo Simulation – VP#7 - Claude Vautrin House .............................................................. B-8
Figure B5 Photo Simulation – VP#8 - Xavier Chevalier House .......................................................... B-10
Figure B6 Photo Simulation – VP#12a - Intersection of Millens Bay Rd and Mason Rd ....................... B-12
Figure B7 Photo Simulation – VP#16 - Cedar Point State Park (entry) .............................................. B-14
Figure B8 Photo Simulation – VP#8 - French Creek WMA ............................................................... B-16
Figure B9 Photo Simulation – VP#37 - The Row ............................................................................ B-18
Figure B10 Photo Simulation – VP#39 - Long Point State Park ......................................................... B-21
Figure B11 Photo Simulation – VP#51a - Bedford Corners ............................................................... B-23
Figure B12 Photo Simulation – VP#59 - Cape Vincent Town Hall ....................................................... B-25
Figure B13 Photo Simulation – VP#66 - Broadway Historic District ................................................... B-27
Figure B14 Photo Simulation – VP#86 - Village of Cape Vincent Public Boat Launch ........................... B-30
Figure C1-C20 Shadow-Flicker Analysis ................................................................................................. C-1

#07-083.50M Page 3
List of Tables
Table 1 Viewshed Coverage Summary .........................................................................................16

Table 2 FAA Viewshed Coverage Summary...................................................................................16
Table 3 Demographic Summary of Study Area Municipalities (2000 Census) .......................................24
Table 4 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes for Study Area Highways (NYSDOT 2004) ....................24
Table 5 Visual Resource Visibility Summary ..................................................................................29
Table 6 Visual Resource Impact Summary....................................................................................39
Table 7 Key Receptors Selected for Photo Simulation ...................................................................43
Table 8 Shadow-Flicker Summary ................................................................................................54
Table 9 Shadow-Flicker Summary of Structures Exceeding 30 Hrs/yr.............................................60

#07-083.50M Page 4
1.0 INTRODUCTION
BP Wind Energy, N.A., Inc. (BP Wind Energy) is proposing to develop a wind-powered electrical-
generating facility consisting of 84 turbines with a maximum capacity of 134.4 megawatts (MW). The
proposed Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project (hereafter referred to as the “Project”) will be located in
the Town of Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, New York. All turbines, temporary construction
laydown area, access roads, interconnect lines, operations and maintenance building, and an electrical
substation are proposed to be located in the Town of Cape Vincent.
Since the submission of the Cape Vincent Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS), BP Wind Energy revised the Project layout and turbine type. Based on these changes, it was
determined that a Supplemental Visual Resource Assessment (SVRA) would be needed. To address
issues of potential visual impact, BP Wind Energy has retained Saratoga Associates, Landscape
Architects, Architects, Engineers, and Planners, P.C. (Saratoga Associates) to conduct a thorough and
detailed VRA of the proposed Project. This SVRA presents, with updates, the information contained
in the Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project Visual Resource Assessment (Saratoga Associates,
December 3, 2007), which was contained as an appendix in the DEIS.
The purpose of this SVRA is to identify potential visual and aesthetic impacts and to provide an
objective assessment of the visual character of the Project, using standard accepted methodologies of
visual assessment, from which agency decision-makers can render a supportable determination of
visual significance.
1.1 METHODOLOGY
Consistent with Visual Resource Assessment (VRA) practice, this report evaluates the 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 (SEQRA) criteria to minimize impacts on visual resources. This process provides a practical
guide so decision makers and the public can understand the potential visual impacts and make an
informed judgment about their significance (aesthetic impact).
There are no specific Federal rules, regulations, or policies governing the evaluation of visual
resources. However, the methodology employed herein is based on standards and procedures used 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.

#07-083.50M Page 5
The visual impact assessment includes the following steps:
> Define the existing landscape character/visual setting to establish the baseline visual
condition from which visual change is evaluated;
> Conduct a visibility analysis (viewshed mapping and field investigations) to define the
geographic area surrounding the proposed facility from which portions of the Project might
be seen;
> Identify sensitive aesthetic resources to establish priority places from which further analysis
of potential visual impact is conducted;
> Select key receptors from which detailed impact analysis is conducted;
> Depict the appearance of the facility upon completion of construction;
> Evaluate the aesthetic effects of the visual change (qualitative analysis) resulting from Project
construction, completion and operation; and,
> Identify opportunities for effective mitigation.
Consistent with the DEC Visual Policy, the visual study area for this VRA generally extends to a five-
mile radius from the outermost turbines (hereafter referred to as the “five-mile radius study area” or
“study area”). Beyond this distance it is assumed that natural conditions of atmospheric and linear
perspective will significantly mitigate most visual impacts. However, considering the scale of the
proposed Project and recognizing the proposed wind turbines will, at times, be visible at distances
greater than five miles, site-specific consideration is given to resources of high cultural or scenic
importance that are located beyond the typical five-mile radius.
The study area encompasses all of the Town and Village of Cape Vincent as well as portions of the
adjacent Towns of Lyme and Clayton.
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed Project is located in northwestern Jefferson County within the Town of Cape Vincent.
The Town of Cape Vincent is bordered by the St. Lawrence River to the north and Lake Ontario to the
west. The Town is primarily rural and dominated by agricultural land, scattered rural homes, and
farms. The closest major population center is the City of Watertown, which is approximately 20 miles
southeast of the Project.
It is anticipated that the proposed wind energy-generating turbines will be located within an area
measuring approximately nine (9) miles by four (4) miles in the southern half of the Town of Cape
Vincent. Turbines will be located on private land under lease agreements with individual property
owners. The Project perimeter (hereafter referred to as the “turbine area” or “Project area”) is
generally bounded by Lake Ontario to the west, Deerlick/Favret/Mason Roads to the north, Cemetery
Road to the east, and the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme municipality boundary to the south.

#07-083.50M Page 6
Each turbine will include a tall steel tower; a rotor consisting of three composite blades; and a nacelle,
which houses the generator, gearbox, and power train. A transformer may be located in the rear of
each nacelle, or adjacent to the base of the tower, to raise the voltage of the electricity produced by the
turbine generator to the voltage level of the collection system (34.5 kV). The color of the blades,
nacelle, and tower will be off-white. The towers will be a tapered tubular steel monopole tower.
The turbine proposed for this Project is the General Electric 1.6-100 XLE, with a rated power of 1.6
MW. The turbine towers will be approximately 263 feet tall from ground to rotor hub. The tower will
be approximately 16 feet in diameter at the base and eight feet in diameter at the top. Each of the three
turbine blades will be approximately 164 feet in length (328 foot rotor diameter) with the apex of
blade rotation reaching approximately 427 feet above ground elevation. Each wind turbine will have a
concrete foundation that will be minimally exposed above existing grade. The maximum operating
rotational speed of the blades will be approximately 16.2 revolutions per minute (rpm), or
approximately one (1) revolution every three to four seconds.
In addition to the wind turbines, the Project will involve the construction of gravel access roads,
interconnection cables, meteorological towers (lattice structures with supporting guy wires), a batch
concrete plant, a small operation and maintenance facility, and an electrical substation. It is
anticipated that all of these elements will be located in the Town of Cape Vincent. The majority of the
interconnection cables (between the turbines and the proposed substation) will be buried; it is possible
that a small segment(s) may be routed above ground due to engineering and environmental issues.
The operation and maintenance facility, to be located along NYS Route 12E (east of County Route 56)
will also include an area suitable for an equipment yard and parking lot; the facility will occupy
approximately three acres of land. The proposed electrical substation will be located on the north side
of the Burnt Rock Road and Swamp Road intersection, and will also occupy approximately three acres
of land. A 115 kV overhead transmission line will be constructed on the north side of Burnt Rock
Road and extend approximately .33 miles from the proposed substation to a proposed transmission
line1 located within or adjacent to an existing transmission corridor.
1.2.1 Aviation Obstruction Marking and Lighting

According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), daytime lighting of wind turbines, in
general, is not necessary. Turbines themselves, due to their solid (i.e. nonskeletal) construction, as
well as their moving characteristics, provide sufficient warning to pilots during all daytime conditions
and all documented terrain and sky conditions. The FAA recommends turbines be painted either
bright white, or a slight shade from white, to provide the maximum daytime conspicuity.
The FAA requires lighting of perimeter turbines, as well as interior turbines with a maximum gap
between lit turbines of no more than ½ mile (2,640 feet). Based on these guidelines and the evaluated
84-turbine layout, approximately 45 of the proposed turbines may be illuminated at night for aviation
safety. One aviation obstruction light will be affixed to the rear portion of the nacelle on each turbine
to be illuminated.
1
To be built by others.

#07-083.50M Page 7
Lighting may be L-864 red flashing lights, in the form of incandescent or rapid discharge (strobe).
The FAA recommends red light emitting diode or rapid discharge style L-864 fixtures to minimize
impacts on neighboring communities, as the fixtures’ exposure time is minimal, thus creating less of a
nuisance. All light fixtures within the Project must flash in unison, thus delineating the Project as one
large obstruction to pilots.2 L-864 red flashing aviation obstruction lights are designed to emit light in
an upward direction with maximum visibility for pilots. The L-864 unit is a low intensity light
emitting 2,000 candelas.3
2
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, “Development of Obstruction Lighting Standards for Wind Turbine
Farms” (DOT/FAA/AR-TN05/50, November 2005).
3
Candela is the unit of luminous intensity, equal to one lumen per steradian (lm/sr).

#07-083.50M Page 8
2.0 LANDSCAPE CHARACTER/VISUAL SETTING
Landscape character is defined by the basic pattern of landform, vegetation, water features, land use,
and human development. This section offers an overview of the intrinsic visual condition of the study
region and establishes the baseline condition from which to evaluate visual change.
The Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project is located in the Thousand Islands region of New York State
at the convergence of the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. This region is a popular waterfront
vacation destination that extends from the eastern shore of Lake Ontario approximately 50 miles
eastward along both the American and Canadian side of the St. Lawrence River. The Thousand Island
region offers numerous cultural, recreational and entertainment attractions, and is well known for the
scenic beauty of its shoreline and over 1,800 islands. Resorts, restaurants and tourist attractions along
the American side of the River are largely clustered in nearby communities (i.e. Villages of Clayton
and Alexandria Bay), however, recreational and tourism resources are found throughout the Thousand
Islands coastal area, including the waterfront portion of the study area.
With the exception of the two (2) village centers, the study area is decidedly rural and largely
undeveloped. The year round population of the Towns of Cape Vincent, and Lyme are 3,345, and
2,015, respectively. Residential development of varying density is nearly continuous along the
waterfront of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River throughout the study area (refer to Section
3.2.2. for information concerning seasonal population).
Broad tracts of agricultural land include open crop and pasture land, and inactive successional old-
field/scrubland. Patches of mature second growth deciduous woodland typically cover steep slopes,
ravines, stream corridors, poorly drained soils and other areas historically unsuitable for agriculture.
Gentle hills and ridges rising 185 to 200 feet above the St. Lawrence River are the dominant
topographic feature. With the exception of the more developed villages and hamlets, built features
typically include low-density single-family residential structures and farmsteads.
2.1 TOPOGRAPHY
The study area is within the Eastern Ontario Hills subdivision of the Erie Ontario Lowland. The region
is characterized by low-lying relief with shallow hills comprised of glacial till typical of the eastern
shore of Lake Ontario.4 The landscape generally appears relatively flat or gently sloping with
elevations ranging upward from the St. Lawrence River (approximately 250 ft above sea level [ASL])
to over 450 feet ASL.
Topography within the turbine area ranges from approximately 245 to 345 feet ASL.
2.2 VEGETATION
A large portion of the study area has historically been cleared for agricultural use. Limited areas of
second growth deciduous woodland are found in areas unsuitable for agriculture. Dominant tree
species are representative of the beech-maple climax community found throughout much of the
Eastern Ontario Hills region. These species include oak, beech, maple, ash, elm and hemlock. In
4
Thompson, p.40

#07-083.50M Page 9
addition to these deciduous climax species, isolated plantings of red and white pine are scattered
throughout the study area. Coinciding with the mix of open field and woodlots is a significant area of
secondary growth edge habitat. For the most part, this secondary growth takes the form of hedgerows,
wood borders, and old fields.
2.3 WATER FEATURES

Water features are an important and scenic component of the visual landscape. The study area is
bordered by Lake Ontario to the west and the St. Lawrence River to the north. The Thousand Islands
region is well known for the scenic character of its shoreline and many islands of varying size
throughout a 50-mile stretch of the St. Lawrence River between Lake Ontario and Ogdensburg, NY.
Combined with a wide variety of active and passive recreational opportunities, the aesthetic quality of
the waterfront landscape is central to the Thousand Island region’s appeal as a well-known and
popular summer vacation destination.
The 2,342-mile long St. Lawrence Seaway, which is the only commercial shipping route between the
Great Lakes and the Atlantic Ocean, follows the St. Lawrence River through the Thousand Islands.
The locks of the Seaway accept vessels 740 feet long, 78 feet wide and up to 166.5 feet in height
above the waterline. The Seaway handles over 4,000 ship transits and 40,000,000 tons of cargo during
a typical navigation season.5 The navigational channel of the Seaway within the study area follows the
American side of the St. Lawrence River south of Wolfe Island, Ontario and north of Carleton Island,
NY.
The shore of Lake Ontario is irregular and is characterized by a series of large bays, peninsulas and
islands. The largest of these bays include Chaumont Bay and Mud Bay. Numerous islands such as
Fox Island, Grenadier Island, Galloo Island, and Stony Island are clearly visible from the coastal area.
Within the study area, the St. Lawrence River is approximately eight miles wide between the south
shore along the New York State coastline and its northern shore in Ontario, Canada. Numerous
islands (e.g. Wolfe Island, Ontario and Carleton Island, NY) intersect views to the north, making the
river appear much narrower.
Kents Creek, Three Mile Creek, Soper Creek, Fox Creek, Little Fox Creek, Shaver Creek and their
tributaries drain much of the agricultural lowlands westerly to Lake Ontario. Scotch Brook and
Wheeler Creek drain the northern portion of the study area northerly to the St. Lawrence River.
Numerous private farm ponds, scattered wetlands, and small streams are also found in the study area.
2.4 TRANSPORTATION
The primary transportation route through the study area is NYS Route 12E, which travels north from
Watertown to Cape Vincent, then northeast along the St. Lawrence River to Clayton.
County Route 4 (Rosiere Road) runs east/west bordering the turbine area to the south. CR 6 (Pleasant
Valley Road), CR 8 (Millens Bay Road), and CR 9 (St. Lawrence Road) provide north-south access
5
http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com

#07-083.50M Page 10
through the turbine area. Numerous local roads traverse the study area. Roads are typically two-lane
with asphalt pavement, however some gravel surfaced seasonal roads exist.
2.5 POPULATION CENTERS

Waterfront Communities – The Village of Cape Vincent, located in the northwest portion of the Town
is situated along the shoreline of the St. Lawrence River. Over the years, this small village has
developed and maintained a modest grid street pattern including residential houses, churches, a small
hospital, and an assortment of commercial establishments (service facilities and offices). Retail and
commercial services are generally located along Broadway (NYS Route 12E), two blocks south of the
waterfront. Moderate density single-family housing may be found throughout the village. Residential
dwellings within the village tend to be older and well maintained with mature vegetation lining the
roadways. Development density drops sharply as one moves a quarter mile in any direction. Within
the village is an intact National Register Historic District, which is located along the waterfront west
of the village center. Several dozen well-maintained residences front West Broadway and Tibbetts
Point Road overlook the St. Lawrence River.
Activities within the village are generally related to light tourism, small business, local shopping, and
residential uses. Passing through the center of the Village is NYS Route 12E (Seaway Trail), a lightly
traveled state highway connecting Watertown (25 miles southeast) to the western Thousand Islands
Region. At the Village of Cape Vincent, NYS Route 12E turns northeastward along the St. Lawrence
River to the Village of Clayton (15 miles northeast).
The Village of Chaumont6 is located along the shoreline of Lake Ontario in the Town of Lyme.
Similarly to the Village of Cape Vincent, this small village maintains an organized street pattern that
includes residential houses, churches, and an assortment of commercial establishments (service
facilities and offices) that are generally clustered along NYS Route 12E (Main Street). Moderate
density single-family housing is found throughout the village. Residential dwellings within the village
tend to be older and well maintained with mature vegetation lining many roadways. Development
density drops sharply as one moves a quarter mile in any direction. Activities within the Village of
Chaumont are generally related to small business, local shopping, and residential uses.
The small waterfront hamlet of Three Mile Bay is located along NYS Route 12E off of Chaumont Bay
in the Town of Lyme. This hamlet is largely a residential community with few commercial services.
The organization of the hamlet is focused on the waterfront and road frontage along NYS Route 12E.
The hamlet does have an organized street pattern, to a much lesser degree when compared to the
Village of Cape Vincent, with side streets north and south of NYS Route 12E.
Residential land use varies from moderate to high-density seasonal homes in neighborhood clusters to
lower density single-family parcels. Higher density waterfront residential uses are found in the small
hamlet areas such as Sunnybank, Millens Bay, Beadle Point, and Cedar Point. Waterfront residential
uses also include estate homes that are setback from roadways and adjacent properties. However,
small frame cottages, seasonal camps, and mobile homes of varying vintage and quality are the most
6
It should be noted that only a small portion of the Village of Chaumont is within the study area.

#07-083.50M Page 11
common form of seasonal structures within the study area. Boathouses and docks for recreational
vessels are common throughout the coastal area. Shoreline properties are often cleared of vegetation
to provide unencumbered views of the waterway from residences.
Similar seasonal shoreline residential development is found in the western portion of the study area
along embayments of Lake Ontario. The density of residential development tends to be somewhat less
along the lakefront with road access to the shoreline more limited.
Rural Residential Areas – Outside these waterfront communities, homes and agricultural support
buildings are either clustered at crossroad hamlets (varying in size), such as Rosiere and Saint
Lawrence, or are very sparsely located on individual properties. Residences (a mix of old and new)
and accessory structures (barns, garages, etc.) are often found in roadside locations, however many are
located on isolated lots out of view from local roads. Rural homes range in quality from well
maintained single-family frame construction to older housing stock in need of repair. Mobile homes,
of varying vintage, located on isolated lots and within parks is also a common housing type.
2.6 EXISTING WOLF ISLAND WIND FARM

The Wolf Island Wind Farm, which is owned
by Canadian Renewable Energy Corporation,
generates up to 197.8 MW of electricity. The
wind farm, which is located on Wolf Island
(Township of Frontenac, Ontario, Canada), is
approximately three miles north of the Village
of Cape Vincent. Each of the 86 Siemens
SWT 2.3 MW wind turbines consist of a 262-
foot tall tubular steel tower, and a 305-foot
diameter three-bladed rotor connected to a
gearbox and generator. The total turbine
height is approximately 415 feet to the apex of blade rotation. The wind farm began operations in
June 2009.7
7
http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/wind-power/wolfe-island-wind-project-1978-mw-wolfe-island (website last accessed December 2, 2010).

#07-083.50M Page 12
3.0 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
3.1 VIEWSHED MAPPING (ZONE OF VISUAL INFLUENCE)
3.1.1 Viewshed Methodology
The first step in identifying potentially affected visual resources is to determine whether or not the
proposed Project would likely be visible from a given location. Viewshed maps are prepared for this
purpose. Also known as defining the zone of visual influence, viewshed mapping identifies the
geographic area within which there is a relatively high probability that some portion of the proposed
Project would be visible.
The overall accuracy of viewshed mapping is dependent on the number and location of control points
(study points representing proposed turbines) used in the viewshed calculation. To calculate the
maximum range of potential turbine visibility, one control point was established at the turbine high
point (i.e., apex of blade rotation) for each of the 84 turbines being evaluated. The resulting composite
viewshed identifies the geographic area within the five-mile study area where some portion of the
proposed Project (the apex of one or more turbine blades) is theoretically visible.
One viewshed map was prepared defining the area within which there would be no visibility of the
Project because of the screening effect caused by intervening topography (See Figure 1). This treeless
condition analysis is used to identify the maximum potential geographic area within which further
investigation is appropriate. A second map was prepared illustrating the probable screening effect of
existing mature vegetation. This vegetated condition viewshed, although not considered absolutely
definitive, acceptably identifies the geographic area within which one would expect to be substantially
screened by intervening forest vegetation (See Figure 2).
Identified viewshed areas are further quantified to illustrate the number of turbines that may be visible
from any given area. This cumulative degree of visibility is summarized on each map using the
following groupings:
> 1-5 turbines visible;

> 51-70 turbines visible; and
> 71-84 turbines visible.
By themselves, the viewshed maps do not determine how much of each turbine is visible above
intervening landform or vegetation (e.g., 100%, 50%, 10% etc. of total turbine height), but rather the
geographic area within which there is a relatively high probability (theoretical visibility) that some
portion of one or more turbines would be visible. Their primary purpose is to assist in determining the
potential visibility of the proposed Project from the identified visual resources.

