DOCSLIB.ORG

Visual Impact Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Visual Impact Assessment Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility Town of Hounsfield Jefferson County, New York Case No. 15-F-0327 Prepared for: Apex Clean Energy Management, LLC Court Square Building 310 4th Street NE, Suite 200 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Prepared by: Environmental Design & Research, Landscape Architecture, Engineering, & Environmental Services, D.P.C 217 Montgomery Street, Suite 1000 Syracuse, New York 13202 P. 315.471.0688 F. 315.471.1061 E. [email protected] July 2017 Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Project Description ................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Project Site ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Proposed Project .................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2.1 Wind Turbines .................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2.2 Electrical Collection Lines ................................................................................................................................ 6 2.2.3 On-Island Collection Substation ....................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.4 Access Roads .................................................................................................................................................. 6 2.2.5 Met. Towers ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.6 Temporary Staging/Laydown Yards ................................................................................................................. 7 2.2.7 O&M Building ................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.8 Barge Landing Area ......................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2.9 Helicopter Landing Site .................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2.10 Borrow Area ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2.11 Temporary Batch Plant .................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2.12 Off-site Ancillary Facilities ................................................................................................................................ 9 3.0 Existing Visual Character ....................................................................................................................................... 12 3.1 Visual Study Area ............................................................................................................................................... 12 3.2 Physiographic/Visual Setting .............................................................................................................................. 14 3.2.1 Landform and Vegetation ............................................................................................................................... 14 3.2.2 Land Use ........................................................................................................................................................ 14 3.2.3 Water Features .............................................................................................................................................. 15 3.3 Landscape Similarity Zones ............................................................................................................................... 15 3.3.4 Successional/Wetland .................................................................................................................................... 20 3.3.7 Maintained Waterfront .................................................................................................................................... 22 3.3.8 Village ............................................................................................................................................................ 23 3.4 Distance Zones .................................................................................................................................................. 24 3.5 Viewer/User Groups ........................................................................................................................................... 25 3.5.1 Local Residents .............................................................................................................................................. 25 3.5.2 Through-Travelers/Commuters ...................................................................................................................... 25 3.5.3 Tourists/Recreational Users ........................................................................................................................... 25 3.6 Visually Sensitive Resources ............................................................................................................................. 26 3.6.1 Aesthetic Resources of Statewide Significance ............................................................................................. 31 3.6.2 Aesthetic Resources of Local Significance .................................................................................................... 44 4.0 Visual Impact Assessment Methodology ................................................................................................................ 49 4.1 Project Visibility .................................................................................................................................................. 49 4.1.1 Viewshed Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 49 4.1.2 Field Verification ............................................................................................................................................. 51 4.1.3 Line of Sight Cross Section Analysis .............................................................................................................. 52 4.2 Project Visual Impact .......................................................................................................................................... 