Visual Impact Assessment. This
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
6/28/2016 Dear Community Member: Thank you for your interest in Killingly Energy Center’s (KEC) Visual Impact Assessment. This analysis will be incorporated into the KEC Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) application and is now being made publically available prior to the submission of the CSC application. The Visual Impact Assessment discusses the potential visual effect of KEC, including identification of potential viewpoints, view shed analysis, photographic simulations, impact assessments and mitigation analyses for a 5-mile radius surrounding the KEC site. The KEC site sits in one of the lower elevations within the Quinebaug River Valley and most of the 5-mile radius around the facility includes dense tree cover. This vegetation and the undulating local terrain significantly limit locations with the potential for expansive facility views. In fact, the terrain alone -- not including vegetation -- eliminates the potential for views from nearly 75 percent of all locations within the 5-mile radius. With vegetation included, we expect only two percent of locations within the 5-mile radius could have the potential for visibility and these are further limited by the predominance of trees and the density of wooded areas even during winter. KEC will maintain, at a minimum, a 50-foot wooded buffer around the facility to further limit views into the property. Downward and inward-facing directional lighting will be used to project light only where it is needed and to prevent excess light from extending off-site. Wherever possible, the facility will use motion-detecting lights to reduce ambient lighting and will not incorporate orange sodium lights. In summary, distance, topography, vegetation, and/or existing structures will significantly limit potential views of KEC for the vast majority of vantage points within the 5-mile assessment radius. We invite you to contact David Groleau at 904-436-6889 or [email protected] if you have any questions regarding this report. KEC will be completing additional studies on other topics this week. These studies will be posted on the KEC website (www.killinglyenergycenter.com) and hard copies will be available for review at the Killingly Town Hall and Public Library. If you’d like to be directly notified or receive an email copy of these studies, please let Mr. Groleau know or sign up for our email updates here - http://killinglyenergycenter.com/sign-up-for-project-updates/. Additional work continues towards completion of the studies and documentation necessary for completion of the CSC application. Note that you will also have an opportunity to provide comments to the CSC once the KEC CSC Application has been submitted. Thank you for your interest in the Killingly Energy Center. Sincerely, Mark Mirabito NTE Connecticut, LLC P: 904.687.1857 | www.killinglyenergycenter.com | 24 Cathedral Place, Suite 302, St. Augustine, FL 32084 Visual Impact Assessment Killingly Energy Center June 2016 Prepared for: NTE Connecticut, LLC 24 Cathedral Place, Suite 300 Saint Augustine, FL 32084 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 2 Lan Drive, Suite 210 Westford, MA 01886 Visual Impact Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech) performed a visual impact assessment for a 5-mile radius around the proposed Killingly Energy Center (KEC). Tetra Tech identified locations with potential views of the 150-foot tall KEC stack using a digital elevation model viewshed analysis, and then generated photographic simulations to assess the potential impact to the visual landscape. The analysis focuses on the anticipated change in observer views toward the 73- acre property within which KEC is proposed, including whether there would be a change in the character or quality of the view, and considers the viewer context as it relates to the manner in which a change would be experienced. A wide range of factors, including the context of the viewers, duration of the view, degree of discernable detail, number of viewers, degree of natural buffering, and the scenic value of a location, were considered when assessing visual impact. Modeling did not indicate a potential change in view from identified federal, state or local areas of visual importance. Given the rural character of Windham County and its surrounding communities, views were considered from vantage points surrounding KEC in order to determine to what degree those existing views would potentially change. Based on this analysis, KEC will not alter the visual environment for the majority of the area within 5 miles. For the majority of vantage points within the 5-mile radius, potential views of KEC will be screened by intervening distance, topography, vegetation, and/or existing structures. At certain locations, however, elements of KEC may be visible, most particularly the top of the stack. Simulations have been prepared to illustrate the limited vantage points from which KEC may be visible. In those locations, the view will typically be fleeting (as for travelers along Lake Road) or visible within a context comprised of similar landscape features, as KEC is located within an industrial area and relatively proximate to a similar facility, the Lake Road Generating facility, which has three slightly taller stacks. ES-1 Visual Impact Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................1 2.0 CHARACTER AND VISUAL QUALITY OF THE EXISTING LANDSCAPE .................................................1 3.0 VISUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF KEC ........................................................................................................7 4.0 VIEWSHED ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................. 10 4.1 Key Aesthetic Resources ............................................................................................................................... 10 4.2 Areas of Potential Visibility ............................................................................................................................. 11 4.3 Landscape Similarity Zones ........................................................................................................................... 15 4.4 Viewer Groups ............................................................................................................................................... 15 4.5 Selected Viewpoint Locations ........................................................................................................................ 17 5.0 IMPACT ON SELECTED VIEWSHEDS ...................................................................................................... 27 6.0 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................. 37 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. KEC Site Location .......................................................................................................................................3 Figure 2. Regional Topography ..................................................................................................................................4 Figure 3. Key Aesthetic Features ...............................................................................................................................5 Figure 4. KEC Rendering ...........................................................................................................................................8 Figure 5. Viewshed Analysis with No Vegetation Screening ................................................................................... 12 Figure 6. Viewshed Analysis Including Vegetation Screening ................................................................................ 13 Figure 7. Viewpoint Locations ................................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 8. Landscape Similarity Zones ..................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 9. Line-of-Sight Views from Considered but Not Selected Viewpoints ........................................................ 19 Figure 10. Photograph from 154 Lake Road – Existing Conditions ........................................................................ 21 Figure 11. Photograph from Island Road – Existing Conditions ............................................................................. 22 Figure 12. Photograph from State Route 101 – Existing Conditions ....................................................................... 23 Figure 13. Photograph from Kearny Fork – Existing Conditions ............................................................................. 24 Figure 14. Photograph from State Route 44 – Existing Conditions ......................................................................... 25 Figure 15. Photograph from Louisa Viens Drive – Existing Conditions ................................................................... 26 Figure 16. 154 Lake Road Simulation ..................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 17. Island Road Simulation .........................................................................................................................