#07-083.50M Page 13
In this evaluation, ArcGIS 9.2 and ArcGIS 3D Analyst software was used to generate viewshed areas
based on publicly available digital topographic and vegetation data sets. Viewshed overlays were
created by first importing a digital elevation model (DEM) of the study area. This DEM, obtained
through the United State Geologic Survey (USGS) from its National Elevation Dataset, is based on the
best available digital elevation data including the 1:24,000-scale USGS topographic maps (10-foot
contour intervals) and is accurate to a 10-meter grid cell resolution. The computer then scanned 360
degrees across this DEM from each control point, distinguishing between grid cells that would be
hidden from view and those that would be visible based solely on topography. Areas of the
surrounding landscape were identified where each control point would be visible; areas in shadow
would not be visible.
Vegetation data was extracted from the National Land Cover Data Set 2001 (NLCD). The NLCD
dataset, produced by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, was developed from a
multi-spectral classification of LANDSAT 7 Thematic Mapper (TM) imagery (2001 is the nominal
year of image acquisition) sampled to a 30-meter grid cell resolution.8 The screening effect of
vegetation was incorporated by including an additional 40 feet (12.2 meters) of height for those DEM
grid cells that are forested (according to NLCD dataset) and then repeating the viewshed calculation
procedure. Forested areas were then removed from the viewshed to account for areas located within a
full forest canopy (where visibility would have been based on an observer two meters above the
canopy height). Based on field observation, most trees in forested portions of the study area appear to
be taller than 40 feet. This height therefore represents a conservative estimate of the efficacy of
vegetative screening.
Due to the sampling cell size (30 meters), it is important to note that the NLCD dataset is based on
interpretation of forest areas that are clearly distinguishable using multi-spectral satellite imagery. As
such, the potential screening value of site-specific vegetative cover including small hedgerows, street
trees, individual trees, and other areas of non-forest tree cover may not be represented in the viewshed
analysis. These pockets of vegetation can add to the screening of the project in certain locations.
Furthermore, the NLCD dataset does not include the screening value of existing structures. This is a
particularly important distinction in populated areas, such as the Village of the Cape Vincent and other
commercial and residential areas, where existing structures are likely to provide significant screening
of distant views. With these conditions, the viewshed map conservatively overestimates potential
Project visibility in areas where the Project may be substantially screened from view.
It is noteworthy that untrained reviewers often misinterpret treeless condition viewshed maps to
represent wintertime, or leafless condition visibility (Figure 1). In fact, deciduous woodlands provide
a substantial visual barrier in all seasons. Since the NLCD dataset generally identifies only larger
stands of woodland vegetation that is clearly distinguishable from multi-spectral satellite imagery,
viewshed maps that include the screening value of existing vegetation are equally representative of
both leaf-on and leaf-off seasons (Figure 2). Treeless condition analysis is provided only to assist
experienced visual analysts identify the maximum potential geographic area within which further
8
Thirty-meter resolution is the smallest vegetative grid cell increment commonly available for the proposed Project region. This resolution
provides an appropriate degree of accuracy for development of 20-mile viewshed maps given the fairly broad patterns of existing land use in
the area, as well as the accuracy of mapped topographic data (i.e., 1:24,000-scale USGS topographic maps with 10-foot contour intervals)

#07-083.50M Page 14
investigation is appropriate. Such topography-only viewshed maps are not generally intended or
appropriate for public interpretation or presentation.
Finally, the viewshed maps indicate locations in the surrounding landscape in which one or more
turbine highpoints (i.e. apex of blade rotation) might be visible. These maps do not imply the
magnitude of visibility (i.e., how much of each turbine is visible), the viewer’s distance from each
visible turbine or the aesthetic character of what may be seen. Such interpretation is the subject of the
next phase of analysis (section 3.4 below).
3.1.2 Nighttime Visibility

A viewshed map (Figure 3) was created to assist in evaluating potential nighttime visibility. The
vegetated viewshed map was created using the same methodology as described above, however, the
map was created using the approximate height (269 feet) of the required strobe lights as the control
points for the 45 turbines that the FAA will require to be lighted.
3.1.3 Verification of Viewshed 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. While it is common
practice to field confirm viewshed maps prepared for a single study point through the use of balloon
study or more intuitive means, the inability to field confirm viewshed accuracy is unique to analysis of
multiple point projects covering a large geographic area, such as wind energy projects.
To help determine the accuracy of the vegetation data used for viewshed development, the NLCD data
set was overlaid on a 1m color Digital Orthophoto Quadrangle (DOQ) infrared aerial image (2003) of
the study area and reviewed for consistency. While minor inconsistencies were noted, including 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, the vast majority of woodland areas visible on
the satellite image were highly consistent with the NLCD overlay.
3.1.4 Viewshed Interpretation

Table 1 indicates the degree of theoretical visibility illustrated on the viewshed maps within the five-
mile radius study area.

#07-083.50M Page 15
Table 1 Viewshed Coverage Summary
Topography Only Viewshed Vegetation and Topography Viewshed
(See Figure 1*) (See Figure 2)
Acres Percent Cover Acres Percent cover
No Turbines Visible 2,892 2.3% 28,292 22.3%
1 – 5 Turbine Visible 970 0.8% 4,300 3.4%
6 – 10 Turbines Visible 753 0.6% 2,800 2.2%
11 – 15 Turbines
Visible 1,053 0.8% 2,972 2.3%
16 – 20 Turbines
Visible 904 0.7% 2,762 2.2%
21 – 30 Turbines
Visible 1,474 1.2% 4,713 3.7%
31 – 50 Turbines
Visible 2,980 2.3% 9,469 7.5%
51 – 70 Turbines
Visible 4,571 3.6% 13,821 10.9%
71 – 84 Turbines
Visible 111,484 87.7% 57,952 45.6%
Total 127,081 100.0% 127,081 100.0%
*Table 1 and Figure 1, illustrate that one or more turbine highpoints (i.e. apex of blade rotation) is theoretically visible from
approximately 98 percent of the five-mile study area. However, as discussed above, this unrealistic treeless condition analysis is used
only to identify the maximum potential geographic area within which further investigation is appropriate. This viewshed is not
representative of the anticipated geographic extent of visibility and is not intended for public interpretation. Acreage quantities in
Tables 1 and 2 are rounded to nearest whole number.
Table 2 FAA Viewshed Coverage Summary

Vegetation and Topography Viewshed
(See Figure 3)
Acres Percent cover
No Turbine Lights
Visible 32,925 25.9%
1 – 5 Turbine Lights 8,628 6.8%
6 – 10 Turbine Lights 6,799 5.4%
11 – 15 Turbine Lights 6,686 5.3%
16 – 20 Turbine Lights 7,051 5.5%
21 – 30 Turbine Lights 14,765 11.6%
31 – 45 Turbine Lights 50,227 39.5%
Total 127,081 100.0%
Table 1 and Figure 2 indicates that one or more of the proposed turbines will be theoretically visible
from approximately 78 percent of the five-mile radius study area. Approximately 22 percent of the
study area will likely have no visibility of any wind turbines due to intervening landform or
vegetation.

#07-083.50M Page 16
Generally, turbine visibility is most common from inland agricultural areas where cleared lands
provide long vistas in the direction of turbine groupings. Project visibility will also occur from
unscreened coastal areas, Lake and River Islands, and from on-water vantage points throughout the
five-mile radius study area.
The areas most directly affected by views of the Project will be located within the central portion of
the turbine area (multiple turbines may be visible up to 360-degrees around a vantage point), south and
east of the Village of Cape Vincent, and in the general vicinity of Three Mile Bay. Viewers to the
north of the Project site, along such roads as Favret Road, Mason Road, and Hell Street will encounter
views of a large number of turbines (71 or more) at relatively close distances (e.g. foreground and
middleground distances). Roadways throughout the study area that have the potential to view a high
number of turbines (71 or more), include, but may not be limited to, NYS Route 12E, Huff, Burnt
Rock, Swamp, Merchant, Stoney Point, Deer Lick, McKeever, Branche, CR 4, and Ashland Roads.
The high degree of Project visibility along these roadways is the result of broad agricultural clearing
and the lack of screening hills. It is worth noting that some of these views may also be long distant
(background view) and fleeting as viewers pass in vehicles.
It is possible that turbines may be in close proximity to NYS Route 12E, between the Village of Cape
Vincent and the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme municipal boundary. Along this section of NYS
Route 12E, turbines may be located on both sides of the roads offering foreground and middleground
views of multiple turbines. It is anticipated that foreground views will be fleeting, in part due to
roadway speed and foreground screening.
While the viewshed map indicates theoretical visibility of multiple turbines within the Villages of
Cape Vincent and Chaumont, and the hamlet of Three Mile Bay, field observation determined the
prevalence of mature street trees and site landscaping combined with one- and two-story residential
and commercial structures (not included in the multi-spectral satellite imagery of the NLCD) will
commonly block views in the direction of the Project from downtown and waterfront areas. Increased
frequency of filtered or framed views of proposed turbines are likely through foreground vegetation
and buildings as a viewer approaches the perimeter of these communities. Direct views are more
prevalent on the outskirts of the Villages and hamlet where localized residential and commercial
structures, street trees and site landscaping are less likely to provide a visual barrier.
The viewshed mapping also indicates a high degree of Project visibility from many shoreline areas
throughout the study area. Based on field observation, such visibility would likely be limited to some
degree by existing clusters of localized (non-forest) vegetation that is not clearly distinguishable in the
multi-spectral satellite imagery of the NLCD dataset. Nonetheless, views of some portion of
numerous turbines will occur from shoreline areas along the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario.
Direct views of multiple turbines will also occur from near shore and offshore vantage points on the
St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. Views are also found on Lake and River islands from shoreline
areas oriented toward the Project, as well as island hillsides with down slope vistas in the direction of
the Project. Water and island views are found on both sides of the international border within the five-
mile study area. Although most turbines will be located further inland (1+ miles) a relatively small

#07-083.50M Page 17
number of turbines may be located in close proximity to the coastline of Lake Ontario. Due to their
proximity to the coast there will be greater visibility of the Project to those boating on the Lake.
As illustrated in Table 2 and Figure 3, the viewshed map indicates that one or more of the 45 FAA
required light sources would theoretically be visible from approximately 74 percent of the five-mile
radius study area. Approximately 26 percent of the study area will likely have no visibility of any
proposed light sources. Visibility will be most evident in the cleared agricultural lands from cleared
lands with open vistas in the direction of the proposed Project, participating Project properties with lit
turbines, along many of the same roadways with high turbine visibility (e.g. NYS Route12E, and Huff,
Burnt Rock, Swamp and Merchant Roads), unscreened coastal areas, Lake and River Islands, and from
on-water vantage points throughout the five-mile radius study area.

#07-083.50M Page 18
St. Lawrence
Village Of Cape Vincent R i v e r5
Mile
s Cape Vincent Wind Energy
83
" Project
84
"
78 77
" 4M
iles Figure 1
" 82
Poin
t
68
"
81"
Topographic Viewshed
St
"
" 80
St
69 ve llo
" Maximum Turbine Layout 84 WTGs
Mu rr
" Gou
a
76
75
Le
yS
" (Layout 10/28/2010)
t
ay
" 3M
adw
iles
Bro
January 2011
70
Ess
e
"
lty n
St
2 M il
eS
es
t
72 e ph
" Jos
71
" Key
74
n
67 ey
L 73
" St No. of Turbines Visible
e
Re a
Ke ls
l
Lak
" " 63
St
n
" 1 Mile
hL
ort
Vin c
sw 1-5
Ain
e nt
66 61
St
Ka n
a
" " 6 - 10
dy
St
t Ln 64
Ke n " 11 - 15
65 85
" 80 16 - 20
87
81 86
0 500 1,000 2,000 21 - 30
Feet 82 83
76 84 31 - 50
73 77
78 51 - 70
Village Of 74
70
Cape Vincent 75
72
71 - 84
71
68
1
" Receptor
46 1
40
32 Proposed Turbine Locations
41 69
!
38 47 48
28 43
39 42 44 Seaway Trail (Scenic Highway)
25 45
26 65
27 66 Snowmobile Trail
36
21 32 33 37 62 67
20
34 63 Municipal Boundary
18 29 59
22 23 30 35 60
Fuller Bay 19 31 55 61 River / Stream / Creek
24 56
49
50 57 State Park
51 58
52 Waterway Access
53
Wilson Bay
54 Wildlife Management Area
4
7
A
5 15
IC
6 16 17 PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M
1 12 Copyright © 2010 Saratoga Associates. All Rights Reserved.
ER
Mud Bay 2A 13 14
AM
8 This map is computer generated using data acquired by Saratoga Associates
9 from various sources and is intended only for reference, conceptual planning
10 Chaumont
DA
and presentation purposes. This map is not intended for and should not be
OF
11
used to establish boundaries, property lines, location of objects or to provide
NA
Duck Bay
y
Three Mile any other information typically needed for construction or any other purpose
ES
Ba
Bay
CA
ll
when engineered plans or land surveys are required.

i
AT
wm
T
File Location: B:\2007\07083\Maps\Viewshed_Topo101112_Bladetip.mxd
Sa
S
D
IT E
UN
Lake
Ontario Chaumont Bay
0 1.25 2.5 5
Miles ¯
St. Lawrence
Mile
83
" Project
84
"
78 77
" 4M
iles Figure 2
" 82
Poin
t
68
"
81"
Vegetated Viewshed*
St
"
" 80
69 St
ve llo
" Maximum Turbine Layout 84 WTGs
Mu rr
" Gou 76
a
75
Le
yS
" (Layout 10/28/2010)
t
ay
" 3M
iles
adw
Bro
January 2011
70
Ess
*Assumes uniform tree height of 40' (12.192 m) in forested areas.
e
"
lty n
2 M il
St
eS
72 es
t
e ph
" Jos
71
" 74 Key
n
67 ey
L 73
" St
e
Re a
Ke ls
l
Lak No. of Turbines Visible
" " 63
St
n
" 1 Mile
hL
ort
Vin c
sw
Ain 1-5
e nt
66 61
St
Ka n
a
" "
dy
6 - 10
St
t Ln 64
Ke n "
85
11 - 15
65
" 80 16 - 20
87
81 86
0 500 1,000 2,000 21 - 30
Feet 82 83
76 84
73 77
31 - 50
78
Village Of 74 51 - 70
70
Cape Vincent 75
71 72 71 - 84
68 1
" Receptor
46 1
40 41 32 Proposed Turbine Locations
38 47 69 !
28 43 48
39 42 44
25 45 Seaway Trail (Scenic Highway)
26 65
27 66
36 Snowmobile Trail
21 32 33 37 62 67
20
34 63
18 29 59 Municipal Boundary
22 23 30 35 60
Fuller Bay 19 31 55 61
24 49
56 River / Stream / Creek
50 57
51
State Park
52 58
53
Waterway Access
Wilson Bay
54
Wildlife Management Area
4
7
A
5 15
IC
6 16 17 PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M
ER
Mud Bay 2A 13 14
AM
10 Chaumont
DA
OF
11
Duck Bay used to establish boundaries, property lines, location of objects or to provide
NA
Three Mile
y
any other information typically needed for construction or any other purpose
ES
Ba
Bay
CA
ll

i
AT
wm
T
File Location: B:\2007\07083\Maps\Viewshed_Veg101112_Bladetip.mxd
Sa
S
D
IT E
UN
Lake
0 1.25 2.5 5
Miles ¯
St. Lawrence
Mile
83
" Project
84
"
78 77
" 4M
iles Figure 3
82
"
Poin
t
68
"
81 "
Vegetated Viewshed
St
" 80
St
69
" FAA Lighting Layout 45 WTGs
ve llo
Mu rr
" Gou 76
a
75
"
Le
yS
(Layout 10/28/2010)
t
" 3M
ay iles
adw
Bro
January 2011
70
Ess
" *Assumes uniform tree height of 40' (12.192 m) in forested areas.
e
lty n
2 M il
St
eS
72 es
t
e ph Key
" Jos
71
" 74
67 yL
n
73
" No. of FAA Lights Visible
lse e St
Re a
Ke
l
" " Lak
63
St
n
" 1 Mile
rt hL 1-5
Vin c
s wo
Ain
e nt
66 61
St
Ka n
"
a
" 6 - 10
dy
St
t Ln 64
Ke n " 11 - 15
65 85
" 80 16 - 20
87
86
0 500 1,000 2,000 21 - 30
Feet
76 84
73 31 - 45
78
Village Of 70 32
Cape Vincent 75
! Proposed Lit Turbine Locations
72
1
" Receptor
68 4
46 Seaway Trail (Scenic Highway)
40
38 47 69
28 43
25
Snowmobile Trail
65
27 Municipal Boundary
21 37 67
20
63 River / Stream / Creek
29
Fuller Bay 19 31 61
24 49
State Park
51 58
Waterway Access
Wilson Bay 54
4
PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M
A
15 Copyright © 2010 Saratoga Associates. All Rights Reserved.
IC
6 17
1
ER
Mud Bay 2A 14
AM
from various sources and is intended only for reference, conceptual planning
Chaumont
DA
OF
11
NA
Three Mile
y
ES
Ba
Bay
CA
ll

i
AT
wm
T
File Location: B:\2007\07083\Maps\Viewshed_Veg101130_FAA.mxd
Sa
S
D
IT E
UN
Lake
0 1.25 2.5 5
Miles ¯
3.2 INVENTORY OF VISUALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES
3.2.1 Inventory Criteria
Because it is not practical to evaluate every conceivable location where the proposed Project might be
visible, it is accepted visual assessment practice to limit detailed evaluation of aesthetic impact to
locations generally considered by society, through regulatory designation or policy, to be of 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 may be derived
from one or more of the following categories:
> A property on or eligible for inclusion in the National or State Register of Historic Places [16
U.S.C. § 470a et seq., Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Law Section 14.07];
> State Parks [Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Law Section 3.09];
> Urban Cultural Parks [Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Law Section 35.15];
> The State Forest Preserve [NYS Constitution Article XIV], Adirondack and Catskill Parks;
> National Wildlife Refuges [16 U.S.C. 668dd], State Game Refuges, and State Wildlife
Management Areas [ECL 11-2105];
> National Natural Landmarks [36 CFR Part 62];

> The National Park System, Recreation Areas, Seashores, and Forests [16 U.S.C. 1c];
> Rivers designated as National or State Wild, Scenic, or Recreational [16 U.S.C. Chapter 28,
ECL 15-2701 et seq.];
> A site, area, lake, reservoir, or highway designated or eligible for designation as scenic [ECL
Article 49 or NYDOT equivalent and Adirondack Park Agency], designated State Highway
Roadside;
> Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance [of Article 42 of Executive Law];

> A State or federally designated trail, or one proposed for designation [16 U.S.C. Chapter 27
or equivalent];
> Adirondack Park Scenic Vistas [Adirondack Park Land Use and Development Map];
> State Nature and Historic Preserve Areas [Section 4 of Article XIV of the State Constitution];
> Palisades Park [Palisades Interstate Park Commission]; and
> Bond Act Properties purchased under Exceptional Scenic Beauty or Open Space category.

#07-083.50M Page 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 were generally derived from the following general categories:
> Recreation areas including playgrounds, athletic fields, boat launches, fishing access,
campgrounds, picnic areas, ski centers, and other recreational facilities/attractions;
> Areas devoted to the conservation or the preservation of natural environmental features (e.g.,
reforestation areas/forest preserves, wildlife management areas, open space preserves);
> A bicycling, hiking, ski touring, or snowmobiling trail designated as such by a governmental
agency;
> Architectural structures and sites of traditional importance as designated by a governmental
agency;
> Parkways, highways, or scenic overlooks and vistas designated as such by a governmental
agency;
> Important urban landscape including visual corridors, monuments, sculptures, landscape
plantings, and urban green space;
> Important architectural elements and structures representing community style and
neighborhood character;
> An interstate highway or other high volume (relative to local conditions) road of regional
importance; and
> A passenger railroad or other mass transit route; and
> A residential area greater than 50 contiguous acres and with a density of more than one
dwelling unit per acre.
Other Places for Analysis – Given the rural character of much of the study area, the inventory of
aesthetic resources has been further expanded to be conservatively over-inclusive. In several cases,
locations not rising to the threshold of statewide significance or local interest have been included to
represent visibility along sparsely populated rural roadways; most selected based on field observation
of open vistas. Although possibly of interest to local residents, such locations are not considered
representative of any aesthetically significant place and carry little importance in the evaluation of
aesthetic impact.
Resources of statewide significance, resources of local interest and other places for analysis were
identified though a review of published maps and other paper documents, online research, and
windshield survey of publicly accessible locations.

#07-083.50M Page 23
3.2.2 Summary Characteristics of Inventoried Resources
Overall Population and Density of
Development – This Project area is Table 3 Demographic Summary of Study Area
Municipalities (2000 Census)
quite rural with a very small year
round population. The population of
Municipality Year Round Population Total
the Town of Cape Vincent was just Population Density (off- Housing
3,345, including 760 residing in the season)* Units
New York State 18,976,457 402
Village of Cape Vincent (year 2000 Jefferson County 111,738 88
Town of Cape Vincent 3,345 59 2,825
census data). The year round Village of Cape Vincent 760 1,041 515
population density of the Town is 59.2 Town of Cape Vincent excluding Village 2,585 46 2,310
persons per square mile and 46 persons Town of Lyme 2,015 36 2,142
per square mile when the Village of Village of Chaumont 592 578 273
Town of Lyme excluding Village 1423 25 1869
Cape Vincent is excluded. This
compares with a population density of Town of Clayton (including Village of
Clayton) 4,817 58 3,391
88 individuals per square mile for * Rounded to the nearest whole number
Jefferson County and 402 individuals per square mile for New York State as a whole.
There are a total of 2,825 housing units within the Town of Cape Vincent, of which 1,891 (67%) are
classified as seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. Since the study area is within a region where
the population may increase during its tourism season(s), these seasonal residents may be quantified
by assuming that 2.61 persons reside in each seasonal housing unit (and all residences are fully
occupied). The seasonal population of the Town of Cape Vincent can then be estimated at
approximately 8,281 (including 1,060 residing in the Village of Cape Vincent). This is nearly 2.5
times the Town’s year round population. Table 3 summarizes demographics for other municipalities
within the study area.
Highway Corridors – Due to its rural,

location, many roadways within the Table 4 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes for
study area are relatively lightly traveled. Study Area Highways (NYSDOT 2004)9
The primary roadway within the study Route Section AADT
area is NYS Route 12E. This road NYS Route 12E CR 9 (St. Lawrence) to CR 4 (Crystal 2,122
Spring Rd.)
connects the City of Watertown to the NYS Route 12E CR 8 (Chaumont) to CR 57 2,758
Village of Cape Vincent then continues NYS Route 12E CR 57 to CR 6 (Cape Vincent) 1,355
NYS Route 12E CR 6 (Cape Vincent) to CR 9 (St. 1,301
northeast along the St. Lawrence River Lawrence)
to the Village of Clayton. Table 4 NYS Route 12E CR 179 (Chaumont) to CR 8 4,729
(Chaumont)
summarizes the average annual daily
traffic (AADT) for NYS Route 12E within the study area.
The traffic volumes identified in Table 4, compares to over 19,844 vehicles per day (AADT) on I-81
in Watertown (NYS Route 382 to NYS Route 12), approximately 10 miles southeast of the study area,
and 6,190 vehicles per day on NYS Route 12 at Alexandria Bay (Interstate 81 to NYS Route 26 in
Alexandria Bay), approximately 20 miles to the northeast of the study area. Interstate 81, the most
9
http://www.dot.state.ny.us

#07-083.50M Page 24
heavily traveled transportation route in the region, connects central New York and points south with
the international border at the Thousand Islands Bridge in Alexandria Bay.
Numerous county and local roads traverse the study area. Generally, these roads are lightly traveled.
Tourism – Although summertime is the most popular season of the year, the Thousand Islands region
of New York State draws thousands of visitors year-round. The region has long been recognized for
the enjoyment of boating, fishing, and other activities found along the scenic waterfront. Many visitors
come to this region to experience the outdoors and enjoy the scenery of the riverfront and islands.
Although not as abundant as in nearby communities, the study area offers a variety of lodging
including hotels/motels, bed and breakfast establishments, summer rentals, rustic cottages and cabins,
as well as private and public campgrounds; many with water views and guest access to the river or
lakefront.
Recreation and Open Space – There are many popular recreational activities within the study area,
include: hiking, hunting, camping, biking, fishing, boating, golfing, and snowmobiling. Other passive
outdoor pursuits such as bird watching or a leisurely drive along the coastline or through the rural
landscape are also common. There are a variety of State designated recreational resources within the
study area. Some of the more prominent recreational opportunities are discussed below.
New York State designated recreational resources within the study area include:
> New York State Parks

a) Burnham Point State Park (Town of Cape Vincent) – Located on the St. Lawrence
River, Burnham Point State Park offers tent and trailer campsites, picnic facilities,
boat launch and dockage.
b) Cedar Point State Park (Town of Cape Vincent) – Also on the St. Lawrence River,
Cedar Point State Park offers tent and trailer camping, picnic facilities, marina,
fishing pier, swimming beach, and play fields.
c) Long Point State Park (Town of Lyme) – Located on Point Peninsula overlooking
Chaumont Bay, Long Point State Park offers tent and trailer camping, picnic
facilities, boat launch, and playground.
> NYS DEC Wildlife Management Areas

a) Ashland Flats Wildlife Management Area (Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme) – This
2,037 acre Wildlife Management Area (WMA) provides public recreational activities
including bird watching, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing, and limited hunting
and trapping.
b) French Creek Wildlife Management Area (Town of Clayton) – This 2,265 acre
WMA provides public recreation activities including bird watching, cross-country
skiing, snowshoeing, hunting, fishing and trapping. Boat access is also available.