52 4.2.1 Viewpoint Selection ........................................................................................................................................ 53 4.2.2 Visual Simulations .......................................................................................................................................... 57 4.2.3 Visual Contrast Rating ................................................................................................................................... 60 5.0 Visual Impact Assessment Results ........................................................................................................................ 63 5.1 Project Visibility .................................................................................................................................................. 63 5.1.1 Viewshed Analysis Results ............................................................................................................................ 63 5.1.2 Line-of-Sight Cross Sections .......................................................................................................................... 69 ii Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility 5.1.3 Field Evaluation .............................................................................................................................................. 73 5.2 Analysis of Existing and Proposed Views ........................................................................................................... 82 5.3 Visual Impact Assessment Rating ...................................................................................................................... 96 5.4 Nighttime Impacts ............................................................................................................................................. 103 5.5 Visual Impact of Associated Support Facilities ................................................................................................. 103 5.6 Visual Impacts During Construction ................................................................................................................. 105 5.7 Cumulative Visual Impacts ............................................................................................................................... 110 6.0 Conclusions .........................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Buffalo Soldiers Study, March 2019
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUFFALO SOLDIERS STUDY MARCH 2019 BUFFALO SOLDIERS STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The study explores the Buffalo Soldiers’ stewardship role in the early years of the national Legislation and Purpose park system and identifies NPS sites associated with the history of the Buffalo Soldiers and their The National Defense Authorization Act of 2015, post-Civil War military service. In this study, Public Law 113-291, authorized the Secretary of the term “stewardship” is defined as the total the Interior to conduct a study to examine: management of the parks that the US Army carried out, including the Buffalo Soldiers. “The role of the Buffalo Soldiers in the early Stewardship tasks comprised constructing and years of the national park system, including developing park features such as access roads an evaluation of appropriate ways to enhance and trails; performing regular maintenance historical research, education, interpretation, functions; undertaking law enforcement within and public awareness of the Buffalo Soldiers in park boundaries; and completing associated the national parks, including ways to link the administrative tasks, among other duties. To a story to the development of national parks and lesser extent, the study also identifies sites not African American military service following the managed by the National Park Service but still Civil War.” associated with the service of the Buffalo Soldiers. The geographic scope of the study is nationwide. To meet this purpose, the goals of this study are to • evaluate ways to increase public awareness Study Process and understanding of Buffalo Soldiers in the early history of the National Park Service; and The process of developing this study involved five phases, with each phase building on and refining • evaluate ways to enhance historical research, suggestions developed during the previous phase.
    [Show full text]
  • Max Delsignore, Constance Barone, Larry Barone, Jeannie Brennan
    CONSTANCE BARONE PROGRAM normalized-REV Page 1 of 11 Max Delsignore, Constance Barone, Larry Barone, Jeannie Brennan [Music playing] Max Delsignore: Northern New York Community Podcast. Stories from the heart of our community. Hi there and welcome to the Northern New York Community Podcast, I’m your host Max Delsignore. The North Country has been built on acts of generosity for centuries. Communities have been created and realized because of the leadership and philanthropy of many visionaries. Residents of Northern New York understand why this region is so special, where you live becomes a part of your personal fabric, it is who you are. It may shape your everyday purpose in life but in the North Country your community gives you a sense of place. For Jeannie Brennan and Connie and Larry Barone that sense of place is Sackets Harbor, New York. The village neighboring Lake Ontario is steeped in a rich history dating back to the early 1800s. Jeannie, Connie and Larry have devoted their lives not only to the preservation of the village’s history but other cultural elements that have made their community progressive. They are one of many families who have made giving back to Sackets Harbor and the North Country a lifelong priority. It is a pleasure to have Jeannie, Connie and Larry join us on the podcast. Constance Barone: Well, thanks for inviting us. Max Delsignore: Now before we dive in let’s set the record straight first and foremost on the spelling of Sackets Harbor. It’s been well documented, it’s been in debate for many years whether it’s one T, two Ts, is there an apostrophe, S, potentially in the name for the municipality.