#07-083.50M Page 25
c) Point Peninsula Wildlife Management Area (Town of Lyme) - This 59 acre WMA
provides public recreation activities including bird watching, cross-country skiing,
snowshoeing, hunting, fishing, and trapping.
> NYS DEC Cape Vincent Fisheries Aquarium – The aquarium includes five tanks with many
of the fish species common to Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River and interpretive
information about New York State's conservation programs in the Great Lakes.
> Seaway Trail – The New York State Seaway Trail is a 454-mile scenic route paralleling Lake
Erie, the Niagara River, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. The Seaway Trail has been
selected as one of “America’s Byways” by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The
Seaway Trail was chosen for its unique landscape which has been sculpted by the forces of
nature and for its historical significance.10 Through the study area, the Seaway Trail follows
NYS Route 12E from Clayton southeast to Sacketts Harbor.
> Tibbets Point Lighthouse – The Tibbetts Point Lighthouse (listed on the National Register of
Historic Places) is open to the public seasonally, and provides scenic views of Lake Ontario
and the St. Lawrence River.
Additional recreational resources include:
> Snowmobile trails may be found throughout the study area whether on public/private land or
along roadways/seasonal roads. Snowmobiling is a popular activity in Northern New York
and is likely enjoyed by large numbers of participants within the study area during the winter
months. State snowmobile trails that bisect the area include, but are not limited to, C5J, C5k,
and S50. These trails are usually funded by the State, but are maintained by local
snowmobile groups.
> Municipal parks, recreational and open space resources, and other small community
playgrounds and athletic fields may be scattered throughout the study area.
Cultural Resources – The Project area includes many historic structures. Within the study area, 41
structures and two historic districts listed on the State and National Register of Historic Places were
identified.11 These include:
10
http://www.seawaytrail.com
11
http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com

#07-083.50M Page 26
Town of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Town of Lyme
> Carlton Island - Light > Aubertine Building > District School No. 3
House - Fort Haldimand
Site
> Claude Vautrin House > Broadway Historic District > Menzo Wheeler House
> Dezengremel House > Captain Louis Peugnet > Old Stone Shop
House
> George Reynolds House > Cornelius Sacket House > Taft House
> Joseph Docteur House > Duvillard Mill > The Row
> Nicholas Cocaigne House > E.K. Burnham House > Taylor Boathouse
> Reuter Dyer House > Jean Philippe Gailband du > Three Mile Bay Historic
Fort House District
> Rogers Brothers Farmstead > General Sacket House > Menzo Wheeler House
> Tibbits Point Lighthouse > Glen Building > Union Hall
> Union Meeting House > James Buckley House > United Methodist Church
> Warren Wilson House > John Borland House > Wilcox Farmhouse
> Xavier Chevalier House > Johnson House
> Levi Anthony Building
> Lewis House
> Otis Starkey House
> Roxy Hotel
> St. Johns Episcopal Church
> St. Vincent of Paul Catholic
Church
> Tibbett’s Point Lighthouse
> Vincent LeRay House
There are no properties in the Town of Clayton, within the study area, that are listed on the State and
National Register of Historic Places.
3.2.3 Visibility Evaluation of Inventoried Resources

Each inventoried visual resource was evaluated to determine whether a visual impact might exist.
This consisted of reviewing viewshed maps and field observation to determine whether or not
individual resources would have a view of the proposed Project.

#07-083.50M Page 27
Table 5 lists 93 visual resources located within the five-mile study area and identifies potential Project
visibility. The location of these visual resources is referenced by numeric code within Figures 1 and 2.
Of the 93 visual resources inventoried, four would likely be screened from the proposed Project by
either intervening landform or vegetation/structures and are thus eliminated from further study.

#07-083.50M Page 28
Table 5 Visual Resource Visibility Summary
Potential Visibility
Key
ƔVisibility Indicated Theoretical
View Indicated
Theoretical
View Indicated
żNo Visibility Indicated by Viewshed - by Viewshed -
Ž Filtered view through trees or limited view through structures possible (field observed where Excluding
Existing
Including
Existing
possible) Vegetation Vegetation Actual Likely
Map ID Receptor Name Municipality Inventory Type (See Figure 1) (See Figure 2) View12
Cultural Resources
2 George Reynolds House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
5 Joseph Docteur House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
7 Claude Vautrin House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
8 Xavier Chevalier House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
28 Laird / Stumpf House Town of Lyme Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
31 Taylor Boathouse Town of Lyme Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ž
32 Menzo Wheeler House Town of Lyme Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
33 Old Stone Shop Town of Lyme Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
34 Three Mile Bay Historic District Town of Lyme Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ž
36 Taft House Town of Lyme Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ž
37 The Row Town of Lyme Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
40 United Methodist Church - Point
Peninsula
Town of Lyme Statewide Significance
ż ż ż
41 Union Hall Town of Lyme Statewide Significance
ż ż ż
44 Wilcox Farmhouse Town of Lyme Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Not Visited
45 District School No. 3 Town of Lyme Statewide Significance

Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
48 Remy Dezengremel House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
49 Reuter Dyer House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
53 Dabion Point / Dabion Monumnent Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance
Ɣ Ɣ Not Visited
54 Rogers Brothers Farmstead Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
55 Tibbetts Point Lighthouse Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ž
56 Johnson House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ž
57 Captain Louis Peugnet House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ž
12
Actual view is based on field confirmation of potential visibility that was conducted on November 2 and 12, 2007 and in some cases through
aerial interpretation.

#07-083.50M Page 29
Key
View Indicated
Theoretical
View Indicated
Existing
Including
Existing
58 Nicholas Cocaigne House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
60 General Sacket House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
63 Jean Philippe Galband du Fort,
House
Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
64 St. John's Episcopal Church Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ ż
65 St. Vincent of Paul Catholic
Church
Ɣ Ɣ Ž
66 Broadway Historic District Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ž
67 Vincent LeRay House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ ż
68 Lewis House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ž
70 Roxy Hotel Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ ż
72 James Buckley House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ ż
73 John Borland House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ ż
74 Otis Starkey House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ ż
75 Glen Building Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ ż
80 E. K. Burnham House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ž
81 Cornelius Sacket House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ ż
82 Aubertine Building Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ž
83 Duvillard Mill Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ž
84 Levi Anthony Building Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ž
87 St Vincent De Paul Cemetery Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
88 Riverside Cemetery Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
90 Warren Wilson House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
Recreational and Tourist Resources
1 Burnham Point State Park and
Campground
Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
9 Milliens Bay Marina Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
16 Cedar Point State Park (entry) Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
#07-083.50M Page 30
Key
View Indicated
Theoretical
View Indicated
Existing
Including
Existing
18 French Creek WMA Town of Clayton Statewide Significance

Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
22 Lucky Star Lake Town of Clayton Local Importance
Ɣ Ɣ Ž
23 The Nature Conservancy Preserve
(Alvar Limestone Barrens)
Town of Lyme Local Importance
Ɣ Ɣ Ž
24 Ashland Flats WMA Town of Lyme Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
26 Bay Breeze Golf Course Town of Lyme Local Importance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
27 NYS DEC Boat Launch Town of Lyme Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ž
38 NYS DEC Boat Launch Town of Lyme Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Not Visited
39 Long Point State Park Town of Lyme Statewide Significance

Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
42 Point Peninsula WMA Town of Lyme Statewide Significance
Ɣ ż ż
43 Eastern Ontario Waterway Access
(NYS DEC)
Town of Lyme Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
51 Mud Bay - Martin's Marina Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
52 Lake Ontario Waterway Access
(NYS DEC)
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
62 NYS DEC Research Station and
Aquarium
Ɣ Ɣ Ž
69 North Market Street, Swimming
Area
Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance
Ɣ Ɣ Not Visited
76 Cape Vincent Village Green Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance

Ɣ Ɣ ż
77 Ferry to Wolfe Island - Marina - US
Coast Guard Station
Ɣ Ɣ Not Visited
78 Cape Vincent Historical Museum Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance

Ɣ Ɣ ż
79 Carlton Island - Light House - Fort
Haldimand Site
Ɣ Ɣ Not Visited
85 Village Waterfront Park Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance

Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
86 Village of Cape Vincent Public
Boat Launch
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
Highway Corridors/Roadside Receptors
3 Intersection Favret Rd. and Hell
St.
Town of Cape Vincent Other Places for
Analysis Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
6 Intersection Favret Rd. and CR 4 Town of Cape Vincent Other Places for
Analysis Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
11 NYS Route 12E / Seaway Trail Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
12 Intersection of Millens Bay Rd.
and Rosiere Rd.
Analysis Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
#07-083.50M Page 31
Key
View Indicated
Theoretical
View Indicated
Existing
Including
Existing
12a Intersection of Millens Bay Rd.

and Mason Rd.
Analysis Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
13 Intersection of Rosiere Rd. (CR 4)
and St. Lawrence Rd.
Town of Clayton Town
of Cape Vincent
Other Places for
Analysis Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
17 Intersection of EuroCliff Rd. and
NYS Route 12E
Town of Clayton Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
19 Intersection of Macomb
Settlement Rd. and St Lawrence
Town of Clayton Other Places for
Analysis Ɣ Ɣ Ž
Rd.
20 St. Lawrence Rd. at 3 Mile Creek Town of Clayton Other Places for
Analysis Ɣ Ɣ Ž
21 St. Lawrence Rd. Town of Clayton Other Places for
Analysis ż ż ż
25 Intersection CR 5 and Millens Bay
Rd.
Town of Lyme Other Places for
Analysis Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
46 Seaway Trail - High Point Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
47 NYS Route 12E Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
50 Intersection of Merchant Rd. and
CR 6
Analysis Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
Residential/Community Resources
4 Hamlet of Rosiere Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
10 Hamlet of Millens Bay Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
14 Thousand Island Middle & High
Schools
Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
15 Cape Vincent State Correctional
Facility
Analysis Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
51a Hamlet of Bedford Corners Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
29 Residential (Herrick Grove) Town of Lyme Local Importance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
30 Residential - Three Mile Point Bay Town of Lyme Local Importance
Ɣ Ɣ Ž
35 Hamlet of Three Mile Bay Town of Lyme Local Importance
Ɣ Ɣ Ž
59 Cape Vincent Town Hall Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
61 Elementary School and
Recreational Park
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
71 Cape Vincent Village Hall Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance
Ɣ Ɣ ż
89 Residential - North of Site Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
91 Mud Bay Residential Area Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance
Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ

#07-083.50M Page 32
3.3 FACTORS AFFECTING VISUAL IMPACT
To bring order to the consideration of visual resources, the inventory of visual resources is organized
into several recognizable elements, as follows:
3.3.1 Landscape Units

Landscape units are areas with common characteristics of landform, water resources, vegetation, land
use, and land use intensity. While a regional landscape may possess diverse features and
characteristics, a landscape unit is a relatively homogenous, unified landscape of visual character.
Landscape units are established to provide a framework for comparing and prioritizing the differing
visual quality and sensitivity of visual resources in the study area. Discrete landscape units were
identified through field inventory and air photo interpretation, and divide the study area into zones of
unique patterns and visual composition. Within the visual resources study area, four distinctive
landscape units were defined. These landscape units, their general landscape character, and use are as
follows:
Village Center – The waterfront Village of Cape Vincent is

the primary residential and commercial center in the study
area. The village is centered on a small downtown
commercial area principally oriented along West and East
Broadway (NYS Route 12E), two blocks south of the
waterfront. A tree-lined National Register Historic District
extends westward from the downtown along West
Broadway and a village green fronts East Broadway at
North Point Street.
The presence of the St. Lawrence River is not a significant visual focus in much of the village. Private
commercial establishments and single-family structures dominate the waterfront, which is visually
separated from most other residential and commercial areas. Visual connectivity is afforded along
West Market Street, North Point Street and Club Street that extend from Broadway to the waters edge.
Public waterfront access is provided at a small park off of East Broadway at Murray Street and the
Wolfe Island ferry landing is at the end of North Point Street.
The waterfront Village of Chaumont is primarily a residential and commercial center. Only a small
portion of the village is located within the study area as such the majority of the residential and
commercial core is not included. The village is generally oriented along NYS Route 12E.
Generally, built structures and streets dominate the visual landscape in both villages. Trees line many
of the roadways. Most buildings are one to three stories tall, including brick and wood frame
structures. Buildings styles are an interesting mix of older architectural styles (e.g. Federal, Late
Victorian, Italianate) interspersed with conventional, more modern, mid- to late-20th century
residences. Some of the older buildings are very well maintained or restored while others are in
various states of disrepair or alteration. With the exception of the view over the Duck Bay inlet
(Village of Chaumont), views are generally short distance and focused along streets (which are
typically arranged in a grid/block pattern). Structures and trees generally block most distant views,

#07-083.50M Page 33
however, filtered or framed views are possible through foreground vegetation and buildings from the
perimeter of the villages. Development density drops sharply as one moves away from the central
business district as the Village Center landscape unit transitions to the Rural Agricultural landscape
unit.
Rural Hamlet – Rural hamlets, such as Three Mile Bay,

Rosiere, and Saint Lawrence, are characterized by low to
medium density clusters of older residential dwellings and
very limited retail or commercial services. Rural hamlets are
typically found at the crossroad of two or more rural
highways that define the hamlet center. Such small
population clusters may be focused on a place of worship,
general store or other community building. Residential
structures generally front main roads. Side streets, if any, are often limited to one or two blocks off the
hamlet center.
Roadside residences and street trees often reinforce axial views along the highway. Views are
typically short distance and directed towards the main thoroughfare and adjacent structures. Structures
and trees generally block most views, however, filtered or framed views beyond the hamlet may exist
through foreground vegetation. Development density drops almost immediately as one moves away
from the hamlet center; transitioning quickly to the character of the surrounding Rural Agricultural
landscape unit
Rural Agricultural Landscape Unit – This landscape unit is

predominantly a patchwork of open land, including working
cropland/pastures and successional old-fields transected by
property-line hedgerows, occasionally interspersed with
woodlots. The terrain itself consists of relatively level
topography with gentle low-lying hills and small rounded
hillocks rising 180 to 190 feet above the St. Lawrence River
and Lake Ontario.
Within this landscape unit, population densities are very low and structures are sparsely located. Uses
are predominantly agricultural and very low-density residential. Minor areas of commercial use are
occasionally found along the roadside. Building stock consists primarily of permanent homes and
manufactured housing, along with accessory structures (barns, garages, sheds, etc.). Structures are of
varying vintage and quality. Poorly maintained or dilapidated structures and properties are not
uncommon sights.
Roadside views are often constrained by foreground vegetation. However, distant vistas (½ mile or
more) are common across the expansive agricultural plain. Straight stretches of road can provide long
axial views. Narrow curving roads often provide an interesting series of short views of the rural
landscape, but also force drivers to direct their attention to the road rather than the adjacent scenery.

#07-083.50M Page 34
Vistas to the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario from the Rural Agricultural landscape unit are not
common.
Some local residents and visitors may regard the aesthetic character of this landscape unit as an
attractive and pastoral setting; others may view it as a working landscape, similar in character with
much of rural upstate New York. Although a component of the background landscape, this inland area
is not widely associated with scenic quality of the adjacent waterfront landscape that is central to the
Thousand Island region’s appeal as a vacation destination.
Waterfront – The scenic character of the Lake Ontario and

St. Lawrence River coastal area appears to be the principal
factor influencing current and historic residential
development patterns along the shoreline. Many seasonal
and year-round residents desire to live by the water and
enjoy the views of the waterfront and islands the region is
well known for.13 The scenic value of waterfront property
has resulted in a nearly continuous pattern of residential
development along the study area shoreline. Residential structures include traditional single-family
residences, cottages, camps, and mobile homes; nearly all oriented to take best advantage of water
views. Along the shoreline, development density is highly variable, ranging from large wooded estate
lots set back from nearby roadways and neighboring properties, to neighborhood scale clusters of
small wood frame camps and trailer homes of varying quality, vintage and size. Shoreline areas
between the water’s edge and residential structures are commonly cleared, partly or often completely,
to create unencumbered vistas.
Along the St. Lawrence River, the Waterfront landscape unit is clearly defined by NYS Route 12E.
Along Lake Ontario the boundary is less defined, but still clearly identifiable along roadways
paralleling the lakefront and at the end of lake access roads. Most waterfront homes are located within
200 yards of the water. Beyond this distance water views quickly diminish due to the lack of
pronounced topographic rise inland from the shoreline. For this reason, throughout much of the
coastal area, the Rural Agricultural landscape unit extends to within several hundred feet of the
water’s edge.
Through much of the Waterfront landscape unit, residential properties directly front NYS Route 12E.
Individual driveways, often appearing informal and unpaved, mark the water-side of the highway
corridor. Occasional public and private roads lead to organized neighborhoods defined by closely
spaced homes, camps or trailers clustered in a one or two block grid pattern paralleling the shoreline.
Hundreds of individual docks, often-spaced only feet apart protrude from the shoreline providing
private access for homeowners and vacation renters. In other areas, most commonly in sheltered bays,
larger marinas offer seasonal dock rentals and off-water storage. Cedar Point and Burnham State
Parks provide public access to the St. Lawrence River within this distinct landscape unit.
13
Nearly 67% of all residential structures in the Town of Cape Vincent and 40% of all residential structures in the Town of Clayton are classified
as seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. It is a reasonable assumption that the vast majority of these second homes are either fronting or
immediately proximate to Lake Ontario or the St. Lawrence River.

#07-083.50M Page 35
While many waterfront properties are very well maintained and contribute to the overall beauty of the
waterfront landscape, other private properties have fallen to some degree of disrepair and detract from
the visual quality of the waterfront setting.
Many scenic views from the Waterfront landscape unit are focused primarily on the picturesque views
of the St. Lawrence River, Lake Ontario, and islands.
3.3.2 Viewer/User Groups

Viewers engaged in different activities, while in the same landscape unit, are likely to perceive their
surroundings differently. The description of viewer groups is provided to assist in understanding the
sensitivity and probable reaction of potential observers to visual change resulting from the proposed
Project.
Local Residents – These individuals would view the proposed Project from homes, businesses, and
local roads. Except when involved in local travel, such viewers are likely to be stationary and could
have frequent and/or prolonged views of the Project. They know the local landscape and may be
sensitive to changes in particular views that are important to them. Conversely, the sensitivity of an
individual observer to a specific view may be diminished over time due to repeated exposure.
Through Travelers – Commuters and through travelers would view the proposed Project from
highways. These viewers are typically moving and focusing on the road in front of them.
Consequently, their views of the proposed Project may be peripheral, intermittent, and/or of relatively
brief duration. Given a general unfamiliarity or infrequent exposure to the regional or local landscape,
travelers are likely to have a lower degree of sensitivity to visual change than would local residents
and workers.
Recreational Users – This group generally includes all local residents involved in outdoor recreational
activities, as well as visitors who come to the area specifically to enjoy the cultural, recreational,
scenic resources, and open spaces of the Thousand Islands region.
The sensitivity of recreational users to visual quality is variable; but to many, visual quality is an
important and integral part of the recreational experience. The presence of wind turbines may
diminish the aesthetic experience for those that believe the rural landscape should be preserved for
agricultural, rural residential, open space and similar uses. Such viewers will likely have high
sensitivity to the visual quality and landscape character, regardless of the frequency of duration of
their exposure to the proposed Project. For those with strong utilitarian beliefs, the presence of the
proposed Project will have little aesthetic impact on their recreational experience.
While the scenic quality of the Thousand Islands landscape is an important aspect of the recreational
experience for most visitors, viewers will also be cognizant of various foreground details,
developments and other visually proximate activities. Visitors and recreational users currently view
the existing working landscape, low to moderate-density roadside residential and commercial uses of
varying aesthetic quality, as well as utility infrastructure.

#07-083.50M Page 36
A greater number of recreational users will be present in the region when the weather is clear and
warm as compared to overcast, rainy or cold days. In addition, more recreational users will be present
on weekends and holidays than on weekdays.
Tourists – The Thousand Islands region of New York State is a widely recognized vacation
destination drawing thousands of visitors year-round. These individuals come to the area specifically
to enjoy the historic, recreational, and scenic resources of the lake, river and islands.
Most tourists and seasonal residents would have high sensitivity to the visual quality and landscape
character, regardless of the frequency or duration of their exposure to the proposed Project. This
group may view the proposed facility while boating on the river or lake, from coastal vantage points or
while traveling local roadways for the purpose of enjoying the scenic waterfront landscape.
3.3.3 Distance Zones

Distance affects the apparent size and degree of contrast between an object and its surroundings.
Distance can be discussed in terms of distance zones, e.g., foreground, middleground and background.
Distance zones established by the U.S. Forest Service and reiterated by the NYSDEC Visual Policy
are used in this SVRA. A description of each distance zone is provided below to assist in
understanding the effect of distance on potential visual impacts.
Foreground (0-½ mile) – At a foreground distance, viewers typically have a very high recognition of
detail. Cognitively, in the foreground zone, human scale is an important factor in judging spatial
relationships and the relative size of objects. From this distance, the sense of form, line, color and
textural contrast with the surrounding landscape is highest. The visual impact is likely to be
considered the greatest at a foreground distance.
Middleground (½ mile to 3 miles) – This is the distance where elements begin to visually merge or
join. Colors and textures become somewhat muted by distance, but are still identifiable. Visual detail
is reduced, although distinct patterns may still be evident. Viewers from middleground distances
characteristically recognize surface features such as tree stands, building clusters and small landforms.
Scale is perceived in terms of identifiable features of development patterns. From this distance, the
contrast of color and texture are identified more in terms of the regional context than by the immediate
surroundings.
Background (3-5 miles to horizon) – At this distance, landscape elements lose detail and become less
distinct. Atmospheric perspective14 changes colors to blue-grays, while surface characteristics are lost.
Visual emphasis is on the outline or edge of one landmass or water resource against another with a
strong skyline element.
14
Atmospheric Perspective: Even on the clearest of days, the sky is not entirely transparent because of the presence of atmospheric particulate
matter. The light scattering effect of these particles causes a reduction in the intensity of colors and the contrast between light and dark as the
distance of objects from the observer increases. Contrast depends upon the position of the sun and the reflectance of the object, among other
items. The net effect is that objects appear "washed out" over great distances.

#07-083.50M Page 37
3.3.4 Duration/Frequency/Circumstances of View
The analysis of a viewer’s experience must include the distinction between stationary and moving
observers. The length of time and the circumstances under which a view is encountered is influential
in characterizing the importance of a particular view.
Stationary Views – Stationary views are experienced from fixed viewpoints. Fixed viewpoints include
residential neighborhoods, recreational facilities, historic resources and other culturally important
locations. Characteristically, stationary views offer sufficient time, either from a single observation or
repeated exposure, to interpret and understand the physical surroundings. For this reason, stationary
viewers have a higher potential for understanding the elements of a view than do moving viewers.
Stationary views can be further divided to consider the effect of short-term and long-term exposure.
Sites of long-term exposure include any location where a stationary observer is likely to be visually
impacted on a regular basis, such as from a place of residence. Sites of short-term exposure include
locations where a stationary observer is only visiting, such as recreational facilities. Although the
duration of visual impact remains at the discretion of the individual observer, short-term impacts are
less likely to be repeated for a single observer on a regular basis.
Moving Views – Moving views are those experienced in passing, such as from moving vehicles, where
the time available for a viewer to cognitively experience a particular view is limited. Such viewers are
typically proceeding along a defined path through highly complex stimuli. As the tendency of
automobile occupants is to focus down the road, the actual time a viewer is able to focus on individual
elements of the surrounding landscape may be a fraction of the total available view time. Obviously, a
driver is most affected by driving requirements.
Conversely, the greater the contrast of an element within the existing landscape, the greater the
potential for viewer attention, even if viewed for only a moment by a moving viewer. Billboards
along a rural highway, designed to attract attention and recognition, are an example of this condition.
Furthermore, an element is more likely to be perceived in greater detail by local residents to whom it
is experienced on a daily basis than it is to passers-by.
3.3.5 Summary of Affected Resources

As listed in Table 5, of the 93 inventoried visual resources, four would likely be screened from the
proposed Project by either intervening landform or vegetation/structures and are thus eliminated from
further study. Table 6 summarizes the factors affecting visual impact (landscape unit, viewer group,
distance zone and duration/frequency/circumstances of view) described above for each visual resource
determined to have a potential view of the proposed Project.

#07-083.50M Page 38
Table 6 Visual Resource Impact Summary
Factors Affecting Visual Impact
Approximate
Number of
Turbines Distance (miles)
Map Visible Landscape Viewer/User /Distance Zone Moving/
ID Receptor Name Municipality Inventory Type (see Figure 2) Unit Group(s) (nearest turbine) Stationary
1 Burnham Point State Park and Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Waterfront recreational
56 2.6/Middleground Stationary
Campground
2 George Reynolds House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 3 Waterfront local residents 2.6/Middleground Stationary
3 Intersection Favret Rd. and Hell St. Town of Cape Vincent Other Places for Analysis 84 Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents 1.2/Middleground Moving
4 Hamlet of Rosiere Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance 45 Rural Hamlet travelers, local residents 0.4/Foreground Stationary
5 Joseph Docteur House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 62 Rural Agricultural local residents 0.2/Foreground Stationary
6 Intersection Favret Rd. and CR 4 Town of Cape Vincent Other Places for Analysis 82 Rural Hamlet travelers, local residents 0.2/Foreground Moving
7 Claude Vautrin House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 84 Rural Agricultural local residents 1.1/Middleground Stationary
8 Xavier Chevalier House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 45 Rural Agricultural local residents 2.0/Middleground Stationary
9 Milliens Bay Marina Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance 2 Waterfront recreational 2.8/Middleground Stationary
10 Hamlet of Millens Bay Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance 67 Rural Hamlet travelers, local residents 2.7/Middleground Stationary
11 NYS Route 12E / Seaway Trail Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents,
84 2.7/Middleground Moving
tourists
12 Intersection of Millens Bay Rd. and Town of Cape Vincent Other Places for Analysis Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents Moving
70 0.3/Foreground
Rosiere Rd.
12a Intersection of Millens Bay Rd. and Town of Cape Vincent Other Places for Analysis Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents Moving
84 1.4/Middleground
Mason Rd.
13 Intersection of Rosiere Rd. (CR4) and St. Town of Cape Vincent Other Places for Analysis Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents Moving
1 2.1/Middleground
Lawrence Rd.
14 Thousand Island Middle and High Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance Rural Agricultural local residents Stationary
70 2.9/Middleground
Schools
15 Cape Vincent State Correctional Facility Town of Cape Vincent Other Places for Analysis 44 Rural Agricultural local residents 3.3/Background Stationary
16 Cedar Point State Park (entry) Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 84 Waterfront recreational 3.4/Background Stationary
17 Intersection of EuroCliff Rd and NYS Town of Clayton Statewide Significance Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents,
84 4.2/Background Moving
Route 12E tourists
18 French Creek WMA Town of Clayton Statewide Significance 8 Rural Agricultural recreational 3.4/Background Stationary
19 Intersection of Macomb Settlement Rd. Town of Clayton Other Places for Analysis Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents
1 2.0/Middleground Moving
and St. Lawrence Rd.
20 St. Lawrence Rd. at 3 Mile Creek Town of Clayton Other Places for Analysis 4 Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents 3.1/Background Moving
21 St. Lawrence Rd. Town of Clayton Other Places for Analysis 0 Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents 4.1/Background Moving
22 Lucky Star Lake Town of Clayton Local Importance 1 Rural Agricultural recreational 3.5/Background Stationary
23 The Nature Conservancy Preserve (Alvar Town of Lyme Local Importance Rural Agricultural recreational Stationary
1 1.6/Middleground
Limestone Barrens)
24 Ashland Flats WMA Town of Lyme Statewide Significance 44 Rural Agricultural recreational 1.3/Middleground Stationary
25 Intersection CR 5 and Millens Bay Rd. Town of Lyme Other Places for Analysis 75 Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents 2.5/Middleground Moving
26 Bay Breeze Golf Course Town of Lyme Local Importance 13 Rural Agricultural recreational 4.1/Background Stationary
27 NYS DEC Boat Launch Town of Lyme Statewide Significance 4 Waterfront recreational 4.6/Background Stationary

#07-083.50M Page 39
Approximate
Number of
28 Laird / Stumpf House Town of Lyme Statewide Significance 84 Rural Agricultural local residents 2.9/Middleground Stationary
29 Residential (Herrick Grove) Town of Lyme Local Importance 48 Waterfront local residents 3.4/Background Stationary
30 Residential - Three Mile Point Bay Town of Lyme Local Importance 74 Rural Hamlet local residents 2.3/Middleground Stationary
31 Taylor Boathouse Town of Lyme Statewide Significance 70 Waterfront local residents 2.2/Middleground Stationary
32 Menzo Wheeler House Town of Lyme Statewide Significance 81 Rural Hamlet local residents 2.2/Middleground Stationary
33 Old Stone Shop Town of Lyme Statewide Significance 80 Rural Hamlet local residents 2.2/Middleground Stationary
34 Three Mile Bay Historic District Town of Lyme Statewide Significance 78 Rural Hamlet local residents, tourists 2.1/Middleground Stationary
35 Hamlet of Three Mile Bay Town of Lyme Local Importance 75 Rural Hamlet travelers, local residents 2.1/Middleground Stationary
36 Taft House Town of Lyme Statewide Significance 55 Rural Hamlet local residents 2.1/Middleground Stationary
37 The Row Town of Lyme Statewide Significance 60 Rural Hamlet local residents 2.0/Middleground Stationary
38 NYS DEC Boat Launch Town of Lyme Statewide Significance 84 Waterfront recreational 2.2/Middleground Stationary
39 Long Point State Park Town of Lyme Statewide Significance 84 Waterfront recreational 3.8/Background Stationary
40 United Methodist Church - Point Town of Lyme Statewide Significance Waterfront local residents Stationary
0 4.7/Background
Peninsula
41 Union Hall Town of Lyme Statewide Significance 0 Waterfront local residents 4.8/Background Stationary
42 Point Peninsula WMA Town of Lyme Statewide Significance 0 Waterfront recreational 3.7/Background Stationary
43 Eastern Ontario Waterway Access (NYS Town of Lyme Statewide Significance Waterfront recreational Stationary
84 3.4/Background
DEC)
44 Wilcox Farmhouse Town of Lyme Statewide Significance 14 Rural Agricultural local residents 1.1/Middleground Stationary
45 District School No. 3 Town of Lyme Statewide Significance 14 Rural Agricultural local residents 0.8/Middleground Stationary
46 Seaway Trail - High Point Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents, Moving
84 0.4/Foreground
tourists
47 NYS Route 12E Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents, Moving
73 0.3/Foreground
tourists
48 Remy Dezengremel House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 77 Rural Agricultural local residents 0.2/Foreground Stationary
49 Reuter Dyer House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 78 Rural Agricultural local residents 0.4/Foreground Stationary
50 Intersection of Merchant Rd. and CR 6 Town of Cape Vincent Other Places for Analysis 49 Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents 0.3/Foreground Moving
51 Mud Bay - Martin's Marina Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance 42 Waterfront recreational 0.5/Middleground Stationary
51a Bedford Corners Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance 47 Rural Hamlet travelers, local residents 0.5/Middleground Stationary
52 Lake Ontario Waterway Access (NYS Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Waterfront recreational Stationary
43 0.7/Middleground
DEC)
53 Dabion Point Dabion Monumnent Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance 57 Waterfront local residents, tourists 2.2/Middleground Stationary
54 Rogers Brothers Farmstead Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 64 Waterfront local residents 1.8/Middleground Stationary
55 Tibbetts Point Light Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Waterfront recreational, tourists, Stationary
66 2.5/Middleground
local residents
56 Johnson House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 6 Waterfront local residents 2.4/Middleground Stationary
57 Captain Louis Peugnet House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 45 Waterfront local residents 2.0/Middleground Stationary

#07-083.50M Page 40
Approximate
Number of
58 Nicholas Cocaigne House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 84 Rural Agricultural local residents 0.6/Middleground Stationary
59 Cape Vincent Town Hall Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance 83 Rural Agricultural local residents 1.3/Middleground Stationary
60 General Sacket House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 20 Village Center local residents 1.4/Middleground Stationary
61 Elementary School and Recreational Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Village Center local residents Stationary
46 1.6/Middleground
Park
62 NYS DEC Research Station and Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Village Center tourists Stationary
55 1.6/Middleground
Aquarium
63 Jean Philippe Galband du Fort House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 47 Village Center local residents 1.7/Middleground Stationary
64 St. John's Episcopal Church Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 36 Village Center local residents 1.7/Middleground Stationary
65 St. Vincent of Paul Catholic Church Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 34 Village Center local residents 1.7/Middleground Stationary
66 Broadway Historic District Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 28 Village Center local residents, tourists 1.9/Middleground Stationary
67 Vincent LeRay House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 46 Village Center local residents 2.0/Middleground Stationary
68 Lewis House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 60 Waterfront local residents 2.0/Middleground Stationary
69 North Market Street, Swimming Area Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Waterfront local residents, Stationary
60 2.0/Middleground
recreational, tourists
70 Roxy Hotel Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 49 Village Center local residents, tourists 1.9/Middleground Stationary
71 Cape Vincent Village Hall Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance 41 Village Center local residents 1.8/Middleground Stationary
72 James Buckley House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 40 Village Center local residents 1.8/Middleground Stationary
73 John Borland House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 39 Village Center local residents 1.8/Middleground Stationary
74 Otis Starkey House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 42 Village Center local residents 1.8/Middleground Stationary
75 Glen Building Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 56 Village Center local residents 1.9/Middleground Stationary
76 Cape Vincent Village Green Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance 56 Village Center local residents 1.9/Middleground Stationary
77 Ferry to Wolfe Island - Marina - US Coast Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Waterfront local residents, Moving
52 1.9/Middleground
Guard Station recreational, tourists
78 Cape Vincent Historical Museum Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance 60 Village Center local residents, tourists 2.0/Middleground Stationary
79 Carlton Island - Light House - Fort Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Waterfront local residents, Stationary
68 3.9/Background
Haldimand Site recreational, tourists
80 E. K. Burnham House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 56 Village Center local residents 1.9/Middleground Stationary
81 Cornelius Sacket House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 53 Village Center local residents 1.9/Middleground Stationary
82 Aubertine Building Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 53 Village Center local residents 1.9/Middleground Stationary
83 Duvillard Mill Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 58 Village Center local residents 1.9/Middleground Stationary
84 Levi Anthony Building Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 50 Village Center local residents 1.8/Middleground Stationary
85 Village Waterfront Park Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Village Center local residents, Stationary
70 1.7/Middleground
recreational, tourists
86 Village of Cape Vincent Public Boat Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Village Center local residents, Stationary
74 1.8/Middleground
Launch recreational, tourists
87 St Vincent De Paul Cemetery Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance 84 Rural Agricultural local residents 1.7/Middleground Stationary

#07-083.50M Page 41
Approximate
Number of
88 Riverside Cemetery Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance 56 Rural Agricultural local residents 1.9/Middleground Stationary
89 Residential - North of Site Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance 77 Waterfront local residents 2.5/Middleground Stationary
90 Warren Wilson House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 84 Rural Agricultural local residents 1.3/Middleground Stationary
91 Mud Bay Residential Area Town of Cape Vincent Local Importance 84 Rural Hamlet local residents 0.8/Middleground Stationary

#07-083.50M Page 42
3.4 DEGREE OF PROJECT VISIBILITY
3.4.1 Field Observation and Photography
On November 2 and 12, 2007, and December 30, 2010 a field crew drove public roads and visited
many of the potentially affected visual resources (as determined through viewshed mapping based on
the DEIS VRA layout) to document existing visibility in the direction of proposed wind turbines. All
photographs were taken from affected visual resources using a 6.3 or 8.1-mega pixel digital camera
with a lens setting of approximately 50mm15 to simulate normal human eyesight relative to scale. The
location selected for each photograph was judged by the field observer to be the most unobstructed
line-of-sight to the turbine area from the subject visual resource. To the degree possible, photographs
were taken at a time of day when the sun was to the back of the photographer to minimize the effect of
glare within the camera’s field of view and to maximize visible contrast of the landscape being
photographed.
The precise coordinates of each photo location were recorded in the field using a handheld global
positioning system (GPS) unit. To determine the direction of the proposed wind turbines from each
photo location, the precise coordinates of all proposed turbines were pre-programmed into the GPS as
a “waypoint.” The GPS waypoint direction indicator (arrow pointing along calculated bearing) was
used to determine the appropriate bearing for the camera, so that a desired turbine, or grouping of
turbines, would be generally centered in the field of view of each photograph.
3.4.2 Photographic
Simulations Table 7 Key Receptors Selected for Photo Simulation
Selection of Key Receptors for Map ID Receptor Name
SVRA Photographic Simulations
Photo Simulation – To demonstrate 1 Burnham Point State Park and Campground
how the actual turbines will appear 4 Hamlet of Rosiere
12a Intersection of Millens Bay Rd. and Mason Rd.
within the study area from a variety 39 Long Point State Park
49 Reuter Dyer House
of distances and locations, 59 Cape Vincent Town Hall
66 Broadway Historic District
simulations were created from nine 82 Aubertine Building
resources. Of these, six were 91 Mud Bay Residential Area
Original VRA Photographic Simulations
contained in the DEIS VRA and 1 Burnham Point State Park and Campground
4 Hamlet of Rosiere
updated using the revised layout and 7 Claude Vautrin House
turbine selection. The specific 8 Xavier Chevalier House
12a Intersection of Millens Bay Rd. and Mason Rd.
simulations chosen to be simulated 16 Cedar Point State Park (entry)
18 French Creek WMA
as part of the SVRA were selected 37 The Row
for their relevance to the factors 39 Long Point State Park
51a Bedford Corners
affecting visual impact (viewer/user 59 Cape Vincent Town Hall
66 Broadway Historic District
groups, landscape units, distance 86 Village of Cape Vincent Public Boat Launch
zones and duration/frequency and
15
A Canon EOS Rebel XT digital SLR with a 24-85milimeter (mm) zoom lens was used for all Project
photography. This digital camera, similar to most digital SLR cameras, has a sensor that is approximately 1.6
times smaller than a comparable full frame 35mm film camera. Recognizing this differential, the zoom lens used
was set to approximately 31mm to achieve a field-of-view comparable to a 50mm lens on a full frame 35mm
camera (31mm x 1.6 = 50mm).

#07-083.50M Page 43
circumstances of view discussed above.
These simulations do not include views from all potentially affected visual resources, but rather
provide representative examples of how the proposed Project will appear under varying circumstances
of distance and landscape character.
Because the visibility of wind turbines will most commonly affect local residents from rural homes
and during daily travel along local roads, and most open vistas of the Project typically occur in
isolated locations along rural roadways, views selected for photo simulation favor such views even
though the number of viewers will not be large.
All simulations completed for the SVRA (Appendix A) and the original VRA (Appendix B) and are
identified in Table 7. The simulations contained in Appendix B are based on the DEIS layout and
turbine selection, and are contained in the SVRA for informational purposes.
Photo Simulation Methodology – A photo simulation of the proposed Project was prepared from each
key receptor location identified in Table 7. Photo simulations were developed by superimposing a
rendering of a three-dimensional computer model of the proposed Project into the base photograph
taken from each corresponding visual resource (see section 3.4.1). The three-dimensional computer
model for the revised simulations were developed using Autodesk Civil 3D® and 3D Studio Max
Design® software (3D Studio Max).
Simulated perspectives (camera views) were then matched to the corresponding base photograph for
each simulated view by replicating the precise coordinates of the field camera position (as recorded by
GPS) and the focal length of the camera lens used (50mm). Precisely matching these parameters
assures scale accuracy between the base photograph and the subsequent simulated view. The camera’s
target position was set to match the bearing of the corresponding existing condition photograph as
recorded in the field. With the existing conditions photograph displayed as a “viewport background,”
and the viewport properties set to match the photograph pixel dimensions, minor camera adjustments
were made (horizontal and vertical positioning, and camera roll) to align the horizon in the
background photograph with the corresponding features of the 3D model.
To verify the camera alignment, visible elements (e.g. structures, towers, roads) within the photograph
are identified and digitized from digital orthophotos. Each element is assigned a Z value (elevation)
based on DEM data and then imported to 3D Studio Max. A 3D terrain model is also created (using
DEM data) to replicate the existing site topography. The digitized elements are then aligned with
corresponding elements in the photograph by adjusting the camera target. If necessary, slight camera
adjustments are made to ensure and accurate alignment.
Once the camera alignment is verified, a to-scale 3D model of the proposed Project is merged into the
model space. The 3D model of the Project is intended to accurately convey the current design intent.
To the extent practicable, and to the extent necessary to reveal impacts, design details of the proposed
GE 1.6-100 turbines were built into the 3D model and incorporated into the photo simulation.
Consequently, the scale, alignment, elevations and location of the visible elements of the proposed
facilities are true to the conceptual design.

#07-083.50M Page 44
With the model in place, a daylight system is created based on the date and time of the photograph.
Regional inputs such as time zone and location are also applied to the daylight system. To accurately
depict "reflected light" a ground plane utilizing the previously created mesh (based on DEM data) is
placed in the scene. This ground plane also portrays any additional shadows cast by the proposed
Project. In some cases a minor haze may be applied to the proposed Project to increase realism and
show distance fall-off. To determine the correct amount of haze, existing elements within the view
were evaluated and compared to actual textures and colors (e.g. a radio tower that normally appears
dark grey becomes light grey due to the effects of atmospheric haze). A similar haze overlay is then
applied to the turbines to duplicate the atmospheric conditions present in the photograph. A database
of existing turbine photographs, at variable distances is also used to verify simulation color accuracy.
The camera view is then rendered and saved.
The rendered view was then opened using Adobe Photoshop CS4 software for post-production editing
(i.e., airbrush out portion of turbines that fall below foreground topography and vegetation).
Arms Length Rule – The photo simulations included in Appendix A have been printed using an
11”x17” page format. At this image size, the page should be held at approximately arms length16 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 ¼ feet.
Field Viewing – The photo simulations present an accurate depiction of the appearance of proposed
turbines suitable for general understanding of the degree and character of Project visibility. However,
these images are a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional landscape. The human eye
is capable of recognizing a greater level of detail than can be illustrated in a two-dimensional image.
Agency decision-makers and interested parties may benefit from viewing the photo simulations in the
field from any or all of the simulated vantage points. In this manner, observers can directly compare
the level of detail visible in the base photograph with actual field observed conditions.
3.4.3 Cumulative Photo Simulations

In addition to the Project, Acciona Energy North (Acciona) is proposing the 51-turbine St. Lawrence
Wind Farm that will also be within the Town of Cape Vincent. Acciona’s project will be located
approximately one half mile northwest of the Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project at the closest point.
To illustrate the potential cumulative effect, a series of simulations were created to depict both
projects.
16
Viewing distance is calculated based a 39.6-degree field-of-view for the 50mm camera lens used, and the 15.5” wide image presented in
Appendix A. “Arm’s length” is assumed to be approximately 22.5 inches from the eye. Arm’s length varies for individual viewers.

#07-083.50M Page 45
In order to prepare the simulations, Saratoga Associates assumed that all Acciona turbines will have a
tower of approximately 263 feet tall from ground to hub and each of the three blades will be
approximately 134.5 feet in length (269 foot rotor diameter) with an apex rotation reaching
approximately 397.5 above ground elevation.17 The methodology for producing the cumulative
simulations is the same as described above in Section 3.4.2. Of the nine simulations created for the
SVRA, five views actually have a potential to view the proposed St. Lawrence Wind Farm (Appendix
A), specifically:
> Viewpoint 1 – Burnham Point State Park and Campground;

> Viewpoint 12a – Intersection of Millens Bay Rd. and Mason Rd.;
> Viewpoint 39 – Long Point State Park;
> Viewpoint 59 – Cape Vincent Town Hall; and
> Viewpoint 66 – Broadway Historic District.
These locations illustrate the potential visibility of both the Project and the proposed St. Lawrence
Wind Farm. In addition, views at varying distances from both projects demonstrate how foreground,
middleground, and background views will be affected by the addition of the both projects.
3.5 CHARACTER OF PROJECT VISIBILITY

3.5.1 Compatibility with Regional Landscape Patterns
The visual character of a landscape is defined by the patterns, forms and scale relationships created by
lines, colors, and textures. Some patterns dominate while others are subordinate. The qualitative
impact of a Project is the effect the development has on these patterns, and by corollary on, the visual
character of the regional landscape.
Existing Landscape – The visible patterns (form, line, color, and texture) found within the 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 Appendices A and B.
Form – The form of the regional landscape is essentially a planar landscape. The woodland edge of
agricultural fields commonly creates a brief vertical offset of the prevailing planar form. The
proposed Project will be comprised of 84 thin tapered vertical structures distributed throughout the
landscape; topped with large rotating blades. The introduction of such clearly man-made and kinetic
structures creates an obvious visual disruption of the agricultural landscape.
17
All turbine locations for the St. Lawrence Wind Farm were provided by BP Wind Energy.