    [Show full text]
  • Hounsfield (Town) Multiple Resource Area______And Or Common______2
    NPS Form 10-900 (3-82) OMB No. 1024-0018 Expires 10-31-87 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service For NPS use only National Register of Historic Places received Inventory Nomination Form date entered See instructions in How fo Complete National Register Forms Type ail entries complete applicable sections_____ 1. Name__________________ historic Hounsfield (Town) Multiple Resource Area___________ and or common______________________________________ 2. Location street & number The town limits of the town of Hounsf idld not for publication city, town Hounsfield vicinity of state New York code 036 county Jefferson code 045 3. Classification Category Ownership Status Present Use district public X occupied X agriculture museum building(s) X private X unoccupied commercial park structure both work in progress X. educational X private residence __ site Public Acquisition Accessible __ entertainment _ X_ religious object ' in process X yes: restricted government scientific X Multiple being considered _X~ yes: unrestricted industrial transportation Resource Area __ "no __ military _ X_ other: cemetery 4. Owner of Property name See individual inventory forms street & number Various city, town vicinity of state 5. Location of Legal Description courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. Jefferson County Court House street & number Arsenal Street city, town Water town state New York 6. Representation in Existing Surveys «tle New York State Statewide Inventory h«s this property been determined eligible? yes X no of Historic Places date
    [Show full text]
  • FORT DRUM, SCALE HOUSING & WEIGHMASTER's OFFICE (Fort
    FORT DRUM, SCALE HOUSING & WEIGHMASTER'S OFFICE HABS No. NY-6337-C (Fort Drum, Building T-4012) Utility Road and Railroad Street Watertown Vicinity Jefferson County New York PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEY National Park Service Northeast Region U.S. Custom House 200 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEY FORT DRUM, SCALE HOUSING & WEIGHMASTER'S OFFICE (Fort Drum, Building T-4012) HABS NO. NY -633 7-C Location: The intersection of Utility Road and Railroad Street, facing Railroad Street, adjacent to the warehouse area of the Main Post of Fort Drum, Watertown vicinity, Jefferson County, New York. USGS Quadrangle Black River, New York; 7.5 minute series 1982 (photorevised from 1958); UTM Coordinates: Zone 18. 437980 E 4875160 N Present Owner: United States Army Original Use: Facility for weighing military vehicles and their contents. Present Use: Continues to function as a scale for weighing vehicles and their contents, however, it is not used very frequently. Significance: The Scale Housing and Weighmaster's Office is the only relatively unaltered example of this type of structure situated at Fort Drum. The design for this building is probably based on the 700 Series or 800 Series of standardized construction drawings developed by the War Department for the mobilization effort during World War II. The construction techniques utilized on this building are typical of those applied to most World War II-era temporary structures. This building retains much of its original character based on analysis of other mobilization structures located at Fort Drum and other United States Army installations.
    [Show full text]
  • PWTB 200-1-148 Creative Strategies and Opportunities for Managing Cultural Resources on Army Training Lands
    PUBLIC WORKS TECHNICAL BULLETIN 200-1-148 31 AUGUST 2015 CREATIVE STRATEGIES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR MANAGING CULTURAL RESOURCES ON ARMY TRAINING LANDS Public Works Technical Bulletins are published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC. They are intended to provide information on specific topics in areas of Facilities Engineering and Public Works. They are not intended to establish new Department of Army policy. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 441 G Street NW Washington, DC 20314-1000 CECW-CE Public Works Technical Bulletin 31 August 2015 No. 200-1-148 Facilities Engineering Environmental CREATIVE STRATEGIES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR MANAGING CULTURAL RESOURCES ON ARMY TRAINING LANDS 1. Purpose a. This Public Works Technical Bulletin (PWTB) identifies creative and innovative technologies and best management practices (BMPs) for cultural resources and site management on Army training lands. To facilitate sharing of BMPs, this publication details known examples from actual projects. In addition to the benefit of information sharing, money savings and increased land availability also will result from efficient integration of cultural resource management with site and training area land management BMPs described in this PWTB. b. All PWTBs are available electronically at the National Institute of Building Sciences’ Whole Building Design Guide webpage, which is accessible through this link: http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/browse_cat.php?o=31&c=215 2. Applicability This PWTB applies to Cultural Resource Managers (CRMs) and Installation Training Area Management (ITAM) Coordinators at all Army facilities, with particular focus on Continental United States (CONUS) facilities. 1 PWTB 200-1-148 31 August 2015 3.