#07-083.50M Page 46
Line – The existing landscape maintains a horizontal line formed by extended vistas over an
agricultural plain that often forms the visible horizon. The well-defined vertical form of 84 turbines
that may be visible across this plain introduces a contrasting and distinct perpendicular element into
the landscape. Views will commonly include multiple turbines at varying distances from the viewer.
It is anticipated that the turbines will most commonly be viewed in an off-axis manner creating the
appearance of a rather random arrangement.
Color – Generally, the neutral off-white color of the proposed turbine tower, nacelle and blades will be
viewed against the background sky. Under these conditions the turbines would be highly compatible
with the hue, saturation and brightness of the background sky and distant elements of the natural
landscape. Color contrast will decrease with increasing distance and/or periods of increased
atmospheric haze or precipitation.
Texture – Tubular style monopole towers have been specifically selected, instead of skeletal (or
lattice) frame towers, to minimize textural contrast and provide a more simple, visually appealing
form.
Scale/Spatial Dominance – The proposed wind turbines will be the tallest visible elements on the
horizon and will be disproportionate to other elements (e.g. silos) commonly visible on the regional
landscape. From most foreground and middleground vantage points the contrast of the proposed
turbines with commonly recognizable features, such as structures and trees, will result in the proposed
Project being perceived as a highly dominant visual element. However, when viewed from
background vantage points, the turbines perceived scale and spatial dominance begins to lessen.
3.5.2 Visual Character during the Construction Period

Construction of the proposed wind turbines will require use of large mobile cranes and other large
construction vehicles. Turbine components will be delivered in sections via large semi-trucks. The
construction period for each turbine is expected to be quite short. As such, construction related visual
impacts will be brief and are not expected to result in adverse prolonged visual impact to area residents
or visitors.
3.6 SHADOW FLICKER ANALYSIS

Wind turbines can cause a flickering effect when shadows created by rotating turbine blades move
across the ground and nearby structures. This can cause a disturbance within structures (hereafter
referred to as “receptors”) when the repeating pattern of light intensity change falls across the
windows of buildings. The effect, known as shadow-flicker, is most conspicuous when windows face
a rotating wind turbine and when the sun is low in the sky (e.g. shortly after sunrise or shortly before
sunset).
Evidence from operational turbines suggests that the intensity of shadow-flicker is only an issue at
short distances. It is generally accepted that shadow-flicker will have a minimal to unperceivable

#07-083.50M Page 47
affect on properties at a distance greater than ten turbine rotor diameters18 from the turbine. Shadow-
flicker will only occur when certain conditions coincide:
> Daylight hours (sunrise to sunset) – shadow-flicker does not occur at night;
> Sunshine – shadow-flicker will not occur on foggy or overcast days when daylight is not
sufficiently bright to cast shadows;
> Receptor is within ten rotor diameters of the turbine – beyond this distance a person should
not perceive a wind turbine to be chopping through sunlight, but rather as an object with the
sun behind it.19
> Windows face the turbine – turbine shadows can enter a structure through unshaded
windows; and
> Turbine is rotating – no flicker will occur when the turbine is not in operation.
Because of constantly changing solar aspect and azimuth, shadows will be cast on specific days of the
year and may pass a stationary receptor relatively quickly. Shadow-flicker will not be an everyday
event or be of extended duration when it does occur. Additionally, shadow-flicker is most likely to
occur during early morning or late afternoon hours, thus specific receptors may experience shadow-
flicker, but the occupants of the receptor may either be inactive or absent. For example, receptors
such as residential dwellings located to the west of a turbine, are more likely to fall within the shadow
zone shortly after sunrise when affected residents are typically asleep with shades drawn. Receptors
located to the east of a turbine are more likely to fall within the shadow zone shortly before sunset. In
this case, receptors such as schools or office buildings are likely to be unoccupied during this time.
When the rotor plane is in-line with the

sun and receptor (as seen from the
receptor), the cast shadows will be
very narrow (Image 1), of low
intensity, and will move quickly past
the stationary receptor. When the rotor
plane is perpendicular to the sun-
receptor “view line,” the cast shadow
of the blades will move within a larger
elliptical area (Image 2).
The distance between a wind turbine

and a receptor affects the intensity of
the shadows cast by the blades, and
therefore the intensity of flickering.
Shadows cast close to a turbine will be Image 1 - Aligned Rotor Plane Image 2 - Perpindicular Rotor Plane
more intense, distinct and “focused.”
This is because a greater proportion of the sun’s disc is intermittently blocked. Similarly, flickering is
more intense if created by the area of a blade closer to the rotor and further from the tip. Beyond ten
18
Planning for Renewable Energy - A Companion Guide to PPS22 Queen’s Printer and Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office 2004
19
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/tna/+/http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/renew_3.5.1.4.htm/ (Website last accessed on August 17,
2010).

#07-083.50M Page 48
turbine diameters the intensity of the blade shadow is considered negligible and at such a distance
there will be virtually no, or limited, distinct chopping of the sunlight.

#07-083.50M Page 49
Cape Vincent Wind Energy
County Route 4
Project
Figure 4
Typical Shadow Pattern From Turbine #30
(Layout 10/28/2010)
January 2011
Key
30 Proposed Wind Turbine
4
ute
Hours of Shadow-Flicker
Ro
ty
un
Less than 2
Co
2 - 10
10 - 20
20 - 30
30 - 40
Greater than 40
30
d
Sta
ff R
te PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M
Ro
Hu
ute Copyright © 2010 Saratoga Associates. All Rights Reserved.
12
E
This map is computer generated using data acquired by Saratoga Associates
File Location: B:\2007\07083\Maps\Shadow_TypicalPattern101203.mxd
d
kR
Rd
oc
tR
tes
rn
Bu
Ba
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
3.6.1 Shadow-Flicker Methodology
The Projects shadow-flicker analysis was conducted using WindPRO 2.6 Basis software (WindPro)
and associated shadow module. This is a widely accepted modeling software package developed
specifically for the design and evaluation of wind power projects. Variables used for shadow
calculations include:
> Terrain – The terrain within the Project area was developed using a digital elevation model
(DEM) obtained through the United States Geological Survey in 1/3 arc second resolution
(approximately 10 meters). This data was interpolated and exported at 1-meter interval
contours for use in WindPro.
> Latitude and Longitude – WindPro considers the azimuth and altitude of the sun in relation to
the proposed turbine. For this analysis, the Project coordinates were specified by using
Universal Transverse Mercator coordinate system (UTM) North American Datum (NAD) 83
Zone 18.
> Turbine Dimensions and Blade Rotation Speed – For the shadow-flicker analysis, the turbine
was modeled using dimensions of the Vestas V100. An alternate turbine was used in this
analysis, as the turbine selected for the Project was not available in the WindPro catalogue. It
is anticipated that the Vestas V100 will be similar to the selected GE 1.6-100 turbine. The
analysis assumed a hub height of 263 feet (80 meters) and a rotor diameter of 328 feet (100
meters). The frequency of flickering is directly related to the rotor speed and number of
blades on the rotor. The shadow-flicker analysis assumed a three-bladed wind turbine
rotating at 14.9 revolutions per minute (RPM), which is the approximate nominal speed of the
Vestas V100 turbine. While the proposed turbine (GE 1.6-100) may have a slightly higher
RPM (approximately 16.2), it is anticipated that this difference will have little to no effect on
the shadow-flicker results.
> Receptor Locations – Locations of residences in the Project Area were provided by BP Wind
Energy and supplemented by Saratoga Associates. These locations were determined by a
combination of interpretation of aerial photographs and field verification. The shadow
analysis was conducted for all residences located within 1,000 meters (3,280 feet) radius of
any proposed turbine, a distance equal to ten times the rotor diameter of the turbine. This
distance is generally considered to be the limit of shadow impact. The locations of 755
residences20, which are included in this analysis, are shown in Appendix C.
> Receptor Windows – WindPro has the capability to identify where windows are located in
each receptor, so that shadow-flicker hours are only calculated when shadows are cast in the
direction in which the window faces. For this analysis, it was conservatively assumed that
every receptor had windows in all directions. WindPro refers to this as the “Green house”
mode.
> Sunshine probabilities (percentage of time from sunrise to sunset with sunshine) – The
WindPro model calculates shadow frequency based on monthly sunshine probabilities. The
20
Receptor locations identified by Saratoga Associates have been identified by interpreting aerial photos and have not been field verified. The
number of locations contained in the shadow-flicker analysis should be considered conservative and may include vacant properties and/or
ancillary structures (e.g. silo).

#07-083.50M Page 51
following sunshine probabilities were used for this analysis and are based on 60 years of
historic meteorological data for the Syracuse Hancock International Airport (City of
Syracuse, NY), which is located approximately 86 miles south of the Project site.21
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
33% 39% 47% 49% 55% 59% 63% 59% 54% 44% 27% 25%
> Screening from Vegetation and Structures – Trees and structures will block shadows from the
proposed wind turbine. Results from the WindPro model assume that the area lacks
vegetation and structures. This assumption is considered conservative, as shadows will not
occur in areas where the turbine is not visible due to the screening effects of vegetation and
structures. As part of Saratoga Associate’s analysis, the effect of vegetation is accounted for
by using GIS to overlay the WindPro results onto the vegetated turbine viewshed map (see
Appendix C). It was assumed that shadows will not occur in areas where turbines are not
visible due to the screening effects of vegetation.
> Operational Time/Rotor Orientation –The WindPro model was given the number of hours per
year that the turbine might be operating for every wind direction identified below. The total
hours in the table below are 8,760 hours/year, or approximately 100% of the hours in one
calendar year. Moreover, the orientation of the rotor (determined by wind direction) affects
the size of a shadow cast area. To more accurately calculate the amount of time a shadow
will be over a specific location (based on rotor orientation), the WindPro model considers
typical wind direction. These hours are used to determine average annual shadow hours for
the year. The following operational time (hours per year [hrs/yr]) of wind direction is based
on meteorological data collected by BP Wind Energy from March 2006 to February 2008.
N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW
306 593 747 410 239 188 224 352 679 810 1,019 1,034 836 697 367 259
Using the variables identified above, WindPro was used to calculate the theoretical number of hours
per year the shadow of a rotor would fall at any given location within the 1,000-meter radius of the
turbine. Hours for each receptor do not take into account activities within the receptor (i.e. rooms of
primary use or enjoyment versus less frequently occupied rooms) or account for the direction/location
of windows. Figures contained in Appendix C, illustrates the geographic area of the shadow impact
using the following increments:
> Less than 2 hrs/yr;
> 2-10 hrs/yr;
> 10-20 hrs/yr;
> 20-30 hrs/yr;
> 30-40 hrs/yr; and
> Greater than 40 hrs/yr.
21
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/online/ccd/pctpos.txt (data for Syracuse, NY) (Website last accessed on November 15, 2010).

#07-083.50M Page 52
3.6.2 Shadow-Flicker Impact on Existing Structures
There are 755 existing structures located within a 1,000-meter radius of a proposed turbine.22 These
structures were identified through a combination of air-photo interpretation and field verification.
Each existing structure was evaluated to determine potential shadow impact. Table 8 summarizes the
number of hours per year each inventoried structure would theoretically fall within the shadow zone
of one or more proposed turbines. The locations of inventoried structures are included in figures
contained in Appendix C.
22
Gaps in numbering are a result of receptors falling outside the shadow-flicker study area and as a result have been removed from this analysis.

#07-083.50M Page 53
Table 8 Shadow-Flicker Summary
Receptor Receptor
Maximum Expected Screened by Maximum Expected Screened by
Map Potential Shadow Potential Shadow Intervening Map Potential Shadow Potential Shadow Intervening
ID23 Hours per Day Hours per Year24 Vegetation?25 ID Hours per Day Hours per Year Vegetation?
1 0:56 15:49 No 64 1:00 55:38 No
2 0:57 16:58 No 65 1:03 57:38 No
3 0:59 20:34 No 66 1:02 56:53 No
4 0:48 36:38 No 67 0:52 31:22 No
5 0:45 32:49 No 68 1:16 57:12 No
6 0:28 6:14 No 69 1:14 34:05 No
7 0:29 6:42 No 70 1:12 48:30 No
8 0:25 2:38 No 71 1:10 54:48 No
9 0:32 20:56 No 72 1:20 77:28 No
13 1:18 24:49 No 73 1:13 58:34 No
14 0:57 24:47 No 74 1:08 27:30 No
15 0:35 8:07 No 75 1:09 29:24 No
16 0:34 7:14 No 76 0:48 8:53 No
17 0:45 21:32 No 77 0:30 3:53 No
18 0:45 22:44 No 78 0:31 4:08 No
19 1:01 25:56 No 79 0:30 3:38 No
20 0:34 11:21 No 80 0:34 14:25 No
21 0:33 11:18 No 81 0:28 4:06 No
22 0:33 10:49 No 82 0:37 16:16 No
23 0:29 9:58 No 83 0:38 14:33 No
24 0:28 7:02 No 84 0:25 3:09 No
25 1:28 32:28 No 85 0:24 3:07 No
26 0:56 8:00 No 86 0:24 3:10 No
27 0:54 7:42 No 87 0:36 6:21 No
28 0:51 6:27 No 88 0:48 11:34 No
29 0:54 7:01 No 89 0:45 8:04 No
30 0:47 10:08 No 90 0:46 8:46 No
31 0:37 5:03 No 91 1:57 26:53 No
32 0:44 8:46 No 92 0:44 7:50 No
33 0:57 29:09 No 93 0:53 14:11 No
34 1:05 30:05 No 94 0:45 16:17 No
35 1:03 29:10 No 95 0:36 10:09 No
36 1:33 35:20 No 96 034 9:30 No
37 0:47 11:54 No 97 0:31 12:28 No
38 0:41 10:51 No 98 0:29 8:00 No
39 0:41 10:03 No 99 0:30 8:19 No
40 0:38 17:57 No 100 0:30 8:50 No
41 0:41 10:08 No 101 0:33 18:23 No
42 0:41 11:30 No 102 1:53 31:35 No
43 0:57 16:48 No 103 0:30 15:33 No
44 1:06 19:02 No 104 0:24 4:39 No
45 0:37 5:42 No 105 0:24 4:37 No
46 0:43 3:36 No 106 0:24 4:27 No
47 1:10 29:25 No 107 0:26 3:13 No
48 0:00 0:00 No 108 0:27 3:22 No
49 0:00 0:00 No 109 0:34 10:18 No
50 0:00 0:00 No 110 0:37 10:35 No
51 0:44 13:08 No 111 0:38 10:45 No
52 0:28 5:14 No 112 0:40 11:14 Yes
53 0:14 1:35 No 113 0:58 19:17 No
54 0:45 20:06 No 114 1:30 29:36 No
55 0:42 18:21 No 115 0:40 12:35 No
56 0:27 3:28 No 116 1:09 18:22 No
57 0:25 2:47 No 117 1:01 15:52 No
58 1:14 31:14 No 118 1:04 17:48 No
59 0:35 9:19 No 119 0:40 11:55 No
60 0:34 10:35 No 120 0:56 17:37 No
61 0:34 13:43 No 121 0:57 21:24 No
62 0:35 14:02 No 122 0:58 25:22 No
63 1:03 43:11 No 123 0:56 26:08 No
23
Location of receptors provided in figures contained in Appendix C.
24
Hours based on maximum potential shadow hours excluding the screening value of existing vegetation.

#07-083.50M Page 54
Receptor Receptor
124 0:59 26:09 No 198 0:46 39:39 No
125 1:21 25:49 No 199 0:44 41:09 No
126 0:39 9:49 No 200 0:53 37:50 No
127 0:36 5:40 No 201 0:58 32:32 No
128 0:38 6:47 No 202 0:57 25:31 No
129 0:38 7:05 No 203 0:36 10:18 No
130 0:32 6:47 No 204 0:38 9:42 No
131 0:39 6:53 No 205 0:23 2:31 No
132 1:26 30:07 No 206 0:39 18:45 No
133 0:49 10:04 No 207 0:28 3:03 No
134 0:47 8:30 No 208 0:27 3:02 No
135 0:47 8:44 No 209 0:00 0:00 No
136 0:45 7:15 No 210 0:00 0:00 No
137 0:49 6:54 No 211 0:00 0:00 No
138 0:39 5:41 No 212 0:00 0:00 No
139 0:38 6:23 No 213 0:56 36:05 No
140 1:16 26:39 No 214 0:42 11:17 No
141 0:41 5:39 No 215 0:47 12:15 No
142 0:44 5:18 No 216 0:42 14:54 No
143 0:28 6:07 No 217 0:43 13:06 No
144 0:27 6:48 No 218 0:00 0:00 No
145 0:24 4:24 No 219 0:29 3:36 No
146 0:53 16:35 No 220 0:52 18:39 No
147 0:47 25:26 No 221 0:56 21:32 No
148 0:46 27:17 No 222 1:04 36:16 No
149 0:38 14:20 No 223 1:04 30:34 No
150 0:33 12:11 No 224 0:00 0:00 No
151 1:22 26:35 No 225 0:00 0:00 No
152 0:28 10:12 No 226 0:49 22:41 No
153 0:26 5:42 No 227 1:13 48:49 No
154 0:25 10:19 No 228 0:27 7:08 No
155 0:25 11:33 No 229 0:29 6:53 No
156 0:28 11:58 No 230 0:32 12:44 No
157 0:29 8:10 No 231 0:00 0:00 No
158 0:28 10:59 No 232 0:00 0:00 No
159 0:33 8:32 No 233 0:00 0:00 No
160 0:36 11:34 No 234 0:00 0:00 No
161 0:45 20:59 No 235 0:00 0:00 No
162 0:44 18:27 No 236 0:00 0:00 No
163 0:22 2:23 No 237 0:00 0:00 Yes
164 0:26 3:51 No 238 0:23 2:24 No
165 0:29 4:37 No 239 0:33 9:09 No
166 0:00 0:00 No 240 0:35 14:44 No
167 0:00 0:00 No 241 0:33 16:20 No
168 0:00 0:00 No 242 0:39 17:13 No
169 0:00 0:00 No 243 0:40 14:56 No
173 0:44 19:07 No 244 0:37 7:27 No
175 0:44 17:49 No 245 0:56 25:53 No
176 0:24 2:21 No 246 0:53 23:09 No
180 0:00 0:00 No 247 0:57 42:39 No
181 0:00 0:00 No 248 0:53 28:52 No
182 0:00 0:00 No 249 0:51 25:20 No
183 0:00 0:00 No 250 0:24 2:43 No
184 0:59 17:13 No 251 0:00 0:00 No
185 0:00 0:00 No 252 0:37 9:27 No
186 0:00 0:00 No 253 0:25 10:21 No
187 0:00 0:00 No 254 0:28 13:52 No
188 0:33 5:23 No 255 0:29 7:43 No
189 0:52 9:44 No 256 0:30 8:34 No
190 0:34 12:54 No 257 0:30 9:35 No
191 0:54 26:58 No 258 0:38 12:08 No
192 0:38 9:34 No 259 0:38 24:39 No
193 0:51 39:31 No 260 0:38 15:23 No
194 0:52 42:03 No 261 0:33 18:29 No
195 0:46 21:14 No 262 1:12 16:01 No
196 0:48 39:09 No 263 0:35 6:18 No
197 0:48 36:22 No 264 0:44 25:29 No

#07-083.50M Page 55
Receptor Receptor
265 0:51 31:04 No 350 0:37 8:56 No
266 0:56 37:01 No 351 0:00 0:00 No
267 0:35 13:47 No 352 0:39 15:15 No
268 1:09 30:12 No 353 0:49 13:54 No
269 1:01 13:36 No 354 0:53 15:31 No
270 0:56 8:48 No 355 0:35 5:14 No
271 0:40 10:16 No 356 0:19 0:37 No
272 0:27 15:37 No 357 0:00 0:00 No
273 0:34 12:54 No 358 0:00 0:00 No
274 0:39 7:28 No 359 0:00 0:00 No
275 0:35 12:35 No 360 0:00 0:00 No
276 0:42 17:24 No 361 0:00 0:00 No
277 1:05 21:22 No 362 0:00 0:00 No
278 0:32 12:02 No 363 0:00 0:00 No
279 0:49 17:05 No 364 0:00 0:00 No
280 0:40 16:16 No 365 0:40 11:59 No
281 0:24 2:46 No 366 0:40 9:50 No
282 0:41 26:46 No 367 0:11 0:37 No
283 0:29 3:49 No 368 0:28 3:45 No
284 0:34 15:50 No 369 0:24 2:36 No
285 1:12 43:21 No 370 0:35 9:00 No
296 0:30 6:48 No 371 0:35 10:39 No
304 0:00 0:00 No 372 0:34 11:55 No
305 0:00 0:00 No 373 0:00 0:00 No
306 0:00 0:00 No 374 0:29 4:15 No
307 0:29 6:46 No 375 1:02 45:59 No
308 0:00 0:00 No 376 0:56 40:15 No
309 0:00 0:00 No 377 1:04 50:47 No
310 0:00 0:00 No 378 0:57 47:32 No
311 0:00 0:00 No 379 1:10 59:31 No
312 0:00 0:00 No 380 1:05 39:30 No
313 0:00 0:00 No 381 0:46 12:29 No
314 0:00 0:00 No 382 1:08 31:53 No
315 0:34 5:47 No 383 0:29 3:22 No
316 0:50 8:53 No 384 0:00 0:00 No
317 0:44 17:45 Yes 385 0:30 4:33 No
318 0:00 0:00 No 386 0:40 13:59 No
319 0:51 26:45 No 387 0:34 21:13 No
320 0:47 30:09 No 388 0:35 17:30 No
321 0:52 26:54 No 389 0:36 16:10 No
322 0:34 8:40 No 390 0:37 22:42 No
323 0:27 3:01 No 391 0:35 12:14 No
324 0:00 0:00 No 392 0:25 4:09 No
325 0:20 2:30 No 393 0:37 6:15 No
326 0:46 11:37 No 394 0:51 13:17 No
327 0:43 30:25 No 395 0:36 5:46 No
328 0:27 5:23 No 396 0:48 12:11 No
329 0:00 0:00 No 397 0:38 12:21 No
330 0:30 8:26 No 398 0:35 9:53 No
331 0:25 2:24 No 399 0:34 9:45 No
333 1:17 23:40 No 400 0:32 12:58 No
334 0:33 7:21 No 401 0:29 7:55 No
335 0:37 7:43 No 402 0:32 16:30 No
336 0:59 25:54 No 403 0:25 8:40 No
337 0:31 11:44 No 404 0:28 3:29 No
338 0:32 11:37 No 405 0:34 9:32 No
339 0:28 6:58 No 406 0:33 10:27 No
340 0:00 0:00 No 407 0:00 0:00 No
341 0:30 7:25 No 408 0:36 10:10 No
342 0:54 7:53 No 409 0:39 10:41 No
343 0:52 6:38 No 410 0:41 13:13 No
344 0:42 8:07 No 411 0:47 16:24 No
345 0:35 4:42 No 412 0:47 21:35 No
346 0:39 5:54 No 413 1:09 19:01 No
347 0:43 16:59 No 414 0:48 11:32 No
348 1:00 22:12 No 415 0:42 9:18 No
349 0:43 11:44 No 416 0:40 10:52 No

#07-083.50M Page 56
Receptor Receptor
417 0:58 19:11 No 486 0:00 0:00 No
418 0:00 0:00 No 487 0:26 3:52 No
419 0:52 17:02 No 488 0:00 0:00 No
420 0:39 9:09 No 489 0:00 0:00 No
421 0:35 5:16 No 491 0:00 0:00 No
422 0:37 6:29 No 492 0:44 18:32 No
423 0:33 5:07 No 493 0:25 2:27 No
424 0:35 6:06 No 494 0:25 2:35 No
425 0:34 5:48 No 495 0:25 2:32 No
426 0:33 6:55 No 496 0:00 0:00 No
427 0:30 6:55 No 497 0:25 2:30 No
428 0:33 7:32 No 517 0:39 11:18 No
429 0:00 0:00 No 518 1:09 33:34 No
430 0:32 7:02 No 519 0:36 5:41 No
431 0:28 5:53 Yes 520 1:30 61:45 No
432 0:37 6:48 No 521 0:34 7:27 No
433 0:33 4:18 No 522 0:00 0:00 No
434 0:35 5:06 No 523 0:32 10:45 No
435 0:39 6:25 No 524 0:00 0:00 No
436 0:32 12:09 No 525 0:49 11:01 No
437 0:33 9:06 No 526 0:39 11:44 No
438 0:41 15:40 Yes 527 0:34 5:55 No
439 0:55 21:43 No 528 0:58 39:54 No
440 0:36 7:49 No 529 0:57 16:54 No
441 0:52 23:21 No 530 1:19 57:18 No
442 0:39 7:37 No 531 0:16 0:41 No
443 0:52 21:03 No 532 0:45 10:08 No
444 0:53 22:44 No 533 0:42 8:42 No
445 0:57 36:19 No 534 0:47 13:26 Yes
446 0:24 2:25 No 535 0:42 8:53 No
449 0:24 9:33 No 536 1:15 41:54 No
450 0:28 7:22 No 537 1:06 40:18 No
451 0:30 9:27 No 538 0:59 55:36 No
452 0:37 10:55 No 539 0:32 3:42 No
453 1:14 20:16 No 540 0:29 2:49 Yes
454 0:41 24:27 No 541 0:00 0:00 Yes
455 0:41 17:50 No 542 0:00 0:00 Yes
456 0:40 25:36 No 543 0:55 6:57 No
457 0:35 15:57 No 544 1:57 42:48 No
458 0:31 13:24 No 545 0:28 3:55 No
459 0:32 13:43 No 546 0:14 1:00 No
460 0:48 18:03 No 547 0:00 0:00 No
461 1:09 28:36 No 548 0:00 0:00 No
462 0:43 14:24 No 549 0:00 0:00 No
463 0:31 6:27 No 550 0:00 0:00 No
464 1:17 18:20 No 551 0:26 5:10 No
465 0:43 7:17 No 552 0:00 0:00 No
466 0:42 4:55 No 553 0:00 0:00 No
467 0:37 15:52 No 554 0:26 3:19 No
468 0:35 8:58 No 555 0:30 5:04 No
469 0:48 8:04 No 556 0:33 7:09 No
470 0:48 9:49 No 557 0:32 12:27 No
471 0:59 9:46 No 558 0:34 12:22 No
472 0:56 17:18 No 559 0:14 0:59 No
473 0:43 19:32 No 560 0:00 0:00 No
474 0:47 15:14 No 561 0:00 0:00 No
475 0:46 18:43 No 562 0:00 0:00 No
476 0:28 6:11 No 563 0:00 0:00 No
477 0:31 8:46 No 564 0:00 0:00 No
478 0:38 16:47 No 565 0:00 0:00 No
479 0:32 5:44 No 566 0:00 0:00 No
480 0:42 23:02 No 567 0:00 0:00 No
481 0:44 17:13 No 568 0:00 0:00 No
482 0:17 1:46 No 569 0:00 0:00 No
483 0:00 0:00 No 570 0:00 0:00 No
484 0:00 0:00 No 571 0:00 0:00 No
485 1:00 34:07 No 572 0:00 0:00 No

#07-083.50M Page 57
Receptor Receptor
573 0:00 0:00 No 640 0:25 2:34 No
574 0:64 29:45 Yes 641 0:26 2:56 No
575 0:31 20:45 No 642 0:00 0:00 No
576 0:45 10:26 No 643 0:34 4:13 No
577 0:46 29:34 No 644 0:33 4:12 Yes
578 0:28 2:59 No 645 0:33 4:10 No
579 0:35 5:24 No 646 0:32 4:11 No
580 0:25 3:26 No 647 0:32 4:02 No
581 0:25 2:43 No 648 0:31 3:59 No
582 0:00 0:00 No 649 0:30 3:41 No
583 0:00 0:00 No 650 0:29 3:32 No
584 0:00 0:00 No 651 0:29 3:28 No
585 0:00 0:00 No 652 0:28 3:18 No
586 0:00 0:00 No 653 0:27 3:10 No
587 0:00 0:00 No 654 0:27 3:07 No
588 0:00 0:00 No 655 0:26 3:01 No
589 0:00 0:00 No 656 0:26 2:57 No
590 0:00 0:00 No 657 0:25 2:51 No
591 0:00 0:00 No 658 0:25 2:45 No
592 0:00 0:00 No 659 0:24 2:41 No
593 0:00 0:00 No 660 0:24 2:40 No
594 0:00 0:00 No 661 0:24 2:35 No
595 0:00 0:00 No 663 0:24 2:42 No
596 0:00 0:00 No 664 0:24 2:47 No
597 0:00 0:00 No 665 0:25 2:58 No
598 0:00 0:00 No 666 0:25 3:00 No
599 0:00 0:00 No 667 0:26 3:07 No
600 0:00 0:00 No 668 0:27 3:14 No
601 0:00 0:00 No 669 0:31 3:59 No
602 0:00 0:00 No 670 0:31 4:08 No
603 0:00 0:00 No 671 0:33 4:28 No
604 0:00 0:00 No 672 0:35 4:47 No
605 0:00 0:00 No 673 0:36 4:50 No
606 0:00 0:00 No 674 0:36 5:11 No
607 0:00 0:00 No 675 0:41 9:00 No
608 0:00 0:00 No 676 0:40 8:36 No
609 0:00 0:00 No 677 0:39 8:17 No
610 0:00 0:00 No 678 0:38 7:50 No
611 0:00 0:00 No 679 0:37 5:34 No
612 0:00 0:00 No 680 0:36 5:18 No
613 0:00 0:00 No 681 0:32 4:20 No
614 0:00 0:00 No 682 0:30 4:11 No
615 0:00 0:00 No 683 0:30 4:13 No
616 0:00 0:00 No 684 0:29 3:58 No
617 0:00 0:00 No 685 0:28 3:51 No
618 0:00 0:00 No 686 0:28 3:37 No
619 0:00 0:00 No 687 0:26 3:14 No
620 0:00 0:00 No 688 0:25 3:04 No
621 0:00 0:00 No 689 0:25 3:00 No
622 0:00 0:00 No 690 0:25 2:57 No
623 0:00 0:00 No 691 0:24 2:48 No
624 0:00 0:00 No 692 0:26 3:23 No
625 0:00 0:00 No 693 0:27 3:31 No
626 0:00 0:00 No 694 0:29 4:09 No
627 0:00 0:00 No 695 0:30 4:23 No
628 0:00 0:00 No 696 0:30 4:29 No
629 0:00 0:00 No 697 0:31 4:37 No
630 0:00 0:00 No 698 0:32 4:52 No
631 0:00 0:00 No 699 0:33 5:14 No
632 0:00 0:00 No 700 0:33 5:08 No
633 0:24 2:14 No 701 0:33 5:17 No
634 0:24 2:21 No 702 0:34 5:28 No
635 0:25 2:24 No 703 0:35 5:41 No
636 0:26 2:41 No 704 0:35 5:49 No
637 0:25 2:17 No 705 0:37 8:05 No
638 0:26 5:42 No 706 0:38 8:18 No
639 1:31 75:57 No 707 0:42 9:33 No

#07-083.50M Page 58
Receptor Receptor
708 0:43 10:31 No 763 0:00 0:00 No
709 0:45 10:50 No 764 0:00 0:00 No
710 0:27 3:38 No 765 0:00 0:00 No
711 0:15 2:37 No 766 0:00 0:00 No
712 0:00 0:00 No 767 0:00 0:00 No
713 0:35 20:50 No 768 0:00 0:00 No
714 0:42 13:18 No 769 0:00 0:00 No
715 0:25 7:41 No 770 0:00 0:00 No
716 0:25 8:01 No 771 0:00 0:00 No
717 0:00 0:00 No 772 0:00 0:00 No
718 0:00 0:00 No 773 0:00 0:00 No
719 0:00 0:00 No 774 0:00 0:00 No
720 0:00 0:00 No 775 0:00 0:00 No
721 0:00 0:00 No 776 0:00 0:00 No
722 0:00 0:00 No 777 0:00 0:00 No
723 0:00 0:00 No 778 0:00 0:00 No
724 0:00 0:00 No 780 0:00 0:00 No
725 0:00 0:00 No 781 0:00 0:00 No
728 0:00 0:00 No 782 0:00 0:00 No
729 0:00 0:00 No 783 0:00 0:00 No
733 0:00 0:00 No 784 0:00 0:00 No
734 0:22 6:20 No 785 0:00 0:00 No
735 0:23 6:50 No 786 0:00 0:00 No
736 0:24 7:25 No 787 0:00 0:00 No
737 0:25 8:06 No 788 0:00 0:00 No
738 0:25 8:37 No 789 0:00 0:00 No
739 0:00 0:00 No 790 0:00 0:00 No
740 0:00 0:00 No 791 0:00 0:00 No
741 0:00 0:00 No 792 0:00 0:00 No
742 0:00 0:00 No 793 0:00 0:00 No
743 0:00 0:00 No 794 0:00 0:00 No
744 0:00 0:00 No 795 0:00 0:00 No
745 0:00 0:00 No 796 0:00 0:00 No
746 0:00 0:00 No 797 0:00 0:00 No
748 0:00 0:00 No 798 0:00 0:00 No
749 0:00 0:00 No 799 0:00 0:00 No
750 0:00 0:00 No 800 0:00 0:00 No
751 0:00 0:00 No 801 0:00 0:00 No
752 0:00 0:00 No 802 0:00 0:00 No
753 0:00 0:00 No 803 0:00 0:00 No
754 0:00 0:00 No 804 0:00 0:00 No
755 0:00 0:00 No 805 0:00 0:00 No
756 0:00 0:00 No 806 0:00 0:00 No
757 0:00 0:00 No 807 0:04 0:10 No
758 0:00 0:00 No 808 0:00 0:00 No
759 0:00 0:00 No 810 0:00 0:00 No
760 0:00 0:00 No 814 0:00 0:00 No
761 0:00 0:00 No 815 0:00 0:00 No
762 0:00 0:00 No 816 0:00 0:00 No
817 0:00 0:00 No

#07-083.50M Page 59
3.6.3 Shadow-Flicker Analysis
Each of the 755 structures within a 1,000-meter radius of the proposed turbine was evaluated to
determine potential shadow-flicker impact. Table 9 summarizes the number of hours per year and day
each inventoried receptor would theoretically fall within the shadow zone of the proposed turbine.
The location of each inventoried receptor is included in the figures contained in Appendix C.26
Based on Table 8, there are 755 residences identified within 1,000 meters of a proposed turbine. A
summary of their annual shadow hours is provided below:
> 225 (29.8%) do not fall within the shadow zone;

> 8 (1.1%) will theoretically be impacted less than 2 hrs/yr;
> 260 (34.4%) will theoretically be impacted 2-10 hrs/yr;
> 30 (4.0%) will theoretically be impacted 30-40 hrs/yr; and
> 26 (3.4%) will theoretically be impacted greater than 40 hrs/yr.
As identified, there are 56 (7.4%) receptors that are predicted to have over 30 hours per year of
shadows.
Table 9 Shadow-Flicker Summary of Structures Exceeding 30 Hrs/yr
Expected Potential Expected Potential

Shadow Hours per Receptor Screened by Shadow Hours per Receptor Screened by
Map ID Year27 Intervening Vegetation? Map ID Year Intervening Vegetation?
4 36:38 No 222 36:16 No
5 32:49 No 223 30:34 No
25 32:28 No 227 48:49 No
34 30:05 No 247 42:39 No
36 35:20 No 265 31:04 No
58 31:14 No 266 37:01 No
63 43:11 No 268 30:12 No
64 55:38 No 285 43:21 No
65 57:38 No 320 30:09 No
66 56:53 No 327 30:25 No
67 31:22 No 375 45:59 No
68 57:12 No 376 40:15 No
69 34:05 No 377 50:47 No
70 48:30 No 378 47:32 No
71 54:48 No 379 59:31 No
72 77:28 No 380 39:30 No
73 58:34 No 382 31:53 No
102 31:35 No 445 36:19 No
132 30:07 No 485 34:07 No
193 39:31 No 518 33:34 No
194 42:03 No 520 61:45 No
196 39:09 No 528 39:54 No
197 36:22 No 530 57:18 No
198 39:39 No 536 41:54 No
199 41:09 No 537 40:18 No
200 37:50 No 538 55:36 No
201 32:32 No 544 42:48 No
213 36:05 No 639 75:57 No
26
Appendix C is broken down into separate sheets based on the last digit in the receptor identification number. For example Receptor 70 can be
found on Figure C10 and Receptor 15 can be found on Figure C5.
27
Hours based on maximum potential shadow hours excluding the screening value of existing vegetation.

#07-083.50M Page 60
Of these 56 structures, none will likely be screened from the turbine shadow by intervening
vegetation. It appears that 47 of these structures are owned by Project participants (noted by
italicized text in Table 9) and nine are owned by non-participating landowners. Additionally, based
on field verification (completed by BP Wind Energy), six of these non-participating structures are
ancillary structures (e.g., barns or outbuildings) or vacant.
As identified in Table 9, Receptor 639 has the potential to receive the most shadow of all non-
participating landowners. Figure 5 shows all hours when shadows could theoretically be evident at
this location and which turbines may affect the receptor (different colors in the graph represent
shadows from different turbines). Note that it does not include adjustments for sunshine probability,
rotor orientation, vegetation, or project operating hours that may occur from year to year. Actual
average hours, therefore may be less than this graph shows, but the graph is useful because it
illustrates the times of the day and year that shadows are physically possible to occur.
As shown by Figure 5, shadow-flicker is possible at this location during (i) late February through
March and early October through mid October between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM from turbine 7, and
(ii) beginning April through mid September between 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM from turbine 4.
Figure 5 Months and Time of Day Receptor #639 May Receive Shadow

#07-083.50M Page 61
4.0 MITIGATION PROGRAM
Professional Design
> Proposed turbines will not be used for commercial advertising, or include conspicuous lettering or
corporate logos identifying the Project owner or equipment manufacturer.
> BP Wind Energy will maximize to the extent possible the subsurface routing of electrical
interconnects used to transmit power from turbine locations to the Project substation. It is
estimated that over 90% of the length of the interconnects will be subsurface.
> BP Wind Energy will work with the adjoining St. Lawrence Wind Power Project to identify
alignments, which could allow development of a single transmission line corridor to service both
projects, thereby reducing the potential visual impacts (as compared to multiple transmission
corridors). BP Wind Energy anticipates constructing a short .33-mile overhead transmission line
in order to connect to the proposed St. Lawrence Wind Power transmission line.
> Ancillary facilities (substation, operations and maintenance yard) will be located, as feasible,
away from major transportation corridors in order to minimize the perceived visual impact from
those parts of the Project, which are often regarded as the most “industrial” aspects.
Screening
> Considering the proposed Project includes 84 wind turbines that will be visible over a wide
viewshed area, traditional treatments such as fences, earthen berms and vegetative screening
cannot be applied in an effective manner to screen these major structures.
> In the event visibility of the proposed substation and operations/maintenance buildings are clearly
visible from the public right-of-way and is of concern to the community, perimeter plantings may
be used to further minimize visibility of these structures.
> Based on the proximity to the Project, some sensitive receptors may be screened from visual
impacts through the strategic planting of vegetation. This may still result in a short-term impact
if it takes a period of time for the vegetation to reach the mature state needed for screening
purposes.
Project Siting/Relocation
> The proposed Project is located in the Town of Cape Vincent for the following reasons:
- Favorable elevation and exposure of the Project area which is well suited for receiving
prevailing winds;
- Reliable winds that meet the necessary criteria for a commercially viable wind energy
project;
- The presence of an existing and proposed (by others) transmission infrastructure which will
deliver wind generated electricity to the grid; and
By their very nature, modern wind energy projects are large and highly visible facilities. Given
the necessary scale of wind energy turbines and the number of turbines required for a sustainable

#07-083.50M Page 62
project, there is no opportunity to relocate the Project or any of its components to other sites in
the Cape Vincent area where it would be substantially less visible.
> Proposed turbines will maintain a minimum setback from residential structures. Such separation
of uses assures maximum screening benefit of existing woodland vegetation, where such exists.
> Turbine placement will be largely dictated by project boundaries, environmental constraints,
proximity to residential structures, and the positioning of adjacent wind turbines. However,
particularly in response to impacts to specific high value resources, some repositioning of
turbines may take place to reduce or eliminate impacts.
Camouflage/Disguise
> The color of the blades, nacelle, and tower will be a neutral off-white. While the FAA mandates
this color for aviation safety, this color is well suited to minimize visual contrast with the
background sky.
Low Profile/Downsizing
> The proposed Project includes wind energy-generating turbines in sufficient number to produce
134.4 MW of electricity.
> The profile of the wind turbines is dictated by operational efficiency. Because wind turbine power
extraction is a function of the cube of wind speed (relatively large increases in power from small
increases in wind speed), the height of a tower plays an important role in overall energy
production. Reducing the height of the turbines to a meaningful degree would substantially
reduce the amount of energy produced rendering the development of the Project impractical or
would require constructing a greater number of smaller units to be economically viable.
Alternate Technologies
> Wind energy itself is an alternative to traditional energy sources. Meaningful development of
renewable wind energy will reduce reliance on fossil fuel combustion and nuclear fission
facilities and result in reduction in air pollutants and greenhouse gasses. A single 750-kilowatt
(0.75MW) wind turbine, operated for one year at a site with Class 4 wind speeds (winds
averaging 12.5-13.4 mph at 10 meters height), can be expected to displace a total of 1,179 tons
(2.36 million pounds) of carbon dioxide, 6.9 tons of sulfur dioxide, and 4.3 tons of nitrogen
oxides, based on the U.S. average utility generation fuel mix. More wind power means less smog,
acid rain, and greenhouse gas emissions.28
Non-specular Materials
> Wind turbine towers will be painted metal structures and blades will be painted fiberglass
composite. Where specifications permit, non-specular paint will be used on all outside surfaces to
minimize reflected glare.
28
American Wind Energy Association, Wind Energy Fact Sheet, Wind Energy – the Fuel of the Future is Ready Today (http://www.awea.org).

#07-083.50M Page 63
Lighting
> Due to the height of the proposed turbines, the Federal Aviation Administration requires red
flashing aviation obstruction lighting be placed atop the nacelle on approximately 45 of the 84
turbines to assure safe flight navigation in the vicinity of the Project. This federally mandated
safety feature cannot be omitted or reduced. If appropriate, alternative approved FAA lighting
options will be evaluated to determine if they can minimize the visual impact within the study
area.
> Lighting for the substation should be task oriented (e.g. maintenance and emergency).
Maintenance
> How a landscape and structures in the landscape are maintained has aesthetic implications to the
long-term visual character of the Project. BP Wind Energy places a high priority on facility
maintenance, not only for operational purposes, but for aesthetic appearance as well.
Recognizing that its public image will be directly linked to the outward appearance of its facilities
and desiring to be a welcomed member of the community, BP Wind Energy will implement a
strict policy of maintenance, including materials and practices that ensure a clean and well-
maintained appearance over the full life of the facility.
Decommissioning
> At the end of the Project life, idled turbines could represent a significant and unnecessary visual
impact to the local area. BP Wind Energy will maintain a well-funded decommissioning plan to
ensure that these structures can be dismantled and removed from the Project area upon
termination of power generation at the site.

#07-083.50M Page 64
5.0 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL VISUAL IMPACT
Visibility Summary
The viewshed maps clearly indicate that the highpoint (i.e. blade tip in upright position) of one or
more of the proposed turbines will be theoretically visible from approximately 78 percent of the five-
mile study area (based on vegetative viewshed – See Figure 2). However, approximately 22 percent of
the study area will likely have no visibility of any wind turbines.
Turbine visibility will be most common from inland areas where cleared agricultural lands provide
long vistas in the direction of turbine groupings. The area most affected by views of the Project will
be the central portion of the turbine area where multiple turbines will be visible. Within this area, it
will be possible for 360-degree visibility around a vantage point. Multiple turbines will also be visible
from portions of the St. Lawrence River, Lake Ontario, and islands. Although a majority of the
proposed turbines will be well inland of the St. Lawrence River (2+ miles), a small number of turbines
will be located within ½ to 1 mile of the Lake Ontario coastline. Boaters within close proximity may
have direct views of multiple turbines and a significant portion of these turbines may also be visible.
Overall, visibility along the River and Lake would likely be lessened to some degree by existing
clusters of localized (non-forest) vegetation. Also, the international border passes through a small
portion of the 5-mile study area and it is anticipated that visibility will occur on both sides of the
border.
The viewshed map indicates potential visibility of multiple turbines within the Villages of Cape
Vincent and Chaumont, and the hamlet of Three Mile Bay. Field observations determined the
prevalence of mature street trees and site landscaping combined with one- and two-story residential
and commercial structures, will likely block or partially screen views in the direction of the Project.
For instance, within the center to northern edge of the Village of Cape Vincent, many views southeast
are block by intervening vegetation and various structures. As one moves south of NYS Route 12E
(Broadway) there is greater potential to see the proposed Project, although the nearest turbine may be
close to two miles from the viewer. As one continues to move further south towards the southern edge
of the village and east of James Street, the probability of viewing the Project continues to increase.
However, many of these views towards the Project may still be screened by localized vegetation and
structures. Similar screening potential, although maybe not quite as much, that was witnessed in the
Village of Cape Vincent, was also observed in the Village of Chaumont and the hamlet of Three Mile
Bay. Filtered or framed views of proposed turbines are likely through foreground vegetation and
buildings from the perimeter of these communities. Direct views are more prevalent on the outskirts
of these communities where localized residential and commercial structures, street trees and site
landscaping are less likely to provide a visual barrier.
Photo simulations, which are provided in Appendices A and B, illustrate that, when visible, a
substantial portion of individual turbines will be seen above intervening landform and vegetation. In
particular, from foreground vantage points (within ½ mile), most of the 263-foot tall turbine tower,
nacelle and 328-foot diameter turbine rotor will commonly be visible above intervening vegetation.
From middleground (1/2 to 3 miles) and background (3+ miles) vantage points, such as the Villages of
Cape Vincent and Chaumont, and the hamlet of Three Mile Bay, foreground vegetation, and in some

#07-083.50M Page 65
instances topography, will often screen the lower portions of the turbine structure (tower and nacelle)
limiting views to the upper portion of the rotor turning above the tree line. The high degree of Project
visibility can be attributed to the lack of significant topographic changes (e.g. hills, mountains) and
broad agricultural clearings. This is typical throughout much of the five-mile study area.
Impact on Visual Resources

Based on the viewshed analysis, the highpoint of one or more of the proposed turbines will be visible
from approximately 89 of 93 (approximately 95.7%)29 inventoried visual resources. Of those with
visibility, 40 were identified as historical resources of Statewide Significance. Considering that many
of these properties are not open to the general public, and the listed historic significance is not
associated with the cultural sensitivity of the setting (e.g., the listed historic significance of the
property is associated with a person, event, and/or architecture/engineering), the aesthetic impact of
Project visibility on these private resources is diminished.
Potentially affected resources of Statewide Significance, which are open to the public, include
resources such as:
> St. Vincent of Paul Catholic Church (place of worship);

> Tibbett’s Point Lighthouse (tourist attraction)30;
> Ashland Flats Wildlife Management Area (public open space);
> Burnham Point State Park (public park);
> Cedar Point State Park (public park);
> Long Point State Park (public park);
> French Creek State Wildlife Management Area (public open space); and
> NYSDEC Research Station & Aquarium (tourist attraction).
In addition, the study area contains two historic districts - Broadway Historic District (Village of Cape
Vincent) and the Three Mile Bay Historic District (hamlet of Three Mile Bay). Based on field
observations, it appears that many views in the direction of the Project will generally be screened by
the presence of mature street trees and site landscaping combined with one- and two-story residential
and commercial structures.
The proposed BP Wind Energy Project will also be visible from much of the Seaway Trail Scenic
Byway. Of the roughly 22.8 miles of the Seaway Trail (NYS Route 12E) traversing the five-mile
study area, the high point of one or more turbines will be visible from approximately 20.6 miles
(approximately 90 percent). For much of the Seaway Trail, visibility will include a substantial portion
(tower, nacelle and rotor) of multiple turbines.
The NYSDEC visual Policy states,
“Aesthetic impact occurs when there is a detrimental effect on the perceived beauty
of a place or structure. Significant aesthetic impacts are those that may cause a
diminishment of the public enjoyment and appreciation of an inventoried resource, or
one that impairs the character or quality of such a place. Proposed large facilities by
29
This is contingent on final turbine array.
30
Access to top of light tower is unavailable to further confirm visibility.