    [Show full text]
  • THE IMPACT of PRIVATIZATION on HISTORIC U.S. ARMY FAMILY HOUSING by ALANA COLE
    THE IMPACT OF PRIVATIZATION ON HISTORIC U.S. ARMY FAMILY HOUSING by ALANA COLETTE SAUL (Under the Direction of Wayde Brown) ABSTRACT Throughout its history the United States Army has struggled to maintain a sufficient inventory of houses, in terms of both quantity and quality. In an effort to address this situation, the Army privatized housing. This thesis examines the impact of privatization on the Army’s historic houses. The question this thesis answers is, “how has the privatization of Army family housing affected the preservation of the Army’s historic houses?” To answer this question, the thesis will analyze the preservation processes and inventory of historic houses at two Army forts, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and Fort Benning, Georgia. INDEX WORDS: U.S. Army, Housing, Privatization, Military Housing Privatization Initiative, Preservation THE IMPACT OF PRIVATIZATION ON HISTORIC U.S. ARMY FAMILY HOUSING by ALANA COLETTE SAUL BA, University of Winchester, United Kingdom, 2009 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION ATHENS, GEORGIA 2014 © 2014 Alana Colette Saul All Rights Reserved THE IMPACT OF PRIVATIZATION ON HISTORIC U.S. ARMY FAMILY HOUSING by ALANA COLETTE SAUL Major Professor: Wayde Brown Committee: Mark Reinberger Akela Reason Susanne Perry Electronic Version Approved: Julie Coffield Interim Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia August 2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge the many people who made this thesis possible. Firstly, and rightly so, I wish to thank my Heavenly Father who has guided my every step and made this all possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Village of Sackets Harbor LWRP After You Publish Notice of Our Approval
    r us DepartmentofCommerce NOMoi. CeQotal Services Centor Ll;;::-siY ~=::>.:; South Hobson h.vc':.:a CharlestoD, se 29405-.::l413 Village of Sackets Harbor Local Waterfront Revitalization Program -, Adopted: Village of Sackets Harbor Board of Trustees, April 9, 1986 Approt·~: NYS Secretary of StateGail S. Shaffer, May 22, 1986 Concurred: • U.S. Office of Ocean and Coastal Reso~rce Management, July 7, 1986 This Local Waterfront Revital1za.tion Program has been adopted and approved in accordance with the provisions of the, Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act of 1981 (Executive Law, Article 42) and its implementing regulations (6 NYCRR 601). Federal concurrence on the incorporation of this Local "aterfront Revitalization Program into the New York State Coastal Management Program as a Routine Program Implementation has been obtained in accordance with the provisions of the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583). as amended, and its implementing regulations (15 CFR 923). The preparation of this program was financially aided by 8 federal grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce. National·,Oceanic and ':'f)Atmospheric Adm{n~stration. Office 'of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management under", the Coastal Z9ne Management Act of 1972. :iQ8S amended. Federal Grant No. NA-82-AA-D-CZ068. , ~The New York State Coastal Management Program and the. preparation of Local.l : Waterfront Revitalization Programs are administered by the New York State Department of State. 162 Washington Avenue, Albany. New,~ork 12231. el ""l ~. ~:Jil~fWi~' STATE OF" NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY.N.Y.12231 GAIL 5. S"'AFFE~ SECRETARY OF STATE May 22.
    [Show full text]
  • The Architecture of the Department of Defense: a Military Style Guide
    The Architecture of the Department of Defense A Military Style Guide Michelle Michael and Adam Smith with Jennifer Sin ERDC/CERL B-11-2 December 2011 The Architecture of the Department of Defense A Military Style Guide Michelle Michael Department of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southeast (EV23) PO Box 30, Building 903 NAS Jacksonville Jacksonville, FL 32212-0030 Adam Smith and Jennifer Sin Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) 2902 Newmark Drive Champaign, IL 61822-1076 Prepared for: DoD Legacy Resource Management Program 3400 Defense Pentagon Room 5C646 Washington, DC 20301 Final Report Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Cover Page Photos Left: San Diego Naval Hospital, California. Middle: Chapel at the U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado. Right: Quarters at Fort Lawton, Washington. DISCLAIMER: The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products. All product names and trademarks cited are the property of their respective owners. The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents. DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED. DO NOT RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINATOR. ii The Architecture of the Department of Defense Acknowledgements The Architecture of the Department of Defense: A Tharp, Command CRM, HQ AETC/A7C, Randolph AFB, Military Style Guide was made possible with assistance TX; Megan Tooker, Landscape Architect, ERDC/CERL; from and general guidance of the Department of and Professor John C.
    [Show full text]