#07-083.50M Page 66
themselves should not be a trigger for a declaration of significance. Instead, a
project by virtue of its siting in visual proximity to an inventoried resource may lead
staff to conclude that there may be a significant impact.”
Based on this definition, it is reasonable to conclude that simple visibility of the proposed wind farm
(albeit a large facility) from any of these affected resources of statewide significance does not result in
detrimental effect on the perceived beauty of the place or structure; nor will the Project cause the
diminishment of public enjoyment and appreciation of an inventoried resource, or impair the character
or quality of such a place.
Resources of Local Interest – Because of the number, scale and distribution of proposed turbines,
some portion of the Project will be visible from places of local interest, that do not necessarily meet
the broader statewide threshold for visual significance. Most commonly affected are roadside views
along various county and local roadways.
Views were found along portions of several county and town roads at varying distance. Most
residential neighborhoods in the villages and hamlets where the prevalence of mature street trees and
site landscaping combined with one and two story structures may substantially limit or screen distant
views.
Character of View
The Thousand Islands region of New York State is well known for the scenic beauty of its shoreline
and over 1,800 islands and offers numerous cultural, recreational and entertainment attractions. This
area has long been recognized as ideal for second homes, boating, fishing, and general enjoyment of
the waterfront environment. Although nearby communities (outside the study area) contain a greater
concentration of resorts, restaurants and tourist attractions, recreational and tourism resources are
found throughout the study area, including the Village of Cape Vincent and much of the waterfront
portion of the study area. Combined with a wide variety of passive and active recreational
opportunities, the aesthetic quality of the waterfront landscape is central to the Thousand Island
region’s appeal as a well-known and popular vacation destination.
The scenic value of waterfront property has resulted in residential development along the shorelines of
the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. Built structures include traditional single-family residences,
cottages, camps, and mobile homes; nearly all are oriented to take best advantage of potential water
views. Development density along the waterfront is variable, ranging from large wooded estate lots
set back from nearby roadways and neighboring properties, to neighborhood scale clusters of small
wood frame camps and trailer homes of varying quality, vintage and size. Shoreline areas between the
water’s edge and residential structures are commonly cleared, partly or often completely, to create
unencumbered vistas of the water. While many waterfront properties are very well maintained and
contribute to the overall beauty of the waterfront landscape, other private properties have fallen to
some degree of disrepair and detract from the visual quality of the waterfront setting.
Scenic views from waterfront homes, camps and cottages, parks and recreational facilities along the
shoreline are focused primarily on the picturesque views of the St. Lawrence River, Lake Ontario and

#07-083.50M Page 67
Islands. From affected shoreline vantage points, multiple turbines will be visible above intervening
landform and vegetation inland from the shoreline, directly away from the scenic coastal viewshed.
Within the Project area, typical views are characterized by a patchwork of working farms, old fields
and successional woodlots over a relatively flat or gently sloping landscape. Built structures consist
primarily of low-density permanent homes and manufactured housing, along with accessory structures
(barns, garages, sheds, etc.). The structures are of varying vintage and quality. Poorly maintained or
dilapidated structures and properties are not uncommon sights. Generally, a component of the
background landscape, this inland area is not widely associated with scenic quality of the adjacent
waterfront landscape that is central to the Thousand Island region’s appeal as a vacation destination.
However, turbines may be located in close proximity to the Lake Ontario coastline. Although this area
may not contain a high number of visual receptors (as outlined in Tables 5 and 6), those visitors
driving along coastline roads may experience foreground views of the turbines with Lake Ontario in
the background.
The introduction of large, clearly man-made structures creates an obvious disruption of the relatively
flat agricultural landscape. The well-defined vertical form of turbines on the horizon introduces a
contrasting and distinct perpendicular element into the landscape. The proposed turbines will be the
tallest visible elements within view and will be disproportionate to other elements on the regional
landscape. The distribution of turbines across an extended area will result in the proposed Project
being perceived as a highly dominant visual element. The moderately paced sweeping rotation of the
turbine blades will heighten the conspicuity of the turbines no matter the degree of visibility.
Affected Viewers
The Towns of Cape Vincent, Lyme, and Clayton are quite rural with a very small year round
population. The year-round population of the Town of Cape Vincent is just 3,345, with a population
density of 59.2 persons per square mile. However, it is anticipated that the population of the Town
will increase to more than 8,000 during the summer tourist season. The year-round population
compares with a population density of 88 persons per square mile for Jefferson County and 402
persons per square mile for New York State, as a whole. Highways within the study area are relatively
lightly traveled. NYS Route 12E has an average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume of less than
1,400 vehicles in the Village of Cape Vincent. While the proposed Project will be frequently visible
to local residents and travelers, the total number of potentially affected permanent year-round viewers
within the study area is relatively small when compared to other regions of New York State.
While the Project is generally located inland, away from the majority of the tourist attractions and
traffic, visitors do come to the area specifically to enjoy the historic, recreational, and scenic resources
of the lake, river and islands. In the event tourists drive along the north/south portion of NYS Route
12E they will have foreground views of the proposed turbines for relatively short distances (between
Favret Road and the Town of Cape Vincent/Lyme municipal boundary). The sensitivity of these
individuals to visual quality is variable; but to many, visual quality is an important and integral part of
their outdoor experience. The presence of wind turbines may diminish the aesthetic experience for
those that believe that the rural landscape should be preserved for agricultural, rural residential, open
space and similar uses. Such viewers will likely have high sensitivity to the visual quality and

#07-083.50M Page 68
landscape character, regardless of the frequency of duration of their exposure to the proposed Project.
For those with strong utilitarian beliefs, the presence of the proposed Project may have little aesthetic
impact on their recreational experience.
While visitors will certainly enjoy the outstanding scenic quality of the waterfront, visitors and
recreational users will also be cognizant of existing roadside and shoreline residential and commercial
uses of varying aesthetic quality, as well as utility infrastructure.
Other Project Components

Construction Related Impacts – Construction of the proposed wind turbines will require use of large
mobile cranes and other large construction vehicles. Turbine components will be delivered in sections
via large semi-trucks. A construction, a laydown area will be constructed along NYS Route 12E in the
Town of Cape Vincent to provide a base of operations for the Project. It is anticipated that the
construction period will be relatively short; therefore the potential visual impacts will be brief and are
not expected to result in prolonged adverse visual impact to area residents or visitors.
The Project includes interconnection cables and one 80-meter tall meteorological tower. It is
anticipated that the majority of the interconnection cables will be buried and will not be visible. The
meteorological tower is a relatively minor component of the Project and will generally be visible to
local residents and passers-by in the immediate area.
O&M Building and Electrical Substation – Visibility of these two components will most likely be
common from adjacent properties or in close proximity along local roadways where roadside
vegetation is lacking. It is anticipated that local residents and passer-bys will see both the O&M
building and substation.
115 kV Transmission Line – Although the proposed 115 kV overhead transmission line is short in
length (0.33 miles), it will be visible along Burnt Rock Road. While the aboveground transmission
structures are new elements in the landscape, they will likely be similar in nature to the transmission
lines within the existing transmission line ROW at its terminus.
Roadways – Access roadways to each turbine will be constructed in order for personnel to perform
maintenance. The roadways will be similar in characteristic to existing farm driveways/roads seen
throughout the study area. These are relatively minor components of the Project and will not be highly
visible.
Night Lighting – While red flashing aviation obstruction lighting on communications towers are
commonly visible nighttime elements almost everywhere, the concentration of lights within the
turbine area would be somewhat unique. Up to 45 red lights flashing in unison will be conspicuous
and somewhat discordant with the current dark nighttime conditions. The night lighting of the BP
Wind Energy project is likely to be similar to the Wolf Island wind project, located approximately 3
miles north of the Village of Cape Vincent. While aviation obstruction lighting is generally directed
upward, relatively low intensity and will not create atmospheric illumination (sky glow).

#07-083.50M Page 69
Viewshed mapping (Figure 3) indicates that one or more of the 45 turbine FAA lights (height: 269
feet) will be theoretically visible during nighttime hours from approximately 74.1 percent of the five-
mile radius study area. Approximately 25.9 percent of the study area will likely have no visibility of
any FAA lights due to intervening landform or vegetation. Additionally:
> 1-5 turbine FAA lights would be visible from 6.8 percent of the five-mile study area;
> 16-30 turbine FAA lights would be visible from 17.1 percent of the five-mile study area; and
> 31- 45 turbine FAA lights would be visible from 39.5 percent of the five-mile study area.
The magnitude of this impact will depend on how many lighted turbines are visible at a specific
location and existing ambient lighting conditions present within the view. Local residents quietly
enjoying the rural nighttime setting will likely be more affected by this condition than would motorists
traveling thorough the area after dark. These are federally mandated safety features and cannot be
omitted of reduced. Daytime lighting of the turbines is not required.
Shadow-Flicker
Based on Table 8 and the figures contained in Appendix C, of the 755 studied shadow receptors
located within 1,000-meters (3,609-feet) of any turbine:
> 225 (29.8%) do not fall within the shadow zone;

> 8 (1.1%) will theoretically be impacted less than 2 hrs/yr;
> 30 (4.0%) will theoretically be impacted 30-40 hrs/yr; and
> 26 (3.4%) will theoretically be impacted greater than 40 hrs/yr.
Of the 56 structures identified in Table 9 as having 30 or more hours of potential shadow-flicker, none
will likely be screened from the turbine shadow by intervening vegetation. It appears that Project
participants own 47 of these structures and non-participating landowners own nine. It is possible that
five of these non-participating structures are ancillary structures (e.g., barns or outbuildings) or vacant.
There are no local regulations or guidelines that establish an acceptable degree of shadow-flicker
impact on a potential receptor. Shadow-flicker is not expected to create an adverse impact on most
nearby non-participating residential dwellings.
For residences where shadow-flicker is the greatest, this impact might be considered an annoyance by
some, and unnoticed by others. Mitigation options include window shades, awnings and/or
strategically placed vegetation. Potential mitigation should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

#07-083.50M Page 70
Comparison of DEIS VRA and SEIS VRA
Since the submission of the DEIS, BP Wind Energy revised the Project layout resulting in fewer
turbines. Based on the combined changes to the Project layout, including a reduction in the number of
wind turbines and relocation of several access roads and power collection line corridors, it was
determined that a Supplemental Visual Resource Assessment should be prepared to describe the
revised Project and its associated impacts.
Viewshed Analysis – The current Project layout includes 56 fewer turbines than the original layout
analyzed in the DEIS. However, despite the reduced Project scale, all visual resources identified in
the DEIS as having Project visibility will still likely view one or more turbines. The current layout
does result in visibility to six additional resources previously identified having no visibility. While the
number of turbines visible from individual receptors may have changed due to layout changes, this is
not expected to result in a significant increase in potential visual impact from those resources that had
visibility identified during the DEIS.
The viewshed completed for the currently proposed Project shows that approximately 98,789 acres
could theoretically have some degree of Project visibility (based on vegetated viewshed). Although
slightly higher, this is similar to the total area (93,387 acres) theoretically affected based on the DEIS
layout (based on the vegetated viewshed). Therefore the affected area is not expected to change
significantly. Table 9 contains additional information of the potentially affected area within the study
area.
Photo Simulations – Simulations illustrating the Project were created from nine locations. Six of
which were contained in the DEIS VRA and revised in order to illustrate the change in potential visual
impact caused by the current layout. As illustrated in the simulations contained in Appendix A, the
Project will still be visible from the selected locations; however, the revised layout of the turbines is
evident. It is anticipated that while some locations may benefit from the revised layout (e.g. turbines
are further away), it can also be expected that turbines may be more noticeable in other locations (e.g.
turbines are closer).
Cumulative Photo Simulations – Simulations containing the Project and the proposed St. Lawrence
Wind Farm were prepared from all nine simulated locations (Appendix A). However, only five of
these locations have potential visibility of the St. Lawrence Wind Farm. These five locations show
that in some views, the proposed St. Lawrence Wind Farm will add significant turbine visibility. For
example, from Viewpoint 1 – Burnham Point State Park and Campground, Figure A2-b illustrates the
proposed Project with minimal turbine visibility. However, from the same view, Figure A2-c shows
that the proposed St. Lawrence Wind Farm will have visibility of several foreground and
middleground turbines, thus increasing the visibility of turbines. On the other hand, views from
Viewpoint 66 – Broadway Historic District (Figure A8-c) shows that only a portion of a few turbines
from the St. Lawrence Wind Farm will be visible through the trees.
Combined, these projects will likely result in an increased area of visibility and number of potentially
visible turbines within the Study Area. Due to their proximity to each other, it is less likely that only
one project will be visible from a particular location, but as the simulations illustrate, there are several
exceptions.

#07-083.50M Page 71
Visual Impact Conclusion
The U.S. Department of Energy and New York State Public Service Commission have mandated that
renewable energy sources, such as wind turbines, will provide an increasing percentage of the nation’s
electricity in the coming years. Meaningful development of renewable wind energy will reduce the
reliance on fossil fuel combustion and nuclear fission facilities and result in reduction in air pollutants
and greenhouse gasses. This Project is proposed to meet, in small part, this ambitious federal and state
objective to provide an environmentally friendly and renewable energy source to help meet the
growing energy needs for New York State residents and business.
By their very nature, modern wind energy projects are large and highly visible facilities. The need to
position these tall moving structures in highly visible locations cannot be readily avoided. The siting
of wind turbines within a rural agricultural area provides increased opportunity for potentially
discordant views both near and far. While the use of mitigation techniques may help to minimize
adverse visual impact, the construction of the Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project will be an
undeniable visual presence on the landscape. However, unlike development projects such as housing
complexes and commercial centers, the proposed wind energy facility can and will be
decommissioned and removed at the end of its useful working life. All of the towers will be removed
and the project area restored to as near its present condition as possible, thus restoring the landscape to
its original condition.

#07-083.50M Page 72
Glossary31
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 observer’s
eyes at a place of interest (e.g. a high point in a State Park) and the other end is always an elevation of 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.
31
NYSDEC Visual Policy (2000) pp. 9-11.

#07-083.50M Page 73
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.

#07-083.50M Page 74
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.

#07-083.50M Page 75
Appendix A
SVRA Photographic Simulations
St. Lawrence
Mile
83
" Project
84
78 77
" 4M Figure A1
" iles
" 82 Vegetated Viewshed* with Photo Simulation
Poin
t
68
"
81"
St
"
" 80 Locations
69 St
ve llo
"
Mu rr
" Gou 76
a
75 Maximum Turbine Layout 84 WTGs
Le
yS
"
t
y
" 3M (Layout 10/28/2010)
ad wa iles
Bro
January 2011
70
Ess
e
"
lty n
2 M il
St
eS
72 es
t
e ph
" Jos Key
71
" 74
67 yL
n
73
" St
No. of Turbines Visible
lse e
Re a
Ke
l
Lak
" " 63
St
n
" 1 Mile 1-5
rt hL
Vin c
s wo
Ain
e nt
66 61
St
Ka n
6 - 10
a
" "
dy
St
t Ln 64 11 - 15
Ke n "
65 85 16 - 20
" 80
87
81 86 21 - 30
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet 82 83
76 84
31 - 50
73 77
78
51 - 70
Village Of 74
70
Cape Vincent 75 71 - 84
71 72
1
" Receptor
68
46 32
! Proposed Turbine Locations
40 41
38 47 69
39 42 44
25 45
27 66
36
21 32 33 37 62 67
34 63
18 29 59
22 23 30 35 60 River / Stream / Creek
Fuller Bay 19 31 55 61
24 56
49 State Park
50 57
51 58 Waterway Access
52
53
Wilson Bay Wildlife Management Area
54
A
4 Approximate Viewer Angle
7
IC
5 15
ER
6 16 17 PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M
AM
Mud Bay 2A 13 14
DA
9
OF
10 Chaumont
11 and presentation purposes. This map is not intended for and should not be
ES
Duck Bay
C
Three Mile
y
AT
Ba
Bay
ll

i
S T A NA
wm
File Location: B:\2007\07083\Maps\Viewshed_Veg101112_BT_Photo.mxd

Sa
D
IT E
UN
Lake
0 1.25 2.5 5
Miles ¯
Existing Conditions
FIGURE A2-a
Photo Simulation
VP #1 - Burnham Point State Park and Campground
Town of Cape Vincent
January 2011
SVRA Simulation
FIGURE A2-b
Photo Simulation
January 2011
Cumulative Simulation
FIGURE A2-c
Proposed Cape Vincent and St. Lawrence Wind Farms

January 2011
Existing Conditions
FIGURE A3-a
Photo Simulation
VP #4 - Hamlet of Rosiere
January 2011
SVRA Simulation
FIGURE A3-b
Photo Simulation
VP #4 - Hamlet of Rosiere
January 2011
FIGURE A3-c
Note: Proposed Cape Vincent and St. Lawrence Wind Farms*

* St.Lawrence Wind Farm not visible in simulated view. VP #4 - Hamlet of Rosiere
January 2011
Existing Conditions
FIGURE A4-a
Photo Simulation
VP #12a - Intersection of Millens Bay Road and Mason Road
January 2011
SVRA Simulation
FIGURE A4-b
Photo Simulation
January 2011
FIGURE A4-c

January 2011
Existing Conditions
FIGURE A5-a
Photo Simulation
VP #39 - Long Point State Park
Town of Lyme
January 2011
SVRA Simulation
FIGURE A5-b
Photo Simulation
Town of Lyme
January 2011
FIGURE A5-c

Town of Lyme
January 2011
Existing Conditions
FIGURE A6-a
Photo Simulation
VP #49 - Reuter Dyer House
January 2011
SVRA Simulation
FIGURE A6-b
Photo Simulation
VP #49 - Reuter Dyer House
January 2011
FIGURE A6-c
Note: Proposed Cape Vincent and St. Lawrence Wind Farms

* St.Lawrence Wind Farm not visible in simulated view. VP #49 - Reuter Dyer House
January 2011
Existing Conditions
FIGURE A7-a
Photo Simulation
VP #59 - Cape Vincent Town Hall
January 2011
SVRA Simulation
FIGURE A7-b
Photo Simulation
January 2011
FIGURE A7-c

January 2011
Existing Conditions
FIGURE A8-a
Photo Simulation
VP #66 - Broadway Historic District
Village of Cape Vincent
January 2011
SVRA Simulation
FIGURE A8-b
Photo Simulation
January 2011
FIGURE A8-c

January 2011
Existing Conditions
FIGURE A9-a
Photo Simulation
VP #82 - Aubertine Building
January 2011
SVRA Simulation
FIGURE A9-b
Photo Simulation
VP #82 - Aubertine Building
January 2011
FIGURE A9-c

* St.Lawrence Wind Farm not visible in simulated view. VP #82 - Aubertine Building
January 2011
Existing Conditions
FIGURE A10-a
Photo Simulation
VP #91 - Mud Bay Residential Area
January 2011
SVRA Simulation
FIGURE A10-b
Photo Simulation
VP #91 - Mud Bay Residential Area
January 2011
FIGURE A10-c

* St.Lawrence Wind Farm not visible in simulated view. VP #91 - Mud Bay Residential Area
January 2011
Appendix B
DEIS VRA Photographic Simulations
(VRA Photographic Simulations are available on Project website.)

#07-083.50M
St. Lawrence
Village Of Cape Vincent River Cape Vincent Wind Energy
5M
il es
83 Project
84
78 77 Figure B1
81
Po in
4M Vegetated Viewshed* and Photo
68
t St
iles
80 82
t Simulation Locations
69 oS
vell
Mu rr
Go u 76
ay
75 Maximum Turbine Layout 86 WTGs
Le
St
ay (Layout 10/29/2007)
a dw 3M
Bro iles
November 2007
70
Es s
e
ltyn
t
eS
72 hS
t
ep
Jos
71 2 M il
es
74
KEY
67 Ln St
ey 73 e NO. OF TURBINES VISIBLE
Rea
Kels
l
La k
63
St
n Clayton
hL 1-5
Vin c
s wort 1 Mile
Ain
ent
66 61
St
Kan
6 - 10
a dy
St
Ln 64 11 - 15
Kent
65 16 - 20
21 - 30
RY
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet 31 - 50
A
51 - 70
IN
Cape Vincent
Village Of 71 - 86 M
Cape Vincent
1 RECEPTOR LI
SNOWMOBILE TRAIL
E
MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY
R
RIVER / STREAM / CREEK
P
STATE PARK
WATERWAY ACCESS
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA
Fuller Bay
Lyme APPROXIMATE VIEWER ANGLE
A
IC
Wilson Bay
ER
AM
DA
PROJECT # 2007 - 083.10M
OF
Copyright © 2007 Saratoga Associates. All Rights Reserved.
NA
Mud Bay
ES
This map is computer generated using data acquired by Saratoga Associates
CA
AT
Chaumont from various sources and is intended only for reference, conceptual planning
T
S
y
Three Mile
D
Ba
Bay
ill
ITE
wm
N
File Location: S:\GIS\07083\Viewshed_Veg110807_with_PhotoAngles.mxd
Sa
Brownville
U
Lake Ontario
Chaumont Bay
0 1.25 2.5 5
Miles
Appendix C
Topographic and Vegetated Shadow-Flicker Analysis

#07-083.50M
Project
Figure C1
541 Topographic Shadow-Flicker Analysis
Maximum Turbine Layout 84 WTGs
531
(Layout 10/28/2010)
81 571
85
December 2010
80
87
391
381 81 86
Key
82 83 Shadow Hours Per Year
551
76 84
Less than 2
73 77
2 - 10
71 561
401 78
74 10 - 20
70 101 281
75 20 - 30
411 111
61 30 - 40
72 371
131 71
421 51
Greater than 40
361
110 Shadow Receptor
431 121 68
"
46 32
! Proposed Turbine Location
21 341 41
47 69
38 48
42 44
25 45
141
201 27 471 66
91 36 31 State Park
33 67
20 21 191 32 37 62 Waterway Access
331 461
34 63
18 29 151 59
23
22 30 35 60
1
19 31 61
161 55
24 481 56
211 49
261 57
50 PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M
51
451 52
181 491
53 used to establish boundaries, property lines, location of objects or to provide
251 54 when engineered plans or land surveys are required.
641
591 File Location: B:\2007\07083\Maps\Shadow-FlickerMaps\FigureC01.mxd
601 4
631
7
621 5
15
651 611
661 671 441 16 17
6
241
681
1 12
701 13
691
Mud Bay 2A 14
711 521
8
231 221
9
791 351
10
801 721
761
11
781 771
751 741 Duck Bay
Three Mile
Bay
y
Ba
lli
wm
Sa
0 0.5 1 2
Miles ¯
Project
Figure C2
542
Topographic Shadow-Flicker Analysis
(Layout 10/28/2010)
572
85 532
December 2010
80
382
87
82
81 86
392
Key
72 552
76 84
92 Less than 2
73 77
2 - 10
78 562
74 10 - 20
70 112 402
432 75 62
20 - 30
412
72 372
30 - 40
71
Greater than 40
52 110 Shadow Receptor
122 68
422
"
46 42 32
22
40 41
47 69
38 48
42 44
25 45
322 142
26 65 River / Stream / Creek
472 102 272 462
202 132
27 66
192 36 State Park
342 32
33 67
34 2 63
18 29 162 59
23
22 30 35 262 60
19 31 61
55
24 56
212 482 49
57
50 PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M
582 312
51
52
182 452 and presentation purposes. This map is not intended for and should not be
282
54 when engineered plans or land surveys are required.

592 4
602 632
642
612 7
522
242 5
622 15
652 672
16 17
6
692
702 1 12
682 252 442
13
Mud Bay 2A 14
712
8
9
792 362
10
802 232 722
11
782 752 742 Duck Bay
772 762
222
Three Mile
Bay
y
Ba
lli
wm
Sa
0 0.5 1 2
Miles ¯
Project
Figure C3
573 (Layout 10/28/2010)
383 85
533
543 December 2010
80
87
83
81 86
Key
393 82 83 Shadow Hours Per Year
73
76 84
553
Less than 2
73 77
93
63
2 - 10
78 563
403 74 10 - 20
70
103 20 - 30
75
433 72
30 - 40
413 71
Greater than 40
363 53 110 Shadow Receptor
423 123 68
"
46 32
353
23
333 47 69
38 48
28 43 13 Snowmobile Trail
323 42 44
25 45 33
203 26 143 65 River / Stream / Creek
273
193 27 66
133 36 State Park
473 67
33 62
20 21 32 37 Waterway Access
343
153 34 63
113 173 Wildlife Management Area
18 29 59
23 3
22 30 35 60
19 31 61
55
483
24 56
213 49
163
57
313 50 PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M
253 51
52
523 any other information typically needed for construction or any other purpose

593 4
603
633 7
643 623 5 283
243 443 15
653 673 613
16 17
683 6
703 263
1 12
663 453
693 713 13
Mud Bay 2A 14
463
8
373
9
793 233
723 10
803 733
753 11
783 223
773 743 Duck Bay
763
Three Mile
Bay
y
Ba
lli
wm
Sa
0 0.5 1 2
Miles ¯
Project
Figure C4
(Layout 10/28/2010)
85
544 December 2010
534
80
74
87
81 86
84
Key
76 84
Less than 2
554
394 73 77 64
94
2 - 10
104 78
74
564 10 - 20
70 574
404
75 20 - 30
72
374 30 - 40
434 71
414 54 Greater than 40
68 364 "
124
46 354 32
24

47 69
38 334 48
42 44
204 25 45 34
114 264
194 27 66
36 State Park
344 67
33 62
154 34 63
18 29
184 14
59
23
4 22 30 35 60
19 31 61
55
324 24 56
214 484 164 49
57
584 314 50 PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M
254 51
52
454 53 used to establish boundaries, property lines, location of objects or to provide
524
File Location: B:\2007\07083\Maps\Shadow-FlickerMaps\FigureC04.mxd
594 494 4
604
634 7 444
624 5
15
654 644
614 16 17
684 6
674 284
1 12 274
664 704 244
694 13
Mud Bay 2A 14
384 8
234 474
9
794 714
10
724
804 764 734
774 11
784 754 744 Duck Bay
224
Three Mile
814 Bay
y
Ba
lli
wm
Sa
0 0.5 1 2
Miles ¯
Project
Figure C5
(Layout 10/28/2010)
385 85
December 2010
80
75 535 87
81 86 545
Key
85
76 84
Less than 2
73 77 375 555
95
2 - 10
105 78 65
575
74 565 10 - 20
70
405 75 20 - 30
115
72
30 - 40
435 71
415
Greater than 40
55
68 355 "
46 425 32
45
335 47 69
38 48
42 44
205 25 45 35
26 145 65 River / Stream / Creek
275 465
265
27 66
135 36 345 State Park
125 67
33 62
20 21 475 32 37 Waterway Access
155 34 63
18 29 25 195 59
23
5 22 30 35 60
19 31 61
315 55
215 24 56
325 165 49
57
255 50 PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M
585 185
51
52
455
525
175
595 495 4
605
635 445
7
625 5
645 15
675 615
685 245 16 17
6
655
705 1 12 395
13
665 695
Mud Bay 2A 14
285
8
235
805 9
715 10
795 745
765
775 735 11
485
785 755 Duck Bay
725 225
Three Mile
815 Bay
y
Ba
lli
wm
Sa
0 0.5 1 2
Miles ¯
Project
Figure C6
(Layout 10/28/2010)
85
December 2010
76
80
386 87
536
81 86
546
Key
76 376 84
Less than 2
73 77 66 556 2 - 10
96
78
106 10 - 20
74 566
70
406 75 20 - 30
116 72
30 - 40
71
56 Greater than 40
126 416 366
110 Shadow Receptor
68
426
"
46 32
356
336 69
47
38 16 48
576
42 44
25 45
266
136 66
36 26 346
33 67
6
316
34 63
18
476 29 36 59
23 206
216 22 156 30 35 60
19 526 31 61
55
326
24 166 56
49
486
57
50 PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M
186
51
256 58 This map is computer generated using data acquired by Saratoga Associates
52
456
176
596 586 4
606 436 7
636 5
626 15
646 676
616 246
686 396 16 17
6
656
706 1 12
666 696
13
Mud Bay 2A 14
296
236 8
226
9
786 716 10
806 766 736
796 746 11
776 Duck Bay
756 496
Three Mile
Bay
816
y
Ba
lli
wm
Sa
0 0.5 1 2
Miles ¯
Project
Figure C7
(Layout 10/28/2010)
77 85
December 2010
80
87
387
86 537
81
Key
547
87 527
76 377 84
Less than 2
73 77
397 67 2 - 10
557
78
97 74 10 - 20
70 107 567
75 20 - 30
117 72
30 - 40
71 57
Greater than 40
68
427 127 357
"
46 32
40 41 17 337 Seaway Trail (Scenic Highway)
47 69
38 48
37
207 42
25 45
467 217 267
347 66
197 27 State Park
36
147 33 27 67
317
34 63
18 29
47
59
477
327 23
22 157 30 35 60
19 31 61
55
24 56
167 49
487
57
187 50 PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M
51
257 52
457
587 497 File Location: B:\2007\07083\Maps\Shadow-FlickerMaps\FigureC07.mxd

597 437 4
607 637 7 247

627 5
647 15
677 617 407
657 16 17
6
667 707 237
1 12 277
697
687 13
Mud Bay 2A 307 14
807 9
227
787 717 10
797 767 737
757 11
777 Duck Bay
Three Mile
817 Bay
y
Ba
lli
wm
Sa
0 0.5 1 2
Miles ¯
Project
Figure C8
(Layout 10/28/2010)
78 85
December 2010
80
528 87
388
81 86
538 Key
548
76 84
88 68 Less than 2
398 73 77 378
558
2 - 10
98 78
74 10 - 20
70 108
568 20 - 30
408 75
118 72
30 - 40
71
368 Greater than 40
110 Shadow Receptor
428 68 48 358
"
46 128 32
338
47 69
38 48
38
208 42 44
25 518 45 348
138
578 468
268
27 66
328
198 36 State Park
148 33 28 67
8 63
18 29 59
23 158
22 30 35 60
478
19 31 61
188 55
24 168 56
488 49
57
458 50 PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M
51
52

598 588 638 4 218
248
608 7
628
5
648 618 238 15
438
668 678 16 17
418 6
658
708 1 12
698
688 13
Mud Bay 2A 14
228 278
8
808 318 9
798 788 10
768 728
738
748 11
778
758 718 Duck Bay
Three Mile
Bay
y
Ba
lli
wm
Sa
0 0.5 1 2
Miles ¯
Project
Figure C9
539
(Layout 10/28/2010)
79 85
529
December 2010
80
87
389
81 86
379 549
Key
76 84
89 Less than 2
399 77
73
559
2 - 10
99 78
74 10 - 20
70
409 75 569
20 - 30
109
72 59
30 - 40
71 369
119 Greater than 40
49
110 Shadow Receptor
419 68
"
359
46 32 Proposed Turbine Location
339 129 !
40 41 19
Seaway Trail (Scenic Highway)
47 39 69
38 48
42 349
25 45
139 269
199
27 66
469 36 State Park
33 67
319 29
189
34 63
18 29
69
59
9
23 159
22 30 35 60
19 31 61
55
479
24 56
209 169 49
459 57
489 50 PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M
449 51
52

629 4
599 249
639 7
609 429 5 519
619 15 219
649 439
679
669 16 17
6
709
659 1 12
699
689 13
Mud Bay 2A 14
229
8
279
9
329
799 789 719 10
769 739
749 11
759 729 Duck Bay

Three Mile
Bay
y
Ba
lli
wm
Sa
0 0.5 1 2
Miles ¯
Project
Figure C10
540
(Layout 10/28/2010)
570
85
December 2010
80
87
390
81 86
380 Key
550
76 84
90 Less than 2
73 77
100 70
2 - 10
78 560
400 74 10 - 20
70
110 75 20 - 30
410
72 370
30 - 40
71
60 Greater than 40
420
130
68 360 50 "
46 430 32
20 40
47 69
38 48 350
42 44
25 45
320 80
27 470 66
36 State Park
200 33 30 67
20 21 190 150 32 37 62 Waterway Access
330
34 63
18 29 59
23
22 30 35 60
19 160 31 61
55
24 480 56
210 49
57
450 50 PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M
51
52
640

4
610 630 240
7
600 5
620 280 15
650 670
680 16 17
6 230
660 440
700 1 12
690 710 13
Mud Bay 2A 520 14
8
220
9
800
810 340 10
720
790 770 750
11
780 740
760 Duck Bay
Three Mile
Bay
y
Ba
lli
wm
Sa
0 0.5 1 2
Miles ¯
Project
Figure C11
541 Vegetated* Shadow-Flicker Analysis
531
(Layout 10/28/2010)
81 571
85
December 2010
80 *Assumes uniform tree height of 40' (12.192 m) in forested areas.
87
391
381 81 86
Key
551
76 84
Less than 2
73 77
2 - 10
71 561
401 78
74 10 - 20
70 101 281
75 20 - 30
411 111
61 30 - 40
72 371
131 71
421 51
Greater than 40
361
110 Shadow Receptor
431 121 68
"
46 32
21 341 41
47 69
38 48
42 44
25 45
141
201 27 471 66
91 36 31 State Park
33 67
331 461
34 63
18 29 151 59
23
22 30 35 60
1
19 31 61
161 55
24 481 56
211 49
261 57
50 PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M
51
451 52
181 491
641
601 4
631
7
621 5
15
651 611
661 671 441 16 17
6
241
681 1 12
701 13
691
Mud Bay 2A 14
711 521
8
231 221
9
791 351
10
801 721
761
11
781 771
751 741 Duck Bay
Three Mile
Bay
y
Ba
lli
wm
Sa
0 0.5 1 2
Miles ¯
Project
Figure C12
542
Vegetated* Shadow-Flicker Analysis
(Layout 10/28/2010)
572
85 532
December 2010
382
87
82
81 86
392
Key
72 552
76 84
92 Less than 2
73 77
2 - 10
78 562
74 10 - 20
70 112 402
432 75 62
20 - 30
412
72 372
30 - 40
71
Greater than 40
122 68
422
"
46 42 32
22
40
41
47 69
38 48
42 44
25 45
322 142
472 102 272 462
202 132
27 66
192 36 State Park
342 32
33 67
34 2 63
18 29 162 59
23
22 30 35 262 60
19 31 61
55
24 56
212 482 49
57
50 PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M
582 312
51
52
182 452 and presentation purposes. This map is not intended for and should not be
282

592 4
602 632
642
612 7
522
242 5
622 15
652 672
16 17
6
692
702 1 12
682 252 442
13
Mud Bay 2A 14
712
8
9
792 362
10
802 232 722
11
782 752 742 Duck Bay
772 762
222
Three Mile
Bay
y
Ba
lli
wm
Sa
0 0.5 1 2
Miles ¯
Project
Figure C13
573 (Layout 10/28/2010)
383 85
533
543 December 2010
87
83
81 86
Key
73
76 84
553
Less than 2
73 77
93
63
2 - 10
78 563
403 74 10 - 20
70
103 20 - 30
75
433 72
30 - 40
413 71
Greater than 40
423 123 68
"
46 32
353
23
333 47 69
38 48
323 42 44
25 45 33
273
193 27 66
133 36 State Park
473 67
33 62
343
153 34 63
18 29 59
23 3
22 30 35 60
19 31 61
55
483
24 56
213 49
163
57
313 50 PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M
253 51
52

593 4
603
633 7
643 623 5 283
243 443 15
653 673 613
16 17
683 6
703 263
1 12
663 453
693 713 13
Mud Bay 2A 14
463
8
373
9
793 233
723 10
803 733
753 11
783 223
773 743 Duck Bay
763
Three Mile
Bay
y
Ba
lli
wm
Sa
0 0.5 1 2
Miles ¯
Project
Figure C14
(Layout 10/28/2010)
85
544 December 2010
534
74
87
81 86
84
Key
76 84
Less than 2
554
394 73 77 64
94
2 - 10
104 78
74
564 10 - 20
70 574
404
75 20 - 30
72
374 30 - 40
434 71
414 54 Greater than 40
68 364 "
124
46 354 32
24

47 69
38 334 48
42 44
204 25 45 34
114 264
194 27 66
36 State Park
344 67
33 62
154 34 63
18 29
184 14
59
23
4 22 30 35 60
19 31 61
55
324 24 56
214 484 164 49
57
584 314 50 PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M
254 51
52
524
594 494 4
604
634 7 444
624 5
15
654 644
614
16 17
684 6
674 284
1 12 274
664 704 244
694 13
Mud Bay 2A 14
384 8
234 474
9
794 714
10
724
804 764 734
774 11
784 754 744 Duck Bay
224
Three Mile
814 Bay
y
Ba
lli
wm
Sa
0 0.5 1 2
Miles ¯
Project
Figure C15
(Layout 10/28/2010)
385
85
December 2010
75 535 87
81 86 545
Key
85
76 84
Less than 2
73 77 375 555
95
2 - 10
105 78 65
575
74 565 10 - 20
70
405 75 20 - 30
115
72
30 - 40
435 71
415
Greater than 40
55
68 355 "
46 425 32
45
335 47 69
38 48
42 44
205 25 45 35
275 465
265
27 66
125 67
33 62
155 34 63
18 29 25 195 59
23
5 22 30 35 60
19 31 61
315 55
215 24 56
325 165 49
57
255 50 PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M
585 185
51
52
455
525
175
595 495 4
605
635 445
7
625 5
645 15
675 615
685 245 16 17
6
655
705 1 12 395
13
665 695
Mud Bay 2A 14
285 8
235
805 9
715 10
795 745
765
775 735 11
485
785 755 Duck Bay
725 225
Three Mile
815 Bay
y
Ba
lli
wm
Sa
0 0.5 1 2
Miles ¯
Project
Figure C16
(Layout 10/28/2010)
85
December 2010
76
386 87
536
81 86
546
Key
76 376 84
Less than 2
73 77 66 556 2 - 10
96
78
106 10 - 20
74 566
70
406 75 20 - 30
116 72
30 - 40
71
56 Greater than 40
126 416 366
110 Shadow Receptor
68
426
"
46 32
356
336 69
47
38 16 48
576
42 44
25 45
266
136 66
36 26 346
33 67
6
316
34 63
18
476 29 36 59
23 206
216 22 156 30 35 60
19 526 31 61
55
326
24 166 56
49
486
57
50 PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M
186
51
52
456
176
596 586 4
606 436 7
636 5
626 15
646 676
616 246
686 396 16 17
6
656
706 1 12
666 696
13
Mud Bay 2A 14
296
236 8
226
9
786 716 10
806 766 736
796 746 11
776 Duck Bay
756 496
Three Mile
Bay
816
y
Ba
lli
wm
Sa
0 0.5 1 2
Miles ¯
Project
Figure C17
(Layout 10/28/2010)
77 85
December 2010
87
387
86 537
81
Key
547
87 527
76 377 84
Less than 2
73 77
397 67 2 - 10
557
78
97 74 10 - 20
70 107 567
75 20 - 30
117 72
30 - 40
71 57
Greater than 40
68
427 127 357
"
46 32
40 41 17 337 Seaway Trail (Scenic Highway)
47 69
38 48
37
207 42
25 45
467 217 267
347 66
197 27 State Park
36
147 33 27 67
317
34 63
18 29
47
59
477
327 23
22 157 30 35 60
19 31 61
55
24 56
167 49
487
57
187 50 PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M
51
257 52
457

597 437 4
607 637 7 247

627 5
647 15
677 617 407
657 16 17
6
667 707 237
1 12 277
697
687 13
Mud Bay 2A 307 14
807 9
227
787 717 10
797 767 737
757 11
777 Duck Bay
Three Mile
817 Bay
y
Ba
lli
wm
Sa
0 0.5 1 2
Miles ¯
Project
Figure C18
(Layout 10/28/2010)
78 85
December 2010
528 87
388
81 86
538 Key
548
76 84
88 68 Less than 2
398 73 77 378
558
2 - 10
98 78
74 10 - 20
70 108
568 20 - 30
408 75
118 72
30 - 40
71
368 Greater than 40
110 Shadow Receptor
428 68 48 358
"
46 128 32
338
47 69
38 48
38
208 42 44
25 518 45 348
138
578 468
268
27 66
328
198 36 State Park
148 33 28 67
8 63
18 29 59
23 158
22 30 35 60
478
19 31 61
188 55
24 168 56
488 49
57
458 50 PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M
51
52

598 588 638 4 218
248
608 7
628
5
648 618 238 15
438
668 678 16 17
418 6
658
708 1 12
698
688 13
Mud Bay 2A 14
228 278
8
808 318 9
798 788 10
768 728
738
748 11
778
758 718 Duck Bay
Three Mile
Bay
y
Ba
lli
wm
Sa
0 0.5 1 2
Miles ¯
Project
Figure C19
539
(Layout 10/28/2010)
79 85
529
December 2010
87
389
81 86
379 549
Key
76 84
89 Less than 2
399 77
73
559
2 - 10
99 78
74 10 - 20
70
409 75 569
20 - 30
109
72 59
30 - 40
71 369
119 Greater than 40
49
110 Shadow Receptor
419 68
"
359
46 32 Proposed Turbine Location
339 129 !
40 41 19
Seaway Trail (Scenic Highway)
47 39 69
38 48
42 349
25 45
139 269
199
27 66
469 36 State Park
33 67
319 29
189
34 63
18 29
69
59
9
23 159
22 30 35 60
19 31 61
55
479
24 56
209 169 49
459 57
489 50 PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M
449 51
52
589 239 File Location: B:\2007\07083\Maps\Shadow-FlickerMaps\FigureC19mxd

629 4
599 249
639 7
609 429 5 519
619 15 219
649 439
679 16
669 17
6
709
659 1 12
699
689 13
Mud Bay 2A 14
229
8
279
9
329
799 789 719 10
769 739
749 11
759 729 Duck Bay

Three Mile
Bay
y
Ba
lli
wm
Sa
0 0.5 1 2
Miles ¯
Project
Figure C20
540
(Layout 10/28/2010)
570
85
December 2010
87
390
81 86
380 Key
550
76 84
90 Less than 2
73 77
100 70
2 - 10
78 560
400 74 10 - 20
70
110 75 20 - 30
410
72 370
30 - 40
71
60 Greater than 40
420
130
68 360 50 "
46 430 32
20 40
47 69
38 48 350
42 44
25 45
320 80
27 470 66
36 State Park
200 33 30 67
20 21 190 150 32 37 62 Waterway Access
330
34 63
18 29 59
23
22 30 35 60
19 160 31 61
55
24 480 56
210 49
57
450 50 PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M
51
52
640
590 File Location: B:\2007\07083\Maps\Shadow-FlickerMaps\FigureC20mxd

4
610 630 240
7
600 5
620 280 15
650 670
680 16 17
6 230
660 440
700 1 12
690 710 13
Mud Bay 2A 520 14
8
220
9
800
810 340 10
720
790 770 750
11
780 740
760 Duck Bay
Three Mile
Bay
y
Ba
lli
wm
Sa
0 0.5 1 2
Miles ¯

BP SDEIS App G Visual Resource Assessment-Saratoga Cape Vincent

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

BP SDEIS App G Visual Resource Assessment-Saratoga Cape Vincent

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Visual Resource Assessment – Saratoga Associates

Environmental Resources Management Southwest, Inc.

January 17, 2010

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

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

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

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

Figure 1 Topography Only Viewshed .............................................................................................19

Figure C1-C20 Shadow-Flicker Analysis ................................................................................................. C-1

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

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

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

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

> Identify opportunities for effective mitigation.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

1.2.1 Aviation Obstruction Marking and Lighting

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

2.3 WATER FEATURES

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

2.5 POPULATION CENTERS

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

2.6 EXISTING WOLF ISLAND WIND FARM

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

> 1-5 turbines visible;

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

3.1.2 Nighttime Visibility

3.1.3 Verification of Viewshed Accuracy

3.1.4 Viewshed Interpretation

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

Table 2 FAA Viewshed Coverage Summary

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

when engineered plans or land surveys are required.

when engineered plans or land surveys are required.

when engineered plans or land surveys are required.

> National Natural Landmarks [36 CFR Part 62];

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

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

Highway Corridors – Due to its rural,

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

> New York State Parks

> NYS DEC Wildlife Management Areas

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

3.2.3 Visibility Evaluation of Inventoried Resources

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

45 District School No. 3 Town of Lyme Statewide Significance

54 Rogers Brothers Farmstead Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project SVRA – January 2011

58 Nicholas Cocaigne House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

18 French Creek WMA Town of Clayton Statewide Significance

39 Long Point State Park Town of Lyme Statewide Significance

76 Cape Vincent Village Green Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance

78 Cape Vincent Historical Museum Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance

85 Village Waterfront Park Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance