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

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 ...... 115 7.0 Literature Cited/References ...... 122

iii

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

FIGURES, TABLES, & INSETS

FIGURES Figure 1. Regional Project Location ...... 4 Figure 2. Project Layout ...... 10 Figure 3. Diagrams of Proposed Project Components ...... 11 Figure 4. Visual Study Area ...... 13 Figure 5. Landscape Similarity Zones ...... 18 Figure 6. Visually Sensitive Resources ...... 30 Figure 7. Visual Simulation Methodology ...... 59 Figure 8. Viewshed Analyses ...... 65 Figure 9. Line-of-Sight Cross Sections ...... 72 Figure 10. Viewpoint Location Map ...... 74 Figure 11. Typical Construction Photographs for Wind Energy Projects...... 109 Figure 12. Cumulative Viewshed Analysis ...... 113 Figure 13. Cumulative Visual Simulations ...... 114

TABLES Table 1. Land Use by Total Area within the Visual Study Area ...... 15 Table 2. Landscape Similarity Zones by Total Area in Visual Study Area...... 17 Table 3. Traffic Counts for Major Transportation Corridors within the Visual Study Area ...... 46 Table 4. Viewpoints Selected for Simulation ...... 55 Table 5. Summary of Turbine Viewshed Results ...... 64 Table 6. Summary of Blade Tip Vegetation Viewshed Results by Landscape Similarity Zone ...... 67 Table 7. Summary of Results of Rating Panel Review of Simulations ...... 97 Table 8. Summary of Cumulative Viewshed Results ...... 111

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Viewshed Overlay Maps Appendix B. Photo Log (Enclosed CD) Appendix C. Sensitive Sites Visibility Analysis Appendix D. Visual Simulations Appendix E. Visual Impact Assessment Rating Forms (Enclosed CD) Appendix F. Stakeholder Outreach and Correspondence (Enclosed CD)

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

1.0 Introduction

On behalf of Galloo Island Wind, LLC (the Applicant), Environmental Design & Research, Landscape Architecture, Engineering, & Environmental Services, D.P.C. (EDR) prepared this Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) for the proposed Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility (the Project). The proposed Project is a wind energy generating facility located on Galloo Island in Lake Ontario. Galloo Island is part of the Town of Hounsfield, in Jefferson County, New York. This VIA was prepared in support of the Project’s review under Article 10 of the New York State Public Service Law (Certification of Major Electrical Generating Facilities). The information and recommendations included in this report are intended to assist the Department of Public Service (DPS), other state agencies, interested stakeholders, and the general public in their review of the proposed Project in accordance with the requirements of Article 10. The purpose of this VIA is to:

• Define the visual character of the Project study area • Inventory and evaluate existing visual resources and viewer groups within the study area • Describe the appearance of the visible components of the proposed Project • Evaluate potential Project visibility within the study area • Identify key views for visual assessment • Assess the visual impacts associated with the proposed Project

This VIA was prepared under the direct guidance of a registered landscape architect experienced in the preparation of visual impact assessments. It is also consistent with the policies, procedures, and guidelines contained in established visual impact assessment methodologies (see Literature Cited/References section).

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

2.0 Project Description

Galloo Island Wind, LLC, an indirect subsidiary of Apex Clean Energy Holdings, LLC, is proposing to construct and operate a wind energy generating facility located in the Town of Hounsfield, Jefferson Country, New York (Figure 1). The Project will consist of up to 30 wind turbines, with a maximum generating capacity of 108.9 Megawatts (MW). The Project will be located on the approximately 1,966 acre Galloo Island in Lake Ontario (herein referred to as the Project Site). Other proposed Project components will include electric collection lines, access roads, an on-island collection substation1 (including the main power transformers), two permanent meteorological (met) towers, an operations and maintenance (O&M) building, a barge landing site, a helicopter landing site, a borrow area, a temporary concrete batch plant, and a temporary construction staging/laydown area, all located on land under option by the Applicant on Galloo Island (see Figure 2).

The analyses presented in this VIA assume that the wind turbines for the Project will be the General Electric 3.6-137, or similar model, with a 110-meter hub height. This represents the tallest overall height, and tallest hub height, of the turbines presently under consideration for the Project (see Section 2.2.1). The proposed Project Site and components that make up the Project are described in greater detail in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, below.

Construction of the Project will require use of a facilities on the mainland at Madison Barracks, in the Village of Sackets Harbor. This Off-site Ancillary Facility will be a point of embarkation for personnel and equipment being transported to Galloo Island, and will include construction of a temporary parking lot to accommodate personnel during construction. The Off-site Ancillary Facility primarily involves the use of existing features at Madison Barracks. Moreover, the temporary parking lot is consistent with existing uses of the Madison Barracks site, and will be restored to prior conditions once construction of the Project is complete. Accordingly, the Off-site Ancillary Facility is not addressed in this VIA.

2.1 Project Site

Galloo Island is an Island in Lake Ontario consisting of approximately 3,885 acres. Generally, the Galloo Island landscape is a mix of grassland and forest land, with elevations ranging between approximately 245 feet (75 m) above mean sea level (amsl) along the shores of the island to approximately 305 feet (93 m) amsl in the north central portion of the island. Stony

1 The Project also consists of a Related Transmission Facility (RTF). The RTF starts at the high side of the on-island collection substation (i.e., 138 kV) and includes an approximately 30-mile AC underwater cable and a point of interconnection substation on the mainland near the Mitchell Street Substation in Oswego, New York. These components are considered a “Major Utility Transmission Facility” and as such will be regulated under and subject to Article VII of the Public Service Law. However, for this purposes of this VIA, and in support of the Article 10 regulatory review, potential visual impacts of on-island components will be cumulatively assessed (i.e., Article 10 and Article VII components of the on-island collection station). Therefore, the entire on-island collection will be addressed in the VIA.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Island is the nearest land mass, located approximately 2.5 miles east of Galloo Island. The nearest mainland location is Stony Point in the Town of Henderson, approximately 6 miles to the east. There are a few scattered active and abandoned buildings on the island. However, the Project Site is primarily undeveloped land.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Figure 1. Regional Project Location (1 sheet)

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

2.2 Proposed Project

The overall layout of the proposed Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility is illustrated in Figure 2, and the major components of the Project are described below.

2.2.1 Wind Turbines

Due to the Project’s location on an island in Lake Ontario, approximately 6 miles from the nearest point on the mainland, the proposed wind turbines are the only components of the Project that will be visible to the vast majority of viewers. Consequently, the visibility and visual impact of the proposed wind turbines are the primary focus of the analyses presented in this VIA. These analyses are based on the assumption that the Project will involve the installation of 30 GE137 (3.45 MW) turbines (or similar model) with a 110-meter hub height.

Regardless of which turbine model is ultimately selected for the Project, it will be comprised of standard utility-scale wind turbine components. The typical appearance of these components is illustrated in Figure 3 and further described below:

Tower: The tubular towers used for this Project are conical steel structures manufactured in sections, each of which will be delivered separately to the site and bolted together using internal flanges. Each tower will have an access door, internal lighting, and an internal ladder to access the nacelle. The towers will be painted white or off-white in compliance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidance (i.e., to avoid the need for day time obstruction lighting). For the purposes of this VIA, the tower is assumed to have a total height of 361 feet (hub height) with a base diameter of approximately 15 feet.

Nacelle: The main mechanical components of the wind turbine are housed in the nacelle. These components include the drive train, gearbox, and generator. The nacelle is mounted on a sliding ring that allows it to rotate or “yaw” into the wind to maximize energy capture. The nacelle is housed by a steel reinforced fiberglass shell that protects internal machinery from the environment and dampens noise emissions. The nacelle is externally equipped with an anemometer and a wind vane that measure wind speed and direction (information used by the turbine controller to turn the machine on and off, and to yaw it into correct position). For the purposes of this VIA, the nacelle is assumed to be approximately 33 feet long, 11 feet high, and 12 feet wide (maximum dimensions). It will be white in color with no exterior markings. Attached to the top of the nacelles will be two medium-intensity aviation warning lights, per specifications of the FAA (if a turbine model is selected that is under 499 feet in total height, one light will be used). These will be synchronized flashing red lights (L-864 or similar) and operated only at night. For the purposes of this VIA, it is assumed that warning lights will be installed on all

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

the turbines, although the approved FAA lighting plan is anticipated to require less than this. In addition, the Applicant will utilize a radar-activated warning light system (if approved by the FAA) which would only activate the lights when aircraft travel within a certain perimeter around the Project.

Rotor: A rotor assembly is mounted on the drive shaft, and is operated upwind of the tower. Each rotor consists of three fiberglass composite blades. The rotor attaches to the drive shaft at the front of the nacelle. Electric servo motors within the rotor hub vary the pitch of each blade according to wind conditions, which enable the turbine to operate efficiently at varying wind speeds. For the purposes of this VIA, the rotor is assumed to be white in color, with an overall diameter of 449 feet.

2.2.2 Electrical Collection Lines

The proposed Project is anticipated to have an electrical system that consists of a system of buried 34.5 kV shielded and insulated cables that will collect power from each wind turbine (collection lines). The proposed length of collection lines that will collect power from the turbines to deliver it to the on-island collection substation is approximately 13.5 miles. A transformer located near the base of the tower, or in the interior of the nacelle, will raise the voltage of electricity produced by the turbine generator from typically 690 volts up to the 34.5 kV voltage level of the collection system. From the transformer, underground power cables will collect the electricity produced by the wind turbine generators and deliver it to the on-island collection substation. It is proposed that all electrical collection lines (and associated fiber optic communication cables) will be buried.

2.2.3 On-Island Collection Substation

The proposed collection substation will be located on the south end of Galloo Island. The collection substation will be approximately 0.5 acre in size, and will include 34.5 (permitted under Article 10) and 138 kV (permitted under Article VII) busses, a transformer, circuit breakers, towers, a control building, and related structures, and will be enclosed by chain link fencing. Substation lighting will be kept to the minimum necessary for safety and security. Lights at the substation will be hooded downward and activated only as needed by a motion detector or auto-off switch. The visual impacts associated with the entire on-island collection substation will be addressed in this VIA.

2.2.4 Access Roads

New or improved roads are proposed to access the turbine sites on Galloo Island. The proposed total length of all Project access roads is approximately 11.5 miles, some of which will be upgrades to existing roads. Access roads will be gravel

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

surfaced and approximately 40 feet wide to accommodate construction vehicles/component delivery. Following construction, roads within wetlands or other sensitive sites will be restored to 16 feet in width. Access roads and associated clearing are shown in any simulations where they would be visible, however, beyond this, the visibility and visual impact of Project access roads, on their own, are not evaluated in this study. Temporary visual impacts associated with the construction of these facilities are discussed in Section 5.6 of this VIA. The Project will not include improvements to public roads on the mainland.

2.2.5 Met. Towers

Two permanent 100-meter (328-foot) tall wind measurement towers will be installed to collect wind data and support performance testing of the Project. The met towers will be lattice steel structures, and will be equipped with wind velocity and directional measuring instruments at three different elevations, and temperature and humidity monitors near ground level. The met towers are shown in any simulations where they would be visible.

2.2.6 Temporary Staging/Laydown Yards

Construction of the Project will require the development of a temporary construction staging/laydown area, which will accommodate construction trailers, storage containers, and large project components. The proposed staging area will be located on the north side of Galloo Island adjacent to the proposed barge landing site. The staging area is a temporary feature associated with construction of the Project, and no permanent structures or permanent lighting are proposed at this site. Temporary visual impacts associated with use of this area during construction are discussed in Section 5.6 of the VIA.

2.2.7 O&M Building

An approximately 4,000 square foot single story O&M building will be constructed on Galloo Island to support Project operations. The O&M building will be similar in style to existing buildings on Galloo Island, and will utilize neutral, earth- tone colors for its roofing and siding. Exterior lighting will be controlled by a motion detector, hooded, and of the lowest intensity necessary to provide adequate safety and security for the building. Due to the remote location of the Project Site, staff will typically not be on duty during normal business hours (i.e., eight hours a day, five days per week). Rather staff will be on island for short durations, as necessary to perform either routine or emergency maintenance. Therefore, the O&M building, and an adjacent 1.5 acre yard, will be used primarily to store equipment. The O&M facility will be shown in any simulations where it would be visible. However, due to its limited height and minimal visibility, the visual effect on the O&M facility on its own is not addressed in this study.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

2.2.8 Barge Landing Area

Construction and operation of the Project will require a barge landing site for offloading/loading construction equipment and materials (e.g., bull dozers and cranes), and Project components (e.g., tower sections and turbine blades). The barge landing will be located near the temporary staging area on the north side of Galloo Island. A concrete bulkhead will be installed above ordinary high water (OHW) on the shoreline of the island in this location. A barge ramp will also be installed, and will consist of a portable truss bridge supported by a pontoon, so that it can be lowered on the transport barge deck. The pontoon will have four anchors drilled into lake bed which will attach to the barge and act as moorings. Four additional anchors will be attached to the upland areas of the shore to accommodate additional mooring lines for the barge ramp and transport barge. The barge landing is a temporary feature, and other than the concrete bulkhead, will be removed at the completion of construction. Temporary visual impacts associated with the use of the barge ramp during construction are discussed in Section 5.6 of this VIA.

2.2.9 Helicopter Landing Site

In order to provide emergency access to the Project, and access during inclement weather when boat travel is not possible, a helicopter landing pad will be developed. This pad will be more or less at grade, and will not be visible to the public, except from the air. Consequently, visibility of this Project component will not be addressed in the VIA.

2.2.10 Borrow Area

A borrow area is proposed to be developed on the island. This area would provide aggregate fill for Project components such as access roads and crane pads. The material is proposed to be excavated from an approximately 1.5 acre area on the northern portion of Galloo Island (see Figure 2). Development of the borrow area would require the stripping of top soil and then rock-hammering or blasting to remove the underlying stone. The borrow area will be reclaimed and revegetated following completion of construction. Because the borrow area is completely screened by vegetation and topography on Galloo Island it is not addressed in this VIA.

2.2.11 Temporary Batch Plant

The temporary batch plant is anticipated to be sited on an approximately 4-acre site located adjacent to the floating barge ramp in the northern portion of Galloo Island (Figure 2). Temporary concrete batch plants typically consist of silo(s) that will hold cement, large square bins which will hold aggregate, a water pump, a compressor, additional small ancillary equipment, and stockpile of materials. Batch plant components typically range in height from 30 to 70 feet, and in length from 40 to 60 feet. The exact arrangement of the temporary concrete batch plan will be determined by the Balance of Plan (BOP)

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Contractor, who will not be identified until the Facility receives its Certificate. Temporary visual impacts associated with operation of the batch plant during Project construction are discussed in Section 5.6 of this VIA.

2.2.12 Off-site Ancillary Facility

Project components and certain bulk materials will be shipped out of the Port of Oswego, which is a full-service commercial port, equipped to handle all necessary Project support. As previously noted, an Off-site Ancillary Facility at Madison Barracks in Sackets Harbor will be used as a point of embarkation, providing parking for Project personnel and serving as a launching point for materials, small equipment, and personnel at existing commercial launches and marinas. These facilities either already exist, or, in the case of the proposed temporary parking lot, will be similar in appearance to the existing facilities. As a result, they will have minimal visual effect and are not addressed in this study.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Figure 2. Project Layout (1 sheet)

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Figure 3. Diagrams of Proposed Project Components (2 sheet)

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

3.0 Existing Visual Character

3.1 Visual Study Area

Per the requirements set forth in 16 NYCRR § 1000.2(ar), the visual study area to be used for the analysis of major electric generating facilities is defined as “an area generally related to the nature of the technology and the setting of the proposed site. For large facilities or wind power facilities with components spread across a rural landscape, the study area shall generally include the area within a radius of at least five miles from all generating facility components, interconnections and related facilities and alternative location sites. For facilities in areas of significant resource concerns, the size of a study area shall be configured to address specific features or resource issues.”

Given the unique location of this Project on Galloo Island, a 15-mile radius study area was selected in order to adequately capture visual impacts to the shoreline of the adjacent mainland. Additionally, a 0.5-mile inland reach was added to the study area along Chaumont Bay, Guffin Bay, and Black River Bay, where the shoreline extends just outside of the 15-mile radius area. Therefore, the visual study area is defined as the area within 15 miles of the Facility site (within the United States border), plus a 0.5-mile inland reach to include additional Lake Ontario shoreline. The boundary of the visual study area is depicted on Figure 4.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Figure 4. Visual Study Area (1 sheet)

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

3.2 Physiographic/Visual Setting

3.2.1 Landform and Vegetation

The visual study area lies within the Erie-Ontario Plain physiographic region in Jefferson County, which is characterized by an irregular shoreline and topography varying from nearly level to rolling and broken, commonly with steep ledges of rock (NRCS, 1989). Within the study area itself, topography generally slopes gently toward Lake Ontario and its tributary rivers and streams. The most topographic relief occurs in the Towns of Henderson and Ellisburg where the study area extends further inland than it does in other areas, and includes upland knolls, ridges and valleys. Elevation within the visual study area ranges from approximately 200 to 550 feet amsl.

Open water covers over 75% of the visual study area, including Lake Ontario as well as inland surface water features. Vegetation in onshore areas is dominated by agricultural land, with pastureland and hayfields more prevalent than row crops. Non-agricultural areas are typically a mix of successional vegetation and forestland. Forest vegetation is primarily deciduous (northern hardwoods) mixed with some conifers (white pine, hemlock, cedar, and spruce). Larger forested areas occur on Stony Point, Point Peninsula, Stony Island, and Galloo Island.

3.2.2 Land Use

In order to determine land use within the visual study area, land use data was obtained from Jefferson County Real Property Tax Service in 2015. Land use within the landward portion of the visual study area is dominated by agriculture and low- density residential development. The top three land-uses classified within the visual study area (See Table 1), include agricultural (40.6%), residential (25.8%), and vacant land (22.4%). Agricultural land uses occur throughout the visual study area with larger, contiguous operations occurring further inland from the shoreline, and smaller more isolated fields occurring nearer the shoreline. As is the case with many waterfront communities, the density of residential development tends to increase along the Lake Ontario shoreline, especially within villages and hamlets. These residential areas are interspersed with vacant land (fallow fields and forested lots) along with parks, commercial areas, and recreational facilities. Waterfront residential development generally consists of single-family homes on relatively small (¼ to ½ acre) lots, situated to take advantage of views over Lake Ontario or the multiple bays associated with the lake. Villages within the study area are all located along the Lake Ontario shoreline and include Cape Vincent, Chaumont, Dexter, and Sackets Harbor, all in the northern half of the visual study area. These villages generally consist of a developed village center with commercial, residential, and mixed-use buildings. Development in the villages typically drops off toward the waterfront, giving way to recreational land uses centered around parks, cultural resources, and smaller commercial operations with a focus on water activities, such as marinas, lighthouses, and beaches. Hamlets within the visual study area include Association Island (a recreational vehicle resort), Henderson Harbor, Point Peninsula, Henderson, Boultons Beach, Herrick Grove, Smithville,

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

and Three Mile Bay. These hamlets are generally relatively small pockets of development and are typically located at major crossroads.

Table 1. Land Use by Total Area within the Visual Study Area

Landuse Acres Percentage of Land Area Within the Visual Study Area

Agricultural 38867.6816 40.6% Residential 24714.794 25.8% Vacant Land 21394.94769 22.4% Wild, Forested, Conservation Land, Public Park 4441.576672 4.6% Recreation & Entertainment 2245.313088 2.3% Commercial 899.735163 0.9% Community Services 299.135103 0.3% Industrial 250.751164 0.3% Public Services 102.988209 0.1%

3.2.3 Water Features

The dominant water feature in the study area is Lake Ontario and its associated bays and harbors. Lake Ontario makes up approximately 78% of the visual study area. The lake hosts the majority of recreational opportunities in this area for boaters, fishermen, bird watchers, beachgoers, and sightseers. Lake Ontario is also the terminus of the Black River, Sandy Creek, Chaumont River, and many other important recreational rivers within the visual study area. These rivers draw thousands of recreational fishermen (locals and tourists) during the fall and spring salmon runs, supporting an important economic activity in the local communities.

3.3 Landscape Similarity Zones

Per the requirements set forth in 16 NYCRR § 1000.24(b)(1), Landscape Similarity Zones must be defined within the visual study area. Definition of these discrete landscape types within a given study area provides a useful framework for the analysis of a project’s potential visual effects. Landscape Similarity Zones (LSZs) within the study area were defined based on the similarity of various landscape characteristics, including landform, vegetation, water, and/or land use patterns, in accordance with established visual assessment methodologies (Smardon et al., 1987; USDA Forest Service, 1995; USDOT Federal Highway Administration, 1981; USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1980). Within the visual study area, seven distinct LSZs were defined, including the following:

• Open Water

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

• Agricultural/Rural Residential • Successional/Wetland • Forest • Maintained Waterfront • Naturalistic Waterfront • Village

LSZs within the visual study area were mapped using a GIS classification exercise based on mapped land cover, according to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 2011 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD), and distance buffers. Similar to the viewshed analysis (see Section 4.1.1), the mapping of LSZs is a generalization exercise intended for mapping purposes at the scale of the entire study area (it is possible that field review at a given viewpoint could change the GIS-based classification based on observed landscape characteristics that are beyond the scale of the GIS analysis). The classification analysis is subtractive; meaning that a given criterion is used to classify a portion of the study area as a certain LSZ, and then the following criterion is used to classify the remaining portion not yet classified, and so forth until the entire study area is classified. The classification of LSZs within the study area included the following steps:

• First, the Village LSZ was identified as all four developed NLCD classes (open space developed, low intensity developed, medium intensity developed, and high intensity developed) that occur within village boundaries (including the Villages of Cape Vincent, Chaumont, Dexter, and Sackets Harbor). • Next, the Open Water LSZ was identified as any area classified by the NLCD as open water. • Waterfront areas were then isolated as any land area within 200 feet of the shoreline of Lake Ontario and its associated bays. Waterfront areas were then split into the Maintained Waterfront LSZ and the Naturalistic Waterfront LSZ.

o Within the 200-foot waterfront area, the Maintained Waterfront LSZ consists of the four developed NLCD classes, Southwick Beach State Park, and areas within 200 feet of waterfront residences.

o The Naturalistic Waterfront LSZ was then identified as the remaining waterfront areas, which include NLCD classifications of barren land, forest (deciduous, evergreen, and mixed forest), shrub/scrub, grassland/herbaceous, pasture/hay, cultivated crops, woody wetlands, and emergent herbaceous wetlands. • Finally, the remaining inland areas were split into the Agricultural/Rural Residential, Forest, and Successional/Wetland LSZs based on NLCD classification.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

o The Agricultural/Rural Residential LSZ consists of pasture/hay and cultivated crop NLCD classes as well as the four developed NLCD classes.

o The Forest LSZ consists of the three forest NLCD classes. 2 o The Successional/Wetland LSZ consists of shrubland, grassland/herbaceous, woody wetland , and emergent herbaceous wetland NLCD classes.

The amount of land within the study area that is included within each LSZ is summarized in Table 2. To better understand the make-up of the landward portion of the visual study area, the portion of the mainland occupied by each of the land-based LSZs is also broken down separately. The location of the various LSZs is illustrated in Figure 5. Descriptions of the visual characteristics of each LSZ, along with representative photographs, are included in the following Sections (3.3.1-3.3.6) of the VIA report.

Table 2. Landscape Similarity Zones by Total Area in Visual Study Area

Percent of Visual Study Percent of Landward Portion of Visual Landscape Similarity Zone Area (Acres) Area (SqMi) Area Study Area

Open Water 331,454 517.9 77.6% N/A Agricultural/Rural Residential 47,004 73.4 11.0% 49.1% Successional/Wetland 25,321 39.6 5.9% 26.5% Forest 18,046 28.2 4.2% 18.9% Maintained Waterfront 2,140 3.3 0.5% 2.2% Naturalistic Waterfront 2,109 3.3 0.5% 2.2% Village 814 1.3 0.2% 0.9%

2 Field review indicated that areas classified as woody wetlands by the NLCD were predominantly scrub-shrub wetlands, although some areas classified as woody wetland were dominated by mature trees.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Figure 5. Landscape Similarity Zones 1 Sheet

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

3.3.2 Open Water

Inset 1 – Photo from Lake Ontario near Galloo Island demonstrating the Inset 2 – Photo from Lake Ontario near Sackets Harbor demonstrating views

Open Water Similarity Zone with uninterrupted views to the horizon. toward the coastal landscape

The Open Water LSZ makes up approximately 78% of the visual study area and is the major character-defining feature in the study area landscape. Lake Ontario surrounds the Project site on all sides and extends to the shoreline of the landward portion of the visual study area. The Open Water LSZ is defined by the character of the lake itself rather than the shoreline. Views within this LSZ are typically characterized by either open water to the horizon (generally westward views), or open water to a well-defined shoreline (eastward views or views across harbors and bays). Often, these views include just open water, interrupted only by low islands or occasional boats. However, the multiple bays and nearshore areas offer views of open water backed by natural shoreline features such as bluffs, dunes, and forests, as well as man-made features, such as residences, boat houses, and docks. Activity on the lake is typically seasonal and the spring, summer, and fall months can bring a large number of recreational boaters and fishermen to the lake.

3.3.3 Agricultural/Rural Residential

Inset 3 – Photo from Smith Road in the Town of Henderson demonstrating Inset 4 – Photo from County Route 4 and Wilson Road in the Town of Cape typical views in the Agricultural/Rural Residential LSZ. Vincent demonstrating an elevated view across agricultural fields.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

The Agricultural/Rural Residential LSZ occurs throughout approximately 11.0% of the visual study area (49.1% of the land- based LSZ’s) and occupies large swaths of land throughout the study area. This LSZ is characterized by a mix of active crop fields, pastures, hedgerows, farm structures, rural residences, and small woodlots (Photo Insets 3 and 4). Due to the presence of open fields, views within this LSZ are more open than those available in other inland zones within the study area. These views typically include an open field in the foreground, with a tree line defining a woodlot or hedgerow in the mid-ground or background. The presence of open fields in this LSZ increases opportunities for longer distance views. However, open views to Lake Ontario from within this LSZ are generally limited due to intervening vegetation, shoreline structures, and topography.

3.3.4 Successional/Wetland

Inset 5 – Photo from Stony Creek Boat Launch in the Town of Henderson, Inset 6 – Photo from Galloo Island in the Town of Hounsfield, illustrating the illustrating the Successional/Wetland LSZ. Note the layering of wetland, Successional/Wetland LSZ. fringe, and upland vegetation blocking views toward the lake.

The Successional/Wetland LSZ makes up approximately 5.9% of the visual study area (26.5% of the land-based LSZ’s), with the majority made up of wetlands associated with Lake Ontario and its multiple tributaries. This zone is characterized by generally low, patchy, native vegetation. It includes occasional open water areas interspersed with successional old fields, emergent wetland vegetation (such as cattail and reeds), woody shrubs, and occasional larger trees (see Inset 5). Although the wetland areas are typically in the lowland areas and valleys associated with rivers and Lake Ontario, wetlands and upland successional areas also occur in large contiguous areas further inland. Open views within this zone are available over the low foreground vegetation, but are typically limited by larger forested lots bordering the LSZ (see Inset 6). The wetland and successional areas near the Lake Ontario shoreline are often separated from the lake by dunes or forested areas, thus limiting visibility of the lake from within the LSZ. However, some higher elevation successional areas offer open, longer distance views, including some oriented toward Lake Ontario.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

3.3.5 Forest

Inset 7 – Photo from the Snakefoot Trail in Robert Wehle State Park Inset 8 – Photo from Beach Road, Town Of Lyme demonstrating the screening found in the Forest LSZ.

Forestland covers approximately 4.2% of the study area, or 18.9% of the land-based LSZs. It is characterized by the dominance of forest vegetation (mixed deciduous and coniferous tree species), and occurs sporadically throughout the landward portion of the visual study area. Shoreline concentrations of forestland are most prevalent within the southern portions of the study area. Inland forested areas are patchy, and tend to be coincident with wetland areas. Outward views within the Forest Zone are typically limited due to screening provided by the tree canopy (see Inset 7). Views are generally restricted to areas where small clearings and road cuts provide breaks in the canopy. Where long distance views are available within this zone, they are typically of short duration, limited distance, and/or framed by trees. In some locations, the Forest LSZ extends right up to the Lake Ontario shoreline, thus limiting outward views until within 50-100 feet of the lake shore (see Inset 8). Land use in this zone includes low-density residential development and recreational use (hunting, hiking, etc.). The largest areas of contiguous forest occur in Robert Wehle State Park and the surrounding Stony Point area.

3.3.6 Naturalistic Waterfront

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Inset 9 – Photo from Lakeview Marsh and Barrier Beach National Natural Inset 10 – Photo from Black Pond Wildlife Management Area demonstrating Landmark demonstrating the Naturalistic Waterfront Similarity Zone. Note the Naturalistic Waterfront Similarity Zone. Note the presence dense forest the presence of dunes in the foreground. Views of the water are often fully just 50-100 feet from the water’s edge. screened once inland of the dunes.

The Naturalistic Waterfront LSZ makes up approximately 0.5% of the visual study area (2.2% of the land-based LSZ’s), and is characterized by unmanaged natural ecological communities along the lake shore, which occur in various locations including bays, harbors, and islands. The Naturalistic Shoreline LSZ is defined by sandy or rocky beaches (see Inset 9), natural bluffs, sand dunes, or vegetated shoreline (forest and successional). The topography within this LSZ varies from gently sloping beaches and fields, to steep bluffs and dunes. However, the defining feature of the Naturalistic Shoreline Zone is the experience of land meeting water with little evidence of man-made structures or human activity in the immediate vicinity. The shoreline within this LSZ is frequently backed by forest or successional or wetland vegetation, which transitions to the Forest or Successional/Wetland LSZ at a distance of 200 feet from the water’s edge and defines the limit of this zone (see Inset 10). Therefore, open, long-distance views are concentrated along the water’s edge, and diminish quickly as one moves inland within this zone.

3.3.7 Maintained Waterfront

Inset 11 – Photo from Madison Barracks Marina demonstrating the Inset 12 – Photo from Sackets Harbor Battlefield demonstrating the Maintained Waterfront Similarity Zone. Maintained Waterfront Similarity Zone. Note the more open views from location further inland.

The Maintained Waterfront LSZ makes up approximately 0.5% of the visual study area (2.2% of the land-based LSZ’s), and is defined by a shoreline setting that contains visual evidence of human presence/influence. This LSZ is common along the Lake Ontario shoreline and is interspersed with sections of Naturalistic Shoreline. Landscape elements such as armored shorelines and jetties, parks, marinas, residential lots, roads, and docks are common within the Maintained Waterfront LSZ (see Inset 11). This LSZ also includes some sandy beaches that may appear to be natural, but are actually part of a managed recreational facility, and have built features and/or intense human activity in proximity to the shoreline. Topography within the Maintained Waterfront LSZ is generally uniform with gentle slopes, making the waterfront more

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

accessible for managed uses. Vegetation within this zone is limited and/or highly managed, including mowed lawns and landscaped areas consisting of planted shrubs and younger trees (see Inset 12). Open views to the lake within this LSZ typically extend further inland when compared to the Naturalistic Shoreline LSZ. This is due to the existence of the managed facilities which have been situated specifically to take advantage of water views. However, in many places intervening structures or trees block views toward the water.

3.3.8 Village

Inset 13 – Photo from the Village of Sackets Harbor demonstrating the Inset 14 – Photo from the Village of Dexter demonstrating the Village Village Similarity Zone. Note the dominance of building and vegetation Similarity Zone. Note the main road and presence of closely situated containing views within the village core. structures, containing outward views.

The Village LSZ occupies approximately 0.2% of the study area (0.9% of the land-based LSZ’s), and includes the Villages of Sacket Harbor, Chaumont, Cape Vincent, and a very small portion of the Village of Dexter. This zone is characterized by medium to high density residential and commercial development, generally oriented along primary roads. Vegetation and landform contribute to visual character in the Village areas, but within the majority of this zone, buildings (typically 1-2 stories tall) and other man-made features are the dominant visual features in the landscape (see Inset 13 and 14). Structures are variable in their size and arrangement, but tend to be of an older/traditional architectural style in the village cores. Activities within this zone are primarily associated with residential use, small commercial businesses, local travel and tourism. Views within this zone are typically focused on the roadways and adjacent structures, although outward views across yards and adjacent parks are also available in some places. Open views toward Lake Ontario are most likely from open road corridors and the waterfront edges of the Village LSZ, where housing and vegetation density decrease and intervening screening is reduced.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

3.4 Distance Zones

Three distinct distance zones are typically defined in visual studies. The zones generally define the foreground as 0-0.5 mile, the mid-ground as 0.5 to 3.5 miles, and the background as over 3.5 miles. However, for the purposes of this VIA, it was determined that defining an additional distance zone would be appropriate, given that all mainland views of Galloo Island are in what would typically be defined as the background distance zone. Consistent with U.S Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service protocols (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2013; Jones and Jones 1977; U.S. Forest Service, 1995), distance zones for this VIA are defined as follows:

• Foreground: 0 to 0.5 mile. At these distances, a viewer is able to perceive details of an object with clarity. Surface textures, small features, and the full intensity and value of color can be seen on foreground objects.

• Mid-ground: 0.5 to 3.5 miles. The mid-ground is usually the predominant distance at which landscapes are seen. At these distances a viewer can perceive individual structures and trees but not in great detail. This is the zone where the parts of the landscape start to join together; individual hills become a range, individual trees merge into a forest, and buildings appear as simple geometric forms. Colors will be clearly distinguishable, but will have a bluish cast and a softer tone than those in the foreground. Contrast in color and texture among landscape elements will also be reduced.

• Background: 3.5 to 15 miles: The background defines the broader regional landscape within which a view occurs. Within this distance zone, the landscape has been simplified; only broad landforms are discernable, and atmospheric conditions often render the landscape an overall bluish color. Texture has generally disappeared and color has flattened, but large patterns of vegetation are discernable. Silhouettes of one land mass set against another and/or the skyline are often the dominant visual characteristics in the background. The background contributes to scenic quality by providing a softened backdrop for foreground and mid-ground features, an attractive vista, or a distant focal point.

• Seldom seen: Over 15 miles. At distances beyond 15 miles, movement is not readily discernable, curvature of the earth becomes a factor in visibility, and objects become less prominent in the overall landscape due to their relative size, occupation of the horizon and deterioration of visibility due to atmospheric conditions. At distances beyond 15 miles it is unlikely the Project will be discernable to the casual viewer and only concentrated viewing will reveal the existence of elements on the horizon. During high humidity, fog, and other weather events, visibility at these distances may be completely eliminated.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

3.5 Viewer/User Groups

Three categories of viewer/user groups were identified within the visual study area. These include the following:

3.5.1 Local Residents

Local residents include those who live and work within the visual study area, either on a full-time or seasonal basis. They generally view the landscape from their yards, homes, local roads, schools, and places of employment. Residents are concentrated in and around the Villages of Sackets Harbor, Chaumont, Dexter, Cape Vincent, and along substantial portions of the Lake Ontario shoreline. Except when involved in local travel, residents are likely to be stationary, and have frequent or prolonged views of the landscape. Local residents may view the landscape from ground level or elevated viewpoints (typically upper floors/stories of homes). Residents’ sensitivity to visual quality is variable. However, it is assumed that residents may be very sensitive to changes in views from their homes and yards, particularly residents that have homes situated to take advantage of water views.

3.5.2 Through-Travelers/Commuters

Commuters and travelers passing through the area view the landscape from motor vehicles on their way to work or other destinations. Commuters and through-travelers are typically moving, have a relatively narrow field of view, and are destination oriented. Drivers on major roads in the area (e.g., State Routes 3, 12E, 178, and 193, and County Routes 123, 57, and 59) will generally be focused on the road and traffic conditions, but do have the opportunity to observe roadside scenery. Passengers in moving vehicles will have greater opportunities for prolonged off-road views than will drivers, and accordingly, may have greater perception of changes in the visual environment. Commuters’ and travelers’ sensitivity to visual quality is variable. However, it is assumed that regular, local commuters and travelers may be very sensitive to changes in available views toward the lake as they travel through the area.

3.5.3 Tourists/Recreational Users

Recreational users and tourists include local residents and out-of-town visitors involved in cultural and recreational activities at parks, beaches, historic sites, water bodies, and in undeveloped natural settings such as wildlife management areas. These viewers are concentrated in the shoreline villages and recreational/cultural sites located within the visual study area, although they may also view the landscape from area highways while on their way to these destinations. This group includes recreational boaters, fishermen, hunters, bicyclists, and those involved in more passive recreational activities (e.g., family vacations, picnicking, sightseeing, or walking). Visual quality may or may not be an important part of the recreational activity in which these viewers are engaged. However, for some, scenery will be a very important part of their recreational

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

experience, and in almost all cases, enhances the quality of these experiences. Sackets Harbor is an example of a significant tourist destination where recreational viewers congregate for sightseeing, fishing and boating, among other activities. In this, and other shoreline destinations, recreational users and tourists will often have open views of the lake over relatively long periods of time.

3.6 Visually Sensitive Resources

In accordance with standard visual impact assessment practice in New York State, visually sensitive resources were identified in accordance with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Program Policy DEP-00-2, Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts (NYSDEC, 2000), which defines specific types of properties as visually sensitive resources of statewide significance. The types of resources identified by NYSDEC in Program Policy DEP-00-2 are consistent with the types of resources identified in 16 NYCRR § 1001.24(b)(4), which include, but are not limited to:

“...landmark landscapes; wild, scenic or recreational rivers administered respectively by either the NYSDEC or the Adirondack Park Agency (APA) pursuant to ECL Article 15 or Department of the Interior 16 USC Section 1271; forest preserve lands, scenic vistas specifically identified in the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan, conservation easement lands, scenic byways designated by the federal or state governments; Scenic districts and scenic roads, designated by the Commissioner of the NYSDEC pursuant to ECL Article 49 scenic districts; Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance; state parks or historic sites; sites listed on National or State Registers of Historic Places; areas covered by scenic easements, public parks or recreation areas; locally designated historic or scenic districts and scenic overlooks; and high-use public areas” (16 NYCRR § 1001.24[b][4][ii]).

To identify visually sensitive resources within the visual study area, EDR consulted a variety of data sources including digital geospatial data (shapefiles) obtained primarily through the NYS GIS Clearinghouse or the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI); numerous national, State, County and local agency/program websites as well as websites specific to identified resources; the DeLorme Atlas and Gazetteer for New York State; USGS 7.5-minute topographic maps; and web mapping services such as Google Maps. Aesthetic resources of statewide and local significance were identified within 15 miles of the proposed Project (within the United States), plus a 0.5 mile inland reach for coastlines that extend beyond 15 miles.

In addition, per the requirements set forth in 16 NYCRR § 1000.24(b)(4), the Applicant conducted a systematic program of public outreach to assist in the identification of visually sensitive resources within the study area. Copies of the

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

correspondence sent by the Applicant as part of this process, as well as responses received from stakeholders, are included as Appendix F of this VIA. This outreach included the following:

• On October 4, 2016, in accordance with Article 10, Exhibit 24, Section 1001.24(b)(4), the Applicant distributed a request to appropriate agency personnel and municipal representatives (EDR, 2016; see Appendix F) that requested feedback regarding the identification of important aesthetic resources and/or representative viewpoints in the vicinity of the Project. The purpose of this inquiry was to inform field review efforts and the eventual selection of candidate viewpoints for the development of visual simulations. The materials provided as part of this submission to stakeholders included: 1) a summary of the purpose and necessity of consultation per the requirements of Article 10; 2) a definition, explanation, and map of the visual study area; 3) a preliminary inventory and map of visually sensitive resources identified in accordance with the NYSDEC Program Policy DEP-00-2 Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts (NYSDEC, 2000); 4) a preliminary viewshed (visibility) analysis; 5) a discussion of anticipated subsequent steps, including additional consultation regarding the eventual selection of viewpoints for development of visual simulations; and, 6) a request for feedback regarding additional visually sensitive resources to be included in the analysis.

• On October 20, 2016, John Culkin, Supervisor for the Town of Henderson, provided a response to the Applicant’s October 4, 2016 preliminary analysis. The response stated, “The list of visually sensitive resources attached to your letter certainly seems thorough, though given the proposed height of the turbines, I’m not sure I agree with some of the determinations of “Not Visible” regarding a few of the places on your list. It is my hope that your visual simulations will include as many of the points listed in your document as possible. Mr. Culkin recommended the following sites either be included in the list of visually sensitive resources or included as visual simulations:

. All along the lake shore south of “the cut” including Hovey Road, . Stony Point Lighthouse . Wehle State Park . “The cut” . Route 3 scenic overlook across from Ryan’s Lookout restaurant . The lookout at the top of Wescotts Beach Campground . Top of the hill on Gilman Road . Harbor Road (CR 123) by the Gill House . Several points northeast of the Gill House along CR 123 . Bayshore Drive

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

. Ramsey Shores . Tip of Clark’s Point.

All of these sites were added to the inventory of visually sensitive sites in Appendix C.

• On October 22, 2016, EDR received a response from the Village of Chaumont Planning Board, recommending that parcel number 61.51-1-42.1 be added to the list of visually sensitive resources. According to the Planning Board, “Currently the parcel is up for sale. This parcel could provide the public with waterfront access at an easy walking distance to the Village business district.” The parcel was added to the inventory of visually sensitive sites included in Appendix C. • On October 25, 2016, EDR received a response from Andrew C. Davis of the New York State Department of Public Service (DPS) stating that property owned by NYSDEC, “including Galloo Island and Little Galloo Island, as well as surrounding waters, should be identified as visually sensitive locations, because these areas are wildlife management properties that include viewing opportunities for visitors to the area, including wildlife enthusiasts, birds, and recreational boaters. In addition, other important receptors include the Galloo Island Lighthouse and keeper’s house listed on the NRHP, and other NRHP-listed properties on Galloo Island.” Also, given that Galloo Island is within the designated Coastal Area, resources within the Coastal Area are subject to consideration of the Project’s visual impacts. “Thus, additional consideration of areas in the foreground, middle-ground and background distance zones, including open-water areas, is warranted in advancing the Visually Sensitive Resources listing.” In addition, Mr. Davis recommended adding Local Waterfront Revitalization Areas. The remaining comments pertained to the preliminary mapping that was done for the outreach letter. The suggested sites have been incorporated into the inventory of sensitive sites included in Appendix C, and the recommended

changes have been incorporated into the final mapping for the VIA. • On November 22, 2016, EDR received a response from Janet Spencer Quinn, Village of Sackets Harbor Planning Board. Ms. Quinn indicated that she reviewed the list of visually sensitive resources within the Village of Sackets Harbor with the Mayor of Sackets Harbor. Ms. Quinn stated that the Stone Hospital, within the Madison Barracks Historic District should be included as a two-story limestone structure with a commanding view of Galloo Island and considerable historic significance. She also questioned the Project visibility for three properties; a two-story U-shaped colonial revival duplex on Ambrose Street, Lakeside Cemetery, and a two-story Queen Anne residence on Dodge Avenue. Also, it was recommended that the following recreation resources be included under local parks and playgrounds” Market Square Park and Boat Launch, Bicentennial Trail, Fort Pike Park at Madison Barracks, and Waterfront Park on Ambrose Street. All of these sites have been included in the inventory of sensitive resources included in Appendix C.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

• In a response letter dated January 9, 2017, Saratoga Associates Landscape Architects, Architects, Engineers, and Planners, P.C. (Saratoga Associates), the Town of Hounsfield’s and Village of Sackets Harbor’s visual consultant, stated that the Town of Hounsfield informed Saratoga Associates that the Town agrees with the resources identified by EDR for the visual analysis. Saratoga Associates questioned whether 1) Fort Volunteer will be identified separately, or as part of the Madison Barracks, 2) whether the Sackets Harbor Battlefield Museum will be identified separately, or as part of the Sackets Harbor Battlefield, and 3) whether the Sackets Harbor Battlefield will be considered part of the Sackets Harbor Battlefield State Park. Also, Saratoga Associates questioned whether local public roadways along the waterfront will be evaluated and considered for simulation. EDR has complied with these requests, listing each of the referenced resources separately in the sensitive site inventory and evaluating several waterfront roads during field review and viewpoint selection. Saratoga Associates also suggested that the Town provide EDR with a copy of the draft Waterfront Access Study developed for the Village of Sackets Harbor, which was obtained from the Village’s website. • In addition, The Applicant and EDR met with New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP) staff on March 8, 2016, and had a subsequent discussion with John Bonafide of the NYSOPRHP on March 31, 2016, to review and discuss the previous historic architectural survey conducted by Panamerican Consultants, Inc. (PCI), as well as the proposed evaluation of the current Project’s visual effects on historic architectural resources. It was agreed that in general terms, the identification of historic resources conducted as part of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review for the Hounsfield Wind Farm (PCI, 2009), the predecessor to the current Project, was adequate for the purpose of identifying historic architectural resources within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for indirect effects for the Galloo Island Wind Project. The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligible sites identified during the Hounsfield Wind Farm SEQRA review, and located within 10 miles of the proposed Project, are included in the inventory of visually sensitive resources for this VIA (Appendix C).

As indicated above, all of the specific visually sensitive sites that were identified as a result of research, stakeholder outreach, and subsequent consultation are included in Appendix C. The location of visually sensitive resources within the visual study area is illustrated in Figure 6, and on the viewshed/sensitive site maps included in Appendix A. A summary description of the aesthetic resources of statewide and local significant is presented in Sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.2, below.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Figure 6. Visually Sensitive Resources (1 sheet)

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

3.6.1 Aesthetic Resources of Statewide Significance

The Project’s visual study area contains 135 sites that the NYSDEC Program Policy DEP-00-2, Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts (NYSDEC, 2000) considers aesthetic resources of statewide significance (see Appendix C). These include 54 individual properties and seven districts listed in the NRHP; one State Historic Site, four State Parks; two state-managed Marine Facilities; one Urban Heritage Area; six state Wildlife Management Areas; two National Natural Landmarks; one National Scenic Byway; and one state-designated Scenic Byway. Also, 56 NRHP-eligible sites were identified in the 10- mile APE Historic Building Survey during the Hounsfield Wind Farm SEQRA review (PCI, 2009). In addition, one regionally significant water body (Lake Ontario), nine NYSDEC-managed properties, and three Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) communities are included in the inventory as resources of statewide or regional significance. Aesthetic Resources of Statewide Significance within the visual study area are discussed in more detail below:

Sites Listed on or Eligible for Listing on the State and/or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP): EDR reviewed the NRHP and NYSOPRHP Cultural Resources Information System (CRIS) websites as well as the NYSOPRHP shapefile for buildings, structures, objects and historic districts listed in the NRHP to identify significant historic buildings and/or districts located within the visual study area (NPS, 2017f; NRHP, 2017a, 2017b; NYSHPO, 2017). Additionally, a Historic Building Survey was conducted for Hounsfield Wind Farm (PCI, 2009), which identified additional historic resources located within 10 miles of the proposed Project. This data review revealed that the visual study area includes 54 individual properties and seven historic districts or areas that are listed in the NRHP, and one State Historic Site. These areas are shown on Figure 6 and listed in Appendix C. Three historic districts occur within the Village of Sackets Harbor, including the Sackets Harbor Battlefield, Sackets Harbor Village Historic District, and Madison Barracks, as well as the Sackets Harbor Battlefield State Historic Site. The historic districts and areas are described below.

Sackets Harbor Battlefield: The Sackets Harbor Battlefield NRHP-listed site encompasses 260 acres along the southwestern portion of the Sackets Harbor coastline, plus Horse Island. The site was listed on the NRHP in 1974. The northeastern 26 acres surrounding Navy Point are owned by New York State and managed by the NYSOPRHP as the Sackets Harbor State Historic Site. At its closest point (the western edge of Horse Island), this NRHP-listed site is located approximately 11.7 miles from the Project’s nearest proposed turbine. The Sackets Harbor State Historic Site is located approximately 12.3 miles from the nearest proposed turbine.

In 1812 Sackets Harbor became the center of American naval and military activity for the upper St. Lawrence Valley and Lake Ontario, following the outbreak of war between the United States and Great Britain. Both the NRHP-listed site and the State Historic Site include the War of 1812 Battlefield, which was first recognized in 1866 as an area of land to be set aside to honor of all the military personnel who had fought and died in the War of

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

1812. It was first called the “Old Battle Ground” and was used for public gatherings such as patriotic meetings, political rallies, and church picnics. In 1913 the site was known as “Centennial Park”. Today the site has six historic structures depicting the early defense of northern New York, and includes the Sackets Harbor Battlefield Museum, a locally-important resource identified during the VIA outreach effort. There are guided and self-guided tours of the property along the site’s History Trail, which connects to the Bicentennial Trail within the War of 1812 Battlefield (Sackets Harbor Battlefield Alliance, 2015).

Horse Island, which was identified as a locally-important historic resource during the VIA outreach effort, is part of the NRHP-listed district, due to its significance during the War of 1812. British soldiers landed on Horse Island in 1813, then crossed to the mainland and marched on the village, where they were held off by the Americans. The island contains a lighthouse constructed in the mid-19th century and is currently privately-owned (EDR, 2007).

Sackets Harbor Village Historic District: Located approximately 12.9 miles from the nearest proposed turbine, the Sackets Harbor Village Historic District encompasses 71 acres and 143 buildings at the core of the village. Most of the village sits atop limestone cliffs, and about one-third of the district has views of the harbor (Sackets Harbor). The historic district includes the following sites identified as locally-important historic resources during the VIA outreach effort: Pickering-Beach Museum and Cottage, Augustus Sacket House (currently the Sackets Harbor Visitors’ Center), and Samuel F. Hooker House, all of which are contributing buildings to the historic district designation. In addition, two NRHP-listed sites, Union Hotel and Elisha Camp House, occur within the Village Historic District. The proposed waterfront trail, which would occur within the Village Historic District, was identified as a locally significant resource during the VIA outreach effort.

Added to the NRHP in 1983, the Village Historic District is significant for its commercial, military, and architectural themes. Located on the southeastern edge of Black River Bay, the village was the largest settlement in the region in the early 19th century and served as a staging area for commercial and naval shipbuilders, a quarter for military personnel, and a trading post for steamboats. Navy Point, a peninsula sheltering the harbor from wind and waves, extends out in Lake Ontario. The peninsula is currently occupied by a marina, but was once the United States’ most important shipbuilding and naval base on Lake Ontario. Most of the buildings in the Historic District were constructed during the first century of European-American settlement (1801-1900) and exhibit a Greek Revival influence, with some buildings exhibiting Federal style. Other architectural styles represented in the district include Italianate, Queen Anne, Colonial Revival, and Bungalow.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Madison Barracks: Located to the north of the Sackets Harbor Village Historic District, the Madison Barracks NRHP-listed district sits on the shore of Black River Bay, and is approximately 13.3 miles from the nearest proposed wind turbine. Madison Barracks encompasses approximately 113 acres. Madison Barracks includes the following sites identified as locally-important historic resources during the VIA outreach effort: Stone Hospital, Fort Pike, Fort Volunteer, and Military Road Bridge over Mill Creek. In addition, locally important trails that are completely or partially within the Madison Barracks site were identified during the VIA outreach effort. These include the Madison Barracks Trail, Fort Pike Trail, proposed Waterfront Trail, and proposed Madison Barracks Trail.

Fort Volunteer was constructed circa 1811 and is where General Pike fought the British in the War of 1812. Fort Volunteer was renamed Fort Pike in honor of General Pike. Fort Pike is the only remaining visible fortification left in Sackets Harbor today. Fort Pike is currently owned by the Village of Sackets Harbor, which operates it (and an associated trail) as Fort Pike Park.

Madison Barracks is recognized for its historic and architectural significance (see Inset 15). Madison Barracks played an important role in helping to defend the northern boundary of the United States. Construction of the barracks, warehouses, and Stone Hospital began in 1815, after the War of 1812. The Mill Creek Bridge is an example of an early nineteenth-century stone bridge and is significant for its construction and the fact that it was once visited by President Monroe. By the 1870s there were threats of abandoning Madison Barracks, but then in the 1890’s the army began an intensive expansion. The property doubled in size and new barracks, officer’s quarters, a mess hall, administration building, and hospital were built within a 10-year time frame. Madison Barracks accommodated 45 officers and 1,040 enlisted men during World War II, and $1 million was spent on capital improvements to the buildings at that time. In 1946, Madison Barracks was put up for auction by the U.S. Government and is currently privately owned. Madison Barracks exhibits early 19th century North Country masonry construction interspersed with later 19th and early 20th century military architecture (Brooke, 1974).

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Inset 15 – View of Madison Barracks, including the Stone Hospital Building

Point Salubrious Historic District: The Point Salubrious District is located approximately halfway along the western shore of Point Salubrious in the southeastern part of the Town of Lyme, It is approximately 13.9 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. The district encompasses 6 acres and includes the following contributing resources: a farmhouse, boarding house, five seasonal bungalows, four associated outbuildings, one remnant shed, and four pumphouse structures. Point Salubrious is a large peninsula extending south from the Village of Chaumont on the eastern side of Chaumont Bay. Point Salubrious is one of the Town of Lyme’s earliest settlement sites and was actively farmed throughout the nineteenth century. The Point Salubrious Historic District is an architecturally significant concentration of late nineteenth and early twentieth century seasonal buildings that represents a transition in the Town of Lyme from an agricultural economy to a seasonal and recreational economy (Werbizky, 1990b).

Broadway Historic District: The NRHP-listed Broadway Historic District on the west edge of the Village of Cape Vincent encompasses 22 acres on the St. Lawrence Seaway, and is approximately 14.1 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. The district contains three estate properties, comprised of five houses and two outbuildings, built between 1815 and 1850 by prominent French immigrants. The buildings include the Stone House, a Georgian style building built in 1815; Maple Grove, a Greek Revival style building built in 1838; and Beechwood a Greek

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Revival style building built in 1840. The district also includes, the Servants Quarters (1820) and Bragden House (1840), and two outbuildings of the Stone House (the stable and gazebo). The Stone House is also known as the Vincent LeRay House, which is an NRHP-listed site and the earliest building in the district, built in 1815 (Beck, 1985). The Broadway Historic District is historically and architecturally significant as an “intact cohesive grouping of properties reflecting the early to mid-nineteenth century settlement of the [V]illage of Cape Vincent by a group of prominent French patriots” (Beck, 1985).

Three Mile Bay Historic District: Three Mile Bay Historic District is located on the north and south sides of Depot Street in the hamlet of Three Mile Bay. The district is approximately 14.4 miles from the nearest proposed turbine, and includes six contributing buildings and associated land totaling 3 acres. The four main buildings of the district consist of a church, parsonage, grange hall, and a four-room schoolhouse, all constructed between 1840 and 1908. Although the main buildings are different types, they were constructed for public or semi-public use and have many physical features in common. The Three Mile Bay Historic District is listed for its architectural significance (Werbizky, 1990c)

Chaumont Historic District: The NRHP-listed Chaumont Historic District is located along the north and south sides of Main Street (State Route 12E) in the Village of Chaumont, approximately 16.0 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. The district includes 31 contributing building and two contributing objects. The contributing buildings were constructed between circa 1835 and 1931 and reflect Chaumont’s development in the mid- to late-nineteenth century. The buildings range from modest worker’s cottages to large residences, with architectural features from Greek Revival, Gothic Revival, Italianate, Eastlake, and Queen Anne styles. The Chaumont Historic District is listed for its architectural significance (Werbizky, 1990a.)

The Historic Building Survey of Ten-Mile APE for the Proposed Hounsfield Wind Farm, Galloo Island, Town of Hounsfield, Jefferson County, New York (PCI, 2009) identified a total of 56 resources recommended as eligible for listing in the NRHP. Thirty-seven properties were newly surveyed resources determined to be potentially eligible for the NRHP by NYSOPRHP, and 19 properties were assigned an “Unevaluated” status due to a lack of access. These 56 historic resources are shown on Figure 6 and listed in Appendix C, and include residences, cottages, boathouses, inns, cemeteries, a campground, and a park. These properties are scattered throughout the study area, but are most heavily concentrated in villages and hamlets, including the Villages of Sackets Harbor Cape Vincent, and hamlet of Henderson Harbor.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

State Parks: Review of the NYSOPRHP website indicates that there are four New York State Parks and two Marine Facilities owned and managed by the NYSOPRHP located within the visual study area (NYSOPRHP, 2017c). These include the following:

Robert Wehle State Park: Located approximately 5.9 miles from the nearest proposed turbine on the shore of Lake Ontario, Robert Wehle State Park, is 1,100 acres in size, with over 17,000 feet of Lake Ontario shoreline. The park is the former estate of Mr. Wehle and features a residential compound comprised of the main house, guest quarters, a studio, and formal gardens. The park offers year-round activities with over 1,000 acres of undeveloped land, 10 miles of trails, a tennis court, picnic areas, a volleyball court, and areas for hunting.

Long Point State Park: Long Point State Park is located on a peninsula facing Chaumont Bay on Lake Ontario, approximately 10.8 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. Being on a peninsula, the park is small and completely surrounded by water, providing for scenic views throughout the park. The park offers boat launches, dockage, boat rentals, camping areas, picnic areas, playgrounds, and opportunities for fishing and hunting.

Westcott Beach State Park: The park is located on Henderson Bay in the Town of Henderson, approximately 12.7 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. Westcott Beach State Park is a popular day-use and camping park on Lake Ontario. The park consists of wooded hills and grassy meadows, and offers a marina for accessing Lake Ontario, a playground, playing fields, a swimming beach, a picnic area, as well as trails for hiking and cross-country skiing. The park also offers scenic views and opportunities for hunting and fishing. During the VIA outreach effort, the Lookout at Westcott Beach’s Campground was recommended as a scenic resource to be included in the visually sensitive resources analysis.

Southwick Beach State Park: The park is located on the shores of Lake Ontario, approximately 13.0 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. Southwick Beach State Park offers beaches on the shore of Lake Ontario, as well as playgrounds and playing fields. Popular activities include camping, swimming, fishing, picnicking and hiking. The park is adjacent to the Lakeview Wildlife Management Area, and the park’s trails provide access to the wildlife management area. The park allows snowmobiling in the winter, as well as deer hunting in season.

Stony Creek Boat Launch Marine Facility: The Stony Creek Boat Launch is located off of State Route 3, south of Henderson Harbor, approximately 9.8 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. The facility provides boat access to Lake Ontario offers space for 80 cars and trailers.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Chaumont Boat Launch Marine Facility: The Chaumont Boat Launch is located off of State Route 12 E, 2 miles west of the Village of Chaumont, on Chaumont Bay. The facility is approximately 15.5 miles from the nearest proposed turbine and offers spaces for 100 cars and trailers.

Urban Cultural Parks/Heritage Areas: Urban Cultural Parks are now known as Heritage Areas, which represent a “state-local partnership established to preserve and develop areas that have special significance to New York State” (NYSOPRHP, 2017b). Review of the NYSOPRHP Heritage Areas website indicates that there is one Heritage Area, the Sackets Harbor Urban Heritage Area, within the visual study area. The Sackets Harbor Urban Heritage Area is recognized for its importance in defense, due to the military activity in the Village from the War of 1812 until the end of World War II. This Heritage Area is located approximately 11.7 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. It encompasses approximately 350 acres along the Lake Ontario waterfront and historic Village of Sackets Harbor, and includes the waterfront portion of NRHP-listed Madison Barracks, Sackets Harbor Village NRHP-listed Historic District, and Sackets Harbor Battlefield State Historic Site portion of the NRHP-listed Sackets Harbor Battlefield, as well as Horse Island.

State Forest Preserve: New York State Forest Preserve lands occur within the Adirondack and Catskill Parks, neither of which are located within the visual study area (NYSDEC, 2017j).

National Wildlife Refuges and State Wildlife Management Areas: Review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System website indicates that no National Wildlife Refuges occur within the visual study area (USFWS, 2017). However, the following six State Wildlife Management Areas (WMA) are located within the visual study area (NYSDEC, 2017i).

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Inset 16 – View toward Black Pond WMA and Lake Ontario

Lake Ontario Islands WMA: The Lake Ontario Islands WMA consists of two parcels on Galloo Island, Little Galloo Island, and Gull Island. At the southwestern tip of Galloo Island is a 25.3-acre parcel known as the Lighthouse Parcel, which is approximately 0.1 mile from the nearest proposed turbine. The second 3.4-acre parcel, known as the Coast Guard Station parcel, is located along the northeastern shore of Galloo Island, approximately 0.2 mile from the nearest proposed turbine. Both parcels are important habitats for colonial waterbirds, waterfowl, and shorebirds. Little Galloo Island is located approximately 1.0 mile to the southeast of Galloo Island. Little Galloo Island totals 43 acres and is a colonial water bird rookery that supports the largest ring-billed gull colony in North America, and New York’s only Caspian tern colony. Other waterbirds nesting on the island include double-crested cormorant, herring gull, great black-backed gull, and black-crowned night heron. The National Audubon Society has designated Little Galloo Island as an Important Bird Area, and it is listed as a significant habitat by New York State. Gull Island is located 10.1 miles to the east of Galloo Island. Gull Island is 1 acre in size and is also used by nesting colonial waterbirds, including a stable population of black-crowned night herons and herring gulls (NYSDEC, 2002).

Point Peninsula WMA: This 1,045-acre parcel is located on the western edge of Point Peninsula in the Town of Lyme. It is located on the shore of Lake Ontario, approximately 7.6 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. The

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

WMA is a complex comprised of sand beach, dunes, emergent marsh, grassland, and wooded shrub swamp. Wildlife species on the property include small game, white-tailed deer, grassland birds, migratory birds, arctic- breeding raptors, black terns, and breeding and migrating waterfowl. The area is popular for deer hunting, and fishing is also allowed on the property (NYSDEC, 2017m).

Black Pond WMA: Black Pond WMA is located on the Lake Ontario shoreline (see Inset 16), in the Town of Ellisburg. This 526-acre property is approximately 10.9 miles from the nearest proposed turbine and is primarily used for wildlife-dependent recreation. The property is a natural wetland complex comprised of barrier beach, dunes, open water, emergent marsh, and wooded/shrub swamp. It has been designated as a significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat by the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) because lakeshore barrier beach and wetland complexes, such as this WMA, are rare in New York. The WMA was also designated as part of the Eastern Lake Ontario Marshes Bird Conservation Area (BCA) by the state in 1998. This WMA has significant breeding and over-wintering habitat for birds, and falls within a critical migratory corridor (NYSDEC, 2017b).

Lakeview WMA: Located on the Lake Ontario shoreline in the Town of Ellisburg (approximately 13.5 miles from the nearest proposed turbine), this property encompasses 3,461 acres and is part of the largest natural fresh water barrier beach system in New York State. It is comprised of open fields, shrublands, woodlands, wetlands, and a natural barrier beach. The diversity of habitat on the WMA supports a variety of game and non-game wildlife species. The property is used primarily for hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing, and has three boat launches for water access (NYSDEC, 2017h).

Ashland Flats WMA: This property is located in the Town of Lyme, approximately 0.75 mile north of Chaumont Bay, and approximately 14.4 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. Ashland Flats WMA includes 2,040 acres of open meadows, successional communities and young forests on the Lake Ontario plains. Common wildlife include small game, deer, and grassland birds. Shaver creek traverses the property and small wetlands provide habitat for waterfowl and several furbearing mammals. The property is used for hunting, trapping, fishing, and bird watching (NYSDEC, 2017a).

Dexter Marsh WMA: Dexter Marsh WMA is located at the head of the Black River Bay, in the Towns of Hounsfield and Brownville, approximately 15.4 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. The 1,350-acre area is used primarily for fishing, hunting, trapping, and wildlife viewing. Wildlife that use the marsh include ducks, black terns, shore birds, and wading birds. Northern pike, bass, and panfish are found in the waters of the bay (NYSDEC, 2017e).

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

National Natural Landmarks: Review of the National Park Service National Natural Landmarks Program website indicates that two National Natural Landmarks (NNL) are located within the visual study area (NPS, 2017e). These include the following:

Inset 17 – Lakeview Marsh and Barrier Beach NNL

Lakeview Marsh and Barrier Beach NNL: In addition to being a New York State WMA, Lakeview Marsh and Barrier Beach is also an NNL (see Inset 17). This NNL was designated in 1973 because the area “is one of the best and most extensive marshlands that lie in protected bays and behind barrier beaches along eastern Lake Ontario.” The property consists of a marsh-swamp-pond complex that demonstrates great wetland diversity (NPS, 2017c).

Dexter Marsh NNL: Dexter Marsh WMA was also designated an NNL in 1973, because it is a relatively undisturbed example of a large bay-head marsh complex (NPS, 2017a).

National Parks, Recreation Areas, Seashores and/or Forests: Review of the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service websites regarding National Park Service Lands and National Forests (respectively) indicates that no National Parks, Recreation Areas, Seashores or Forests are located within the visual study area (NPS, 2017b; USFS, 2017).

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

National or State Designated Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers: Review of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers website and the NYSDEC Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers website indicates that no formally designated wild, scenic or recreational rivers are located within the visual study area (National Wild and Scenic Rivers, 2017; NYSDEC, 2017p). The Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) was also consulted, as it is somewhat equivalent to an eligible-for-listing designation. The NRI provides a listing of “free-flowing river segments in the United States that are believed to possess one or more outstandingly remarkable natural or cultural values judged to be of more than local or regional significance” (NPS, 2009). No NRI-listed river segments occur within the visual study area (NPS, 2009).

Sites, Areas, Lakes, Reservoirs or Highways Designated or Eligible as Scenic: One state-designated Scenic Byway, the Olympic Trail, is located within the visual study area (NYSDOT, 2017b). In addition, the Great Lakes Seaway Trail National Scenic Byway traverses the study area (America’s Byways, 2017). These scenic byways are described below.

Olympic Trail State Scenic Byway: This state Scenic Byway extends 170 miles from Lake Ontario at Sackets Harbor to Lake Champlain. The Scenic Byway is a historic transportation corridor connecting the eastern and western borders of New York State, linking Lake Ontario with Lake Champlain. The communities along the byway are historically important for their industrial heritage. Other features include the Fort Drum Military Reservation, natural scenic views, historic sites, historic rail corridors, and Lake Placid, the site of the 1932 and 1980 Olympics (NYSDOT, 2017b).

Great Lakes Seaway Trail National Scenic Byway: The Great Lakes Seaway Trail National Scenic Byway is a 518-mile scenic driving route that follows the shores of the St. Lawrence Seaway and Great Lakes in New York and Pennsylvania. Along the byway there are 1,000 islands, 29 lighthouses, sites associated with the War of 1812, farms, nature sites, harbors, fishing, bridges and ferries, the Seaway Discovery Center, historical locations, cultural heritage sites, and scenic views and vistas (America’s Byways, 2017; Seaway Trail, Inc., 2017). At its closest point, the Great Lakes Seaway Trail Scenic Byway is approximately 10.0 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. An overlook on the byway is located near Henderson Harbor, just over 10 miles from the nearest proposed turbine, and the Seaway Trail Discovery Center is located in the NRHP-listed Union Hotel in Sackets Harbor, approximately 12.9 miles from the nearest turbine. The discovery center provides visitors with information about the historic, cultural, recreational, natural, architectural, and agricultural resources along the Seaway Trail. The Chaumont River Bridge was recommended for inclusion as a visually sensitive resource during the VIA Outreach.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

The bridge is located on the portion of the Great Lakes Seaway Trail Scenic Byway along State Route 12E. The bridge is approximately 15.8 miles from the nearest proposed turbine.

Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance: According to the NYSDOS, there are no Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance within the visual study area.

State or Federal Designated Trails: No state- or federally-designated trails occur within the visual study area (NPS, 2017g; NYSOPRHP 2016; 2017d). However, several of the state-owned properties within the study area include recreational trails.

Adirondack Park Lands and Scenic Vistas: No portions of the Adirondack Park are located within the visual study area.

Palisades Park Land: No portions of the Palisades Park are located within the visual study area (Palisades Parks Conservancy, 2017).

State Nature and Historic Preserve Areas and Bond Act Properties (Exceptional Scenic Beauty, Open Space): Review of existing data did not identify any State Nature or Historic Preserve Areas or Bond Act Properties within the study area that were purchased under the Exceptional Scenic Beauty or Open Space Category.

Other Resources of Statewide or Regional Significance The visual study area includes a portion of the eastern end of Lake Ontario, which is considered a waterbody of regional significance. Lake Ontario is the smallest of the Great Lakes, covering a total of 7,340 square miles, with 634 miles of shoreline. The lake is a character-defining feature of the region. The lake provides numerous environmental and economic benefits to the region, and offers a variety of recreational opportunities for residents and visitors, including swimming, boating and fishing. The lake supports a diversity of fish species, including salmon, trout, northern pike, bass, walleye, carp, panfish, and muskellunge (Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plan [LAMP], 1998).

In addition, the following NYSDEC-owned properties that occur within the visual study area are considered resources of statewide significance:

Henderson Shores Unique Area: This unique area is a 1,160-acre reforestation area, located on the shore of Lake Ontario, in the Town of Henderson. It is approximately 6.5 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. The area is

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

a designated unique area because the underlying limestone of the property provides habitat for a variety specialized plants. The area also contains the “high banks” limestone cliffs that rise straight up from the surface of Lake Ontario and have been sculpted by wave action, resulting in a scenic view like none other along the Lake Ontario shoreline. Activities available at the unique area include hiking, paddling, fishing, hunting, trapping, and wildlife viewing (NYSDEC, 2017g).

Lake Ontario at the Isthmus Fishing Access Site: This fishing access site is located at the isthmus onto Point Peninsula in the Town of Lyme, approximately 7.6 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. The fishing access and boat launch were opened in the spring of 2014, and provide direct boat access to Lake Ontario. Along with a boat launch, the 12.3-acre property includes shoreline fishing access, two floating docks, parking for 25 vehicle and trailers, and an additional 10 vehicle parking spots (NYSDEC, 2014)

Stony Creek Fishing Access: The Stony Creek public fishing access is located in the Town of Henderson, approximately 9.9 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. NYSDEC purchased Public Fishing Rights (PFRs) along Stony Creek and maintains several public accesses to the creek. PFRs are permanent easements from willing landowners that allow anglers the right to fish and walk along the bank of the stream (NYSDEC, ndc).

Mud Bay Lake Ontario Waterway Access: Located on the western end of Mud Bay in the Town of Cape Vincent, this waterway access is located approximately 10.6 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. The facility can accommodate 10 cars and trailers (NYSDEC, 2017c).

Crystal Lake Waterway Access: The Crystal Lake Waterway Access is located four miles east of the Town of Henderson, and is approximately 14.2 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. The facility can accommodate 25 vehicles (NYSDEC, 2017c).

Three Mile Bay Lake Ontario Waterway Access: Located on the eastern end of Chaumont Bay in the Town of Lyme, the Three Mile Bay Waterway Access is approximately 14.4 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. The facility includes a concrete boat launch and a floating dock, and can accommodate six vehicles with trailers and an additional 10 vehicles (NYSDEC, 2014).

Cape Vincent Fisheries Research Station: Located in the Village of Cape Vincent, along the St. Lawrence River, the Cape Vincent Fisheries Research Station is approximately 14.7 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. The facility includes the offices of the NYSDEC Lake Ontario Fisheries Unit, the Cape Vincent Fisheries Aquarium,

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

picnic and fishing areas, and overnight dockage. It is also the vessel base for the R/V Seth Green, the NYSDEC fisheries research vessel used to conduct annual assessments of Lake Ontario’s fish stocks (NYSDEC, 2017n).

Three LWRP communities, including the Villages of Sackets Harbor, Cape Vincent, and Dexter, occur within the visual study area. According to the NYSDOS, “[a]ny village, town, or city located along the State’s coast or designated inland waterway can prepare a new, or amend an existing LWRP.” LWRPs prepared within the visual study area include the following:

Village of Sackets Harbor: The Village of Sackets Harbor LWRP is a comprehensive land and water use plan, focusing on the Village’s natural, public, and developed waterfront resources along Mill Creek, the Black River, and Lake Ontario (EDR, 2007; Village of Sackets Harbor, 1986)

Village of Cape Vincent: The Village of Cape Vincent LWRP is a comprehensive land and water use plan, focusing on natural, public, and developed waterfront resources along the St. Lawrence River (Village of Cape Vincent, 1988).

Village of Dexter: The Village of Dexter LWRP is a comprehensive land and water use plan, focusing on the Village’s natural, public, and developed waterfront resources along the Black River (Village of Dexter, 1985).

The LWRPs for the three villages were reviewed and visually sensitive resources within the LWRPs were identified for inclusion in aesthetic resources of local significance, discussed below and listed in Appendix C.

3.6.2 Aesthetic Resources of Local Significance

In addition to the scenic resources of statewide significance listed above, the visual study area also includes areas that are regionally or locally significant, sensitive to visual impacts, and/or receive significant public/recreational use. These locally significant aesthetic resources included recreation facilities, public open spaces, population centers, and heavily used transportation corridors (see Appendix C). Significant local/regional resources found within the study area are described below:

Recreational Resources: Recreational Resources within the visual study area include trails, local parks, water resources, nature preserves and conservation lands.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

The Thousand Islands Snowmobile Club manages over 80 miles of trails in the Thousand Islands region of New York (Thousand Islands Snowmobile Club, 2017), of which approximately 1.5 miles cross into the northern portion of the visual study area (connecting Cape Vincent to the trail network) and 1.6 miles cross into the northeastern portion of the visual study area near Chaumont. The following other local trails occur within the visual study area:

• Bicentennial Trail: The bicentennial trail is located in the Village of Sackets Harbor. The trail includes historic signs with facts about the War of 1812 and the role the Village played, as well as American and British monuments along one section. A trail extension is proposed to connect the trail to the Madison Barracks, which would make the trail greater than 5 miles in length.

• Green Infrastructure Walking Trail: The trail connects green infrastructure projects throughout the Village of Sackets Harbor, starting at the stormwater retention pond and ending at the energy efficient wastewater treatment plant.

Nine local parks/playgrounds occur within the visual study area. Four parks are located in the Town or Village of Cape Vincent, including the Town of Cape Vincent Recreation Park, the Cape Vincent Village Green, North Market Street Park, and the Waterfront Park and Boat Launch. Five parks are located in Sackets Harbor, including Market Square Park and Boat Launch, Washington Park, Stoodley Park, Ambrose Waterfront Park, and Fort Pike Park. In addition, two golf courses, Bedford Creek Golf Course and Rustic Golf and Country Club, are located in the visual study area.

Named water resources that offer recreational opportunities within the visual study area that have not been previously mentioned include Kents Creek, Lakeview Pond, Sixtown Pond (aka Crystal Lake), and Stony Creek. Additional smaller streams that provide fishing access include Bedford Creek, Bill Creek, Fox Creek, Gill Creek, Horse Creek, Little Fox Creek, Little Stony Creek, Mill Creek, Scotch Brook, Shaver Creek, Sherwin Creek, Soper Creek, Stony Creek, and Three Mile Creek.

Public Schools: Public schools within the visual study area include the Sackets Harbor Central School, Cape Vincent Elementary School, and Lyme Central School. Sackets Harbor Central School is located at 215 South Broad Street in the Village of Sackets Harbor, 13.0 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. During the 2015-2016 school year, 448 students, kindergarten through 12th grade, were enrolled in this school. Cape Vincent Elementary School, within the Thousand Islands Central School District, is located at 8481 Country Route 9 in Clayton, New York, 14.4 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. A

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

total of 396 students, kindergarten through 5th grade, were enrolled in this school during the 2015-2016 school year. Lyme Central School is located at 11868 Academy Street in Chaumont, New York, approximately 15.9 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. During the 2015-2016 school year, Lyme Central School had an enrollment of 358 students, pre- kindergarten through 12th grade (NYSED, 2017).

Areas of Intensive Land Use: Several areas of more concentrated settlement within and adjacent to the visual study area are considered visually sensitive due to the density of residential development or the type/intensity of land use they receive. The Village of Sackets Harbor has a population of 1,450 and is located approximately 11.7 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. The Village of Cape Vincent has a population of 726 and is located 13.8 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. The Village of Chaumont has a population of 624 and is located 15.6 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. The Village of Dexter has a population of 1,052 and is located 17.1 miles from the nearest proposed turbine (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Hamlets within the visual study area include Henderson Harbor, Point Peninsula, Henderson, Boultons Beach, Herrick Grove, Smithville, and Three Mile Bay.

Transportation Corridors: The visual study area includes several highways that could be considered visually sensitive due to the number of drivers that travel these roads on a daily basis. In addition, several county roads and two local roads were recommended to be included in the visual impact assessment during the VIA outreach effort. Table 3 includes NYSDOT 2015 traffic counts for roadways of concern within the study area.

Table 3. Traffic Counts for Major Transportation Corridors within the Visual Study Area Total Length Average Vehicles/Day Road within the 10-Mile Study Area (miles) on Segments within the Study Area State Route 12E 14.0 1200 – 1299 State Route 178 5.4 835 – 921 State Route 193 1.3 377 State Route 3 17.3 1532 – 3374 Stony Point Road 1.7 No count data available County Route 57 10.7 115 – 1,109 Shore Road 8.9 No count data available County Route 123 3.8 No count data available County Route 59 16.7 104 – 1,197 Source: NYSDOT, 2015

Other Local Resources:

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Several additional locally important resources, many of which were identified during the VIA outreach effort, do not fall under any of the categories listed above. These resources are included in the inventory of sensitive resources in Appendix C, some of which are described below:

Grenadier Island Grassland Preserve: Located on the northeastern corner of Lake Ontario, in the Town of Cape Vincent, Grenadier Island, is approximately 7.8 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. The island is approximately 1,700 acres in size, and consists of abandoned fields dominated by shrubs and grasslands, with little to no trees. The island was previously used as pastureland, but is currently managed as conservation land for wildlife and a portion of the island hosts a residential subdivision. The Island is divided amongst private land owners and the Thousand Islands Land Trust. Grenadier Island is also an important passerine and raptor breeding area (NYSDOS, 2017b).

Henderson Boat Launch: The boat launch, owned by the Town of Henderson, is located on Henderson Bay, approximately 9.9 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. The facility can accommodate approximately 80 vehicles with trailers (NYSDEC, 2017c).

El Dorado Beach Preserve: Acquired in 1969, the El Dorado Beach Preserve is owned and managed by The Nature Conservancy (TNC). The preserve is located along the shoreline of Lake Ontario in the Town of Ellisburg, approximately 10.1 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. The property consists of a freshwater dune barrier system along Lake Ontario, and provides important habitat for shorebirds, waterfowl, and song birds (TNC, 2017a).

Sackets Harbor Visitor Center: The Sackets Harbor Visitor Center is located in the Sacket Mansion, home of Sackets Harbor founder, Augustus Sacket. The visitor center is located approximately 13.0 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. The visitor center includes displays on the history of the village, artifacts, and a video.

Cape Vincent Historical Museum: The museum is located in the Village of Cape Vincent, and is approximately 14.6 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. The museum is located in one of the oldest buildings in the village and housed soldiers during the War of 1812.

Stony Point Lighthouse: Stony Point Lighthouse, originally built in 1838 (and replaced in 1869), is located on Stony Point, on the western edge of the Town of Henderson, on Henderson Bay.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

The Cut: “The Cut” is a local term for the opening in the break wall along the access road to Association Island. It is a highly used boating access point between Henderson Bay and Lake Ontario.

Scenic lookout – Top of Hill on Gilman Road: The lookout is located at the Top of Gilman Road, approximately 11.6 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. The site was recommended for inclusion as a visually sensitive resource during the VIA outreach effort.

Clark’s Point: Clark’s Point was recommended for inclusion of visually sensitive resources during the VIA outreach effort because of the open views of Lake Ontario available from this location. The site is approximately 8.4 miles from the nearest proposed turbine.

Parcel 61.51-1-42.1: During the VIA outreach effort, the Village of Chaumont Planning Board recommended adding parcel 61.51-1-42.1 to the list of visually sensitive resources. The parcel is currently for sale and could provide the public with waterfront access at an easy walking distance to the village business district.

Village of Chaumont Public Beach: During the VIA outreach effort, the Village of Chaumont Planning Board recommended adding the Village of Chaumont Public Beach to the list of visually sensitive resources. The beach is 15.7 miles from the nearest proposed turbine.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

4.0 Visual Impact Assessment Methodology

The Visual Impact Assessment procedures used for this study are consistent with methodologies developed by the U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM (1980), U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Forest Service (1995), the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (1981), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Smardon, et al., 1988) and the NYSDEC (not dated, 2000). These procedures are widely accepted as standard visual impact methodology for wind energy projects (CEIWEP, 2007). The specific techniques used to assess potential Project visibility and visual impacts are described in the following section.

4.1 Project Visibility

An analysis of Project visibility was undertaken to identify those locations within the visual study area where there is potential for the proposed wind turbines and collection substation to be seen from ground-level vantage points. This analysis included identifying potentially visible areas on viewshed maps and verifying Project visibility in the field. The methodology employed for each of these assessment techniques is described below.

4.1.1 Viewshed Analysis

Wind Turbine Viewshed Analysis Topographic viewshed maps for the proposed turbines were prepared using USGS 10-meter resolution digital elevation model (DEM) data for the visual study area, the location and height of all proposed turbines (see Figure 2), an assumed viewer height of 1.7 meters, and ESRI ArcGIS® software with the Spatial Analyst extension. Two topographic viewsheds were mapped for the visual study area, one to illustrate “worst case” daytime visibility (based on a maximum blade tip height of 585.6 feet, or 178.5 meters, above existing grade) and the other to illustrate potential visibility of FAA obstruction warning lights at night. The FAA warning light viewshed was based on an approximate light height of 377 feet, or 115 meters, above existing grade, and the assumption that all turbines would be equipped with warning lights.

The ArcGIS program defines the viewshed by reading every cell of the DEM data and assigning a value based upon the existence of a direct, unobstructed line of sight to proposed facility location/elevation coordinates from observation points throughout the visual study area. The resulting viewshed maps define the maximum area from which any portion of any turbine in the completed Project could potentially be seen within the study area during both daytime and nighttime hours based on a direct line of sight, and ignoring the screening effects of existing vegetation and structures. A turbine count analysis was performed to determine how many wind turbines are potentially visible from any given point within the

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

viewshed. The results of this analysis were then grouped by number of turbines potentially visible and presented on a viewshed map.

Because the screening provided by vegetation and structures is not considered in this analysis, the topographic viewshed represents a true "worst case" assessment of potential Project visibility. Topographic viewshed maps assume that no trees or man-made structures exist, and therefore are very accurate in predicting where visibility will not occur due to topographic interference. However, they are less accurate in identifying areas from which the Project could actually be visible. Trees and buildings can limit or eliminate visibility in areas indicated as having potential Project visibility in the topographic viewshed analysis.

To supplement the topographic viewshed analysis, a vegetation viewshed was also prepared to illustrate the potential screening provided by forest vegetation. A base vegetation layer was created using the 2011 USGS NLCD to identify the mapped location of forest land (including the Deciduous Forest, Evergreen Forest, and Mixed Forest NLCD classifications) within the visual study area. Based on standard visual assessment practice, the mapped locations of the forest land were assigned an assumed height of 40 feet and added to the DEM. The turbine viewshed analysis was then re-run, as described above. As with the topographic viewshed analysis, two vegetation viewsheds were mapped, one to illustrate “worst case” daytime visibility (based on a maximum blade tip height of 585.6 feet above existing grade) and the other to illustrate potential visibility of FAA warning lights (based on an approximate light fixture height of 377 feet above existing grade and the assumption that all turbines could be equipped with lights). Once the initial vegetation viewshed analysis was completed, a Spatial Analyst conditional statement was used to assign zero visibility to all areas of mapped forest, resulting in the final vegetation viewshed. The vegetation viewshed is based on the assumption that in most forested areas, outward views will be well screened by the overhead tree canopy. During the growing season the forest canopy will fully block views of the proposed turbines, and such views will typically be almost completely obscured, or at least significantly screened, by tree trunks and branches under “leaf-off” conditions as well. Although there are certainly areas of mapped forest that have natural or man-made clearings that could provide open outward views, these openings are rare, and the available views would typically be narrow/enclosed and include little of the proposed Project.

Because it accounts for the screening provided by mapped forest stands, the vegetation viewshed is a much more accurate representation of potential Project visibility. However, it is important to note that because screening provided by buildings and street/yard trees, as well as characteristics of the proposed turbines that influence visibility (color, narrow profile, distance from viewer, etc.), are not taken consideration in the viewshed analyses, being within the viewshed does not necessarily equate to actual Project visibility.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Substation Viewshed Analysis An additional viewshed analysis was completed to determine the potential visibility of the proposed on-island collection substation. Using the same methodology described above, the collection station viewshed included a separate, 5-mile study area. This reduced study area was incorporated due to the relatively low height and narrow profile of the substation elements, which from a practical standpoint, will not be visible at distances over 5 miles. The viewshed analysis sampled the lightening masts, which are the tallest components within the substation, at a maximum height of 70 feet. The substation viewshed analysis was based on topography and vegetation, utilizing the same process as previously described.

4.1.2 Field Verification

EDR personnel conducted visual field review in the study area on September 28 and 29, 2016, October 4, 2016, February 9, 2017 and June 22, 2017. During the September and February site visits, EDR staff members drove public roads and visited public vantage points within the mainland portion of the visual study area to document locations from which the turbines would likely be visible, partially screened, or fully screened. The site visits on October 4, 2016 and June 22, 2017 involved field photography from a boat on Lake Ontario to document baseline visual conditions at offshore locations. Determination of potential Project visibility from viewpoints throughout the study area was made based on the visibility of Galloo Island and the surrounding landforms, as well as existing tall structures (such as the communication tower) on Galloo Island, which served as locational and scale references. As a result of these site visits, photographs were obtained from 135 representative viewpoints within the visual study area. Photos from these viewpoints document potential visibility of the Project from the various LSZs, distance zones, directions, visually sensitive resources, and area of high public use throughout the study area. Representative photographs documenting the general view toward the Project site from each viewpoint are included in Appendix B.

Fieldwork conducted on September 28 and 29, 2016 consisted of land-based photography under clear skies and low relative humidity, which allowed for the documentation of more distant coastal views toward Galloo Island. This fieldwork was completed during leaf-on conditions, but due to the coastal focus of these views, summer vegetation did not limit visibility from most locations (however, to document views during leaf-off conditions, a supplemental site visit to selected mainland viewpoints was conducted on February 9, 2017). An additional site visit was conducted on October 4, 2016 to capture on- water views closer to Galloo Island and the proposed Project. As shown in the photolog included in Appendix B, these photos were also taken during leaf-on conditions. Weather conditions consisted of mostly cloudy skies, but visibility was generally acceptable since the views were closer to Galloo Island. A follow-up site visit to capture photos on the water under better sky conditions was conducted on June 22, 2017.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

During each site visit, field crews visited public vantage points within the 15-mile radius study area and documented available views toward the Project site using digital SLR cameras with a minimum resolution of 24 megapixels3. The Nikon D7100 cameras utilized a focal length between 28 and 35 mm (equivalent to between 45 and 55 mm on a standard 35 mm film camera) and the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV, a full frame camera utilized a fixed 50mm lens. This focal length is the standard used in visual impact assessment because it most closely approximates normal human perception of spatial relationships and scale in the landscape (CEIWEP, 2007). At most locations, a series of overlapping photos were taken to document a much larger field of view. Viewpoint locations were determined using hand-held global positioning system (GPS) units and high resolution aerial photographs (digital ortho quarter quadrangles). The time and location of each photo were documented on all electronic equipment (cameras, GPS units, etc.) and noted on field maps and data sheets. Viewpoints photographed during field review generally represented the most open, unobstructed available views toward the Project.

4.1.3 Line of Sight Cross Section Analysis

Line-of-sight cross sections were also prepared to demonstrate potential Project visibility and sources of screening from precise locations along a single line “cut” through the landscape. The cross sections were prepared using USGS 10-meter resolution DEM data for the visual study area, NLCD vegetation data, aerial photographs, and the location and height of the proposed turbines. A single line was drawn from a specific resource to the nearest proposed turbine using Blue Marble Geographics, Global Mapper® software. The NLCD vegetation layer was assigned a height of 40 feet and then merged with the DEM elevation data. The line was then used to create a cross sectional sample of the resulting elevation layer. This information was exported to AutoCAD® as a to-scale drawing and then stylized in Adobe Illustrator®. The to-scale turbine was then added to the cross section and existing buildings digitized from aerial photographs. Next, individual sight lines are drawn from the tip of the turbine blade, to the ground level. Where sight lines were uninterrupted by vegetation or structures, the cross section was coded as having Project visibility.

4.2 Project Visual Impact

Beyond evaluating potential Project visibility, the VIA also examined the visual impact of the proposed Project on the aesthetic resources, and viewer groups within the visual study area. This assessment involved creating computer models of the proposed turbine model and turbine layout, as well as other visible Project components, including the met towers, O&M building, and on-island substation. Representative viewpoints from within the study area were selected, and the models of Project components were used to prepare computer-assisted visual simulations of the completed Project. These

3 Digital SLR cameras used in the photography fieldwork included Canon EOS 5D Mark IV and Nikon D7100.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

simulations were then evaluated by a panel of three registered landscape architects (two in-house and one independent) to determine the type and extent of visual impact resulting from Project construction. Details of the visual impact assessment procedures are described below.

4.2.1 Viewpoint Selection

16 NYCRR § 1000.24(b)(4) requires that “the applicant shall confer with municipal planning representatives, DPS, DEC, OPRHP, and where appropriate, APA in its selection of important or representative viewpoints.”4 Building on the consultation with municipal representatives and stakeholders to identify visually sensitive sites (as described above in Section 3.6 of this VIA), EDR conducted additional outreach to agency staff and stakeholder groups to determine an appropriate set of viewpoints for the development of visual simulations. Copies of the correspondence sent by EDR as part of this process, as well as responses received from stakeholders, is included as Appendix F of this VIA. This outreach included:

• On May 26, 2017, in accordance with Article 10, Exhibit 24, Section 1001.24(b)(4), EDR distributed a memorandum entitled “Galloo Island Wind Energy – Recommendations for Visual Simulations” (EDR, 2016) to the same agencies and stakeholders that were previously engaged to identify visually sensitive resources (see Appendix F). This memo included 1) a summary of research and consultation undertaken as part of the VIA to date, 2) a description of the field review/photography for the Project, 3) a rationale for viewpoint selection and, 4) the identification of 16 viewpoints recommended for the development of visual simulations. The rationale provided for viewpoint selection included the following factors:

. Providing representative views from the various LSZs and Distance Zones within the study area. . The locations of visually sensitive resources/sites within the study area, including sites recommended by the DPS and other stakeholders during review of the Project’s Preliminary Scoping Statement (PSS) and the October 2016 VIA outreach effort. . The predicted visibility of the Project based on viewshed analysis. . The availability of open views towards the proposed Project as determined by field review/site visits.

4 Note: “DPS” is the New York State Department of Public Service, “DEC” is the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “OPRHP” is the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, and “APA” is the Adirondack Park Agency. The APA is not applicable in this instance due to the Project’s location (i.e., not in the vicinity of the Adirondack Park).

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

• On June 14, 2017, EDR received a letter from the Town of Lyme regarding the Recommendations for Visual Simulations. The letter indicated a need for an additional simulation with a more open, and unobstructed view from Point Peninsula, in the Town of Lyme. • On June 15, 2017, EDR received a letter from DPS staff in response to the May 26, 2017 memo which recommended several additional sites for inclusion in the VIA. These were taken into consideration in the viewpoint selection process. • On June 17, 2017, EDR received a letter from the Town of Henderson which included requests for seven additional locations within the visual study area to be considered for simulations. While some of these points had already been recommended in the May 26, 2017 memo, those locations not previously included were taken into consideration. As a follow-up to the comments provided in the above-referenced correspondence, EDR summarized and consolidated the comments in order to determine the need for additional photo documentation and simulations.

Based on the outcome of stakeholder and agency consultation, a total of 19 unique locations were selected for the development of visual simulations. At two of these locations an extra simulation was prepared to illustrate either nighttime conditions or leaf-off conditions, resulting in a total of 21 individual simulations. Viewpoint 94 is a duplication of Viewpoint 12 during leaf-off conditions, and Viewpoint 22 is a nighttime representation of viewpoint 4. All viewpoints were selected based upon the following criteria:

1. They provide open views of the proposed Project (as indicated by field verification), or provide representative views of the screening effects of vegetation and/or buildings from selected areas. 2. They illustrate Project visibility from selected sensitive resources within the visual study area, including those identified by local stakeholders and State agencies. 3. They illustrate typical views from LSZs where views of the Project will be available. 4. They illustrate typical views of the proposed Project that will be available to representative viewer/user groups within the visual study area. 5. They illustrate typical views from a variety of viewer distances, and under different lighting/sky conditions, to illustrate the range of visual change that will occur with the Project in place. 6. The photos obtained from the viewpoints display good composition, lighting, and exposure.

Locational details and the criteria for selection of each simulation viewpoint are summarized in Table 4, below:

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Table 4. Viewpoints Selected for Simulation

Distance to Distance nearest Visible Sensitive VP Location Municipality LSZ Justification Zone Component Site (miles)1

View from Town of Maintained CR 59, Lake Representative view from 2 County Route Background 9.7 Brownville Waterfront Ontario within the Town of Brownville 59

View from A visually sensitive resource Village of Madison Madison Maintained and view from within Village of 4 Sackets Background 13.5 Barracks, Barracks Waterfront Sackets Harbor that has an Harbor Lake Ontario Marina open view of Galloo Island Nighttime view Robert from Robert Wehle State Demonstrates an elevated Wehle State Town of Naturalistic 7 Background 6.2 Park, nighttime view from multiple Park, Henderson Waterfront Snakefoot visually sensitive resource. Snakefoot Trail Trail A visually sensitive resource View from Robert demonstrating one of a few Robert Wehle Town of Maintained 9 Background 6.0 Wehle State limited views along the State Park, Henderson Waterfront Park shoreline within Robert Wehle Guest Cottage State Park View from Great Lakes Route 3 An elevated view adjacent to Seaway Trail Scenic Byway Town of Agricultural/Rural multiple visually sensitive 12 Background 10.3 National near Henderson Residential resources. Stakeholder Scenic Henderson recommended viewpoint. Byway Harbor View from Black Pond Visually sensitive resource Wildlife Town of Naturalistic Black Pond 18 Background 11.2 with an open, water level view Management Ellisburg Waterfront Trail of Galloo Island Area, Black Pond Trail View from Visually sensitive resource Southwick Southwick Town of Maintained which demonstrates Project 20 Background 13.4 Beach State Beach State Ellisburg Waterfront visibility from within Southwick Park Park Beach State Park Madison Multiple visually sensitive Nighttime view Barracks, Village of resources from within the from Madison Naturalistic Lake 22 Sackets Background 13.5 Village of Sackets Harbor - Barracks Waterfront/Village Ontario, Harbor demonstrating nighttime Marina Black River visibility of the Project Bay View from Visually sensitive resource Lakeview Town of Naturalistic Big Dead which demonstrates water- 23 Marsh and Background 13.8 Ellisburg Waterfront Maple Trail level visibility from a National Barrier Beach Natural Landmark. NNL

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Distance to Distance nearest Visible Sensitive VP Location Municipality LSZ Justification Zone Component Site (miles)1 View from Proximate to multiple visually Ambrose Village of Hamlet of sensitive resources identified 28 Waterfront Sackets Background Village 12.2 Boultons by the Village of Sackets Park, Boultons Harbor Beach Harbor. Beach View from Visually sensitive resource of Sackets Village of Maintained Sackets national, state, and local Harbor 31 Sackets Background Waterfront, 12.8 Harbor State importance within the Village Battlefield, Harbor Village Historic Site of Sackets Harbor with Project State Historic visibility. Site Visually sensitive resource View from Town of Maintained Tibbetts demonstrating Project visibility 38 Tibbetts Point Cape Background 12.4 Waterfront Point Light from the northern portion of Lighthouse Vincent the Visual Study Area. Viewpoint demonstrates visibility from the View from Town of successional/wetland LSZ as Successional/ 41 Boat Launch Cape Background 10.5 Lake Ontario requested by DPS. Wetland on Lisa Drive Vincent Demonstrates partial screening provided by Grenadier Island. Representative view from an View from Getman Town of Maintained NRHP site on Point Peninsula, 43 Getman Background 6.4 Farmhouse Lyme Waterfront Requested by the Town of Farmhouse (Vicinity) Lyme and DPS. Visually sensitive resource with representative view from View from Town of Naturalistic Chaumont Chaumont Bay in the Village of 51 Chaumont Background 15.7 Lyme Waterfront/Village Bay Chaumont and demonstrating Bay partial screening provided by Point Peninsula Representative view from Lake View from Town of Ontario demonstrating visibility 66 Northeast of Mid-ground Open Water 1.0 Lake Ontario Hounsfield within the mid-ground distance Galloo Island zone. View from Westcott Visually sensitive resource Beach State Westcott Town of with elevated, inland visibility 75 Park Background Forest 13.1 Beach State Henderson of the Project. DPS Campground Park recommended resource. Scenic Overlook View from Great Lakes An elevated view adjacent to Route 3 Seaway Trail multiple visually sensitive Scenic Byway Town of Agricultural/ 94 Background 10.3 National resources. Leaf-off near Henderson Rural Residential Scenic representation of Viewpoint Henderson Byway 12. Harbor

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Distance to Distance nearest Visible Sensitive VP Location Municipality LSZ Justification Zone Component Site (miles)1 Demonstration of Project View from visibility in foreground range Lake Ontario, Town of 103 Foreground Open Water 0.2 Lake Ontario and visibility of the Collection East of Galloo Hounsfield Substation. Recommended by Island DPS. Demonstration of Project View from visibility in foreground distance Lake Ontario, Town of 120 Foreground Open Water 0.5 Lake Ontario zone. Public view of a private Southwest of Hounsfield NRHP site (Galloo Island Galloo Island Lighthouse) Demonstration of Project View from visibility in foreground range Lake Ontario, Town of 124 Foreground Open Water 0.2 Lake Ontario and visibility of other Project East of Galloo Hounsfield facilities (O&M Facility and Island Dock.) 1Distance from viewpoint to nearest visible Project component (in miles)

4.2.2 Visual Simulations

To show anticipated visual changes associated with the proposed Project, high-resolution computer-enhanced image processing was used to create realistic photographic simulations of the proposed Project from each of the 22 selected viewpoints. The photographic simulations were developed by using Autodesk 3ds Max Design® (3DMAX) to create a simulated perspective (camera view) to match the location, bearing, and focal length of each existing conditions photograph. Existing elements in the view (e.g., topography, buildings, roads) were modeled based on aerial photographs and DEM data in AutoCAD Civil 3D®. A three dimensional (3-D) topographic mesh of the landform (based on DEM data) was then brought into the 3-D model space. At this point minor adjustments were made to camera and target location, focal length, and camera roll to align all modeled elements with the corresponding elements in the photograph. This assures that any elements introduced to the model space (i.e., the proposed turbines) will be shown in proportion, perspective, and proper relation to the existing landscape elements in the view. Consequently, the alignment, elevations, dimensions and locations of the proposed Project structures will be accurate and true in their relationship to other landscape elements in the photograph.

Computer models of the proposed turbine layout, met towers, O&M building, barge landing, and collection substation were prepared based on specifications and data provided by the Project Developer. For the purposes of this analysis it was assumed that all turbines would be General Electric GE 3.6-137 machines with a hub height of 110 meters (361 feet) and a rotor diameter of 137meters (450 feet; see Figure 3) as this is the tallest turbine model under consideration for the Facility. All turbine rotors were modeled facing into the prevailing wind (i.e., oriented to the west). Using the camera view as guidance, the visible portions of the modeled Project components were imported to the landscape model space described

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

above, and set at the proper coordinates. Coordinates for proposed Project components, were provided to EDR by the Applicant.

Once the proposed Project was accurately aligned within the camera view, a lighting system was created based on the actual time, date, and location of the photograph. Using the Mental Ray Rendering System® with Final Gather and Mental Ray Daylight System ® within the 3DMAX software, light reflection, highlights, color casting, and shadows were accurately rendered on the modeled Project based on actual environmental conditions represented in the photograph. The rendered Project was then superimposed over the photograph in Adobe Photoshop® and portions of the turbines that fell behind vegetation, structures or topography were masked out. Photoshop was also used to take out any existing structures or vegetation proposed to be removed as part of the Project. Once the Project components were added to the photo, any shadows cast on the ground by the proposed structures were also included by rendering a separate “shadow pass” over the DEM model in 3DMAX and then overlaying the shadows on the simulated view with the proper fall-off and transparency using Photoshop. A graphic illustration of the simulation process is included in Figure 7.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Figure 7. Visual Simulation Methodology (1 sheet)

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

4.2.3 Visual Contrast Rating

To evaluate anticipated visual change, the photographic simulations of the completed Project were compared to photos of existing conditions from each of the 22 selected viewpoints. These “before” and “after” photographs, identical in every respect except for the Project components shown in the simulated views, were provided as 11 x 17 inch color prints to three registered landscape architects (two in-house and one independent), who were then asked to determine the effect of the proposed Project in terms of its contrast with existing elements of the landscape. The methodology utilized in this evaluation is a simplified version of the BLM contrast rating methodology (USDI BLM, 1980) that was developed by EDR for use on wind power projects. It involves using a short evaluation form, and a simple numerical rating process. Along with having proven to be accurate in predicting public reaction to wind power facilities, this methodology 1) documents the basis for conclusions regarding visual impact, 2) allows for independent review and replication of the evaluation, and 3) allows a large number of viewpoints to be evaluated in a reasonable amount of time. Landscape, viewer, and project-related factors considered by the landscape architects in their evaluation include the following:

• Landscape Composition: The arrangement of objects and voids in the landscape that can be categorized by their spatial arrangement. Basic landscape components include vegetation, landform, water and sky. Some landscape compositions, especially those that are distinctly focal, enclosed, detailed, or feature-oriented, are more vulnerable to modification than panoramic, canopied, or ephemeral landscapes.

• Form, Line, Color, and Texture: These are the four major compositional elements that define the perceived visual character of a landscape, as well as a project. Form refers to the shape of an object that appears unified; often defined by edge, outline, and surrounding space. Line refers to the path the eye follows when perceiving abrupt changes in form, color, or texture; usually evident as the edges of shapes or masses in the landscape. Texture in this context refers to the visual surface characteristics of an object. The extent to which form, line, color, and texture of a project are similar to, or contrast with, these same elements in the existing landscape is a primary determinant of visual impact.

• Focal Point: Certain natural or man-made landscape features stand out and are particularly noticeable as a result of their physical characteristics. Focal points often contrast with their surroundings in color, form, scale or texture, and therefore tend to draw a viewer’s attention. Examples include prominent trees, mountains and water features. Cultural features, such as a distinctive barn or steeple can also be focal points. If possible, a proposed project should not be sited so as to obscure or compete with important existing focal points in the landscape.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

• Order: Natural landscapes have an underlying order determined by natural processes. Cultural landscapes exhibit order by displaying traditional or logical patterns of land use/development. Elements in the landscape that are inconsistent with this natural order may detract from scenic quality. When a new project is introduced to the landscape, intactness and order are maintained through the repetition of the forms, lines, colors, and textures existing in the surrounding built or natural environment.

• Scenic or Recreational Value: Designation as a scenic or recreational resource is an indication that there is broad public consensus on the value of that particular resource. The particular characteristics of the resource that contribute to its scenic or recreational value provide guidance in evaluating a project’s visual impact on that resource.

• Duration of View: Some views are seen as quick glimpses while driving along a roadway or hiking a trail, while others are seen for a more prolonged period of time. Longer duration views of a project, especially from significant aesthetic resources, have the greatest potential for visual impact.

• Atmospheric Conditions: Clouds, precipitation, haze, and other ambient air related conditions, which affect the visibility of an object or objects. These conditions can greatly impact the visibility and contrast of landscape and project components, and the design elements of form, line, color, texture, and scale.

• Lighting Direction: Backlighting refers to a viewing situation in which sunlight is coming toward the observer from behind a feature or elements in a scene. Front lighting refers to a situation where the light source is coming from behind the observer and falling directly upon the area being viewed. Side lighting refers to a viewing situation in which sunlight is coming from the side of the observer to a feature or elements in a scene. Lighting direction can have a significant effect on the visibility and contrast of landscape and project elements.

• Project Scale: The apparent size of a proposed project in relation to its surroundings can define the compatibility of its scale within the existing landscaping. Perception of project scale is likely to vary depending on the distance from which it is seen and other contextual factors.

• Spatial Dominance: The degree to which an object or landscape element occupies space in a landscape, and thus dominates landscape composition from a particular viewpoint.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

• Visual Clutter: Numerous unrelated built elements occurring within a view can create visual clutter, which adversely impacts scenic quality.

• Movement: Moving project components can make them more noticeable, but in the case of wind turbines, have also been shown to also make them appear more functional and visually appealing. Numerous studies have documented that viewers prefer to see wind turbines in motion. The following quote and citations are taken from an on-line summary of perceptional studies of wind farms conducted by the Macaulay Land Research Institute (MLURI, 2010):

“Motion has also been indicated as a powerful predictor of preference (Gipe, 1993; Thayer and Freeman, 1987). This is a unique feature of wind turbines in comparison with other forms of static structures. People find wind farms that appear to be working by relating this with moving rotors as more attractive than those that do not. Motion is equated with lower perceived visual impact (Gipe, 1993). They are likely to find wind farms visually interesting because of their motion. In this mode, the turbines are perceived as abstract sculptures, arousing interest with their novel, unfamiliar forms and animation (Thayer and Hansen, 1988).”

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

5.0 Visual Impact Assessment Results

5.1 Project Visibility

5.1.1 Viewshed Analysis Results

Wind Turbine Viewshed Analysis Potential wind turbine visibility, as indicated by the viewshed analyses, is illustrated in Figure 8 and summarized in Table 5. Based only on the screening provided by topography, the blade tip viewshed analysis indicates some portion of the proposed turbine array could potentially be visible from approximately 96% of the visual study area (Figure 8, Sheet 1). This "worst case" assessment of potential visibility indicates the area where any portion of any turbine could potentially be seen, without considering the screening effect of existing vegetation and structures. The high percentage of Project visibility is not surprising given that over 75% of the visual study area is occupied by open water. Furthermore, many on-shore areas are sloped toward Lake Ontario, offering little topographic screening. Excluding open water areas from the results reveals that approximately 85% of the landward study area could potentially have views of the proposed Project. Areas where turbine visibility is screened by intervening topography include: near-shore areas on the far side of islands and peninsulas, oriented away from the Project (e.g., the northeast shore of Point Peninsula and the north shore of Grenadier Island); inland stream valleys (e.g., Kent’s Creek and Stony Creek); and other low-lying inland areas. These areas are most notable in the Towns of Cape Vincent, Henderson, and Ellisburg. Review of the turbine count analysis indicates that in most locations where potential Project visibility is indicated, greater than 25 turbines could be visible.

As indicated in Appendix C, 38 of the 262 identified visually sensitive resources within the visual study area will be fully screened from views of the proposed Project by intervening topography alone. These resources include 19 NRHP-listed sites, six NRHP-eligible sites, six locally important recreational resources, NYSDEC’s Cape Vincent Fisheries Research Station, and four additional resources of local significance. The majority of these resources are located in the Town of Cape Vincent. An additional 96 resources will experience some level of topographic screening (i.e., may have views of the Project from some vantage points, but views will be screened from other vantage points within their mapped boundary). For example, the NRHP-listed Madison Barracks is indicated as having partial visibility because, although the viewshed results indicate visibility from much of the site, the portion of the site along Mill Creek is screened from view. The analysis indicates that the remaining 128 resources will not experience any level of topographic screening, and would theoretically have open views of the Project if vegetation and structures did not exist on the landscape.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Table 5. Summary of Turbine Viewshed Results

Visual Study Area Viewshed Results1,2 Blade Tip FAA/Nacelle Number of Blade Tip FAA/Nacelle Topography Topography Turbines Topography Only Topography Only and Vegetation and Vegetation Visible Square % of Square % of Square % of Square % of Miles Study Area Miles Study Area Miles Study Area Miles Study Area 0 27.7 4.1 102.6 15.4 37.8 5.7 116.3 17.4 1-6 2.0 0.3 7.2 1.1 2.9 0.4 8.4 1.3 7-12 1.9 0.3 6.0 0.9 2.6 0.4 6.9 1.0 13-18 2.0 0.3 6.1 0.9 2.7 0.4 6.9 1.0 19-24 2.5 0.4 6.2 0.9 3.3 0.5 7.4 1.1 25-30 630.8 94.5 539.2 80.8 617.7 92.6 521.4 78.1 Total Visible 639.4 95.8 564.5 84.6 629.3 94.3 550.8 82.5 Landward Study Area Viewshed Results1,2 0 23.4 15.5 92.5 61.1 30.2 19.9 100.9 66.7 1-6 1.4 0.9 5.1 3.4 1.8 1.2 5.3 3.5 7-12 1.2 0.8 4.3 2.9 1.6 1.1 4.3 2.8 13-18 1.3 0.9 4.4 2.9 1.7 1.1 4.3 2.8 19-24 1.6 1.1 4.1 2.7 2.0 1.3 3.9 2.6 25-30 122.2 80.8 41.1 27.1 114.0 75.3 32.8 21.7 Total Visible 127.8 84.5 58.7 38.8 121.1 80.0 50.4 1The visual study area encompasses 667.1 square miles. The landward portion of the visual study area totals 151.3 square miles and the remaining 515.8 square miles are comprised of Lake Ontario and its associated bays. 2The numbers presented in this table have been rounded to the nearest tenth of a square mile or tenth of a percent, thereby introducing a small margin of rounding error. The totals presented herein are based on more precise figures.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Figure 8. Viewshed Analyses 5 Sheets

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Areas of potential nighttime visibility, as indicated by the FAA topographic viewshed analysis (Figure 8, Sheet 2; Table 5) include approximately 94% of the visual study area, and approximately 80% of the landward study area. This analysis indicates that potential visibility of FAA warning lights will generally be concentrated in the same areas where potential daytime blade-tip height visibility is indicated, only to a slightly lesser geographic extent. As stated above, this topographic analysis presents a "worst case" assessment of potential nighttime visibility that does not take into account the screening effect of existing vegetation and structures.

Factoring vegetation into the viewshed analysis significantly reduces potential Project visibility throughout the landward portion of the study area (Figure 8, Sheets 3 and 4). Within the visual study area, vegetation, in combination with topography, will serve to block daytime views of the Project from approximately 15% of the visual study area and approximately 61% of the landward study area (i.e., 85% and 39% of the study areas, respectively, are indicated as having potential Project visibility). Areas of potential nighttime visibility, as indicated by FAA vegetation viewshed analysis, cover approximately 83% of the visual study area and approximately 33% of the landward study area. This analysis indicates that, in addition to unscreened visibility from most open water areas, views of the Project will generally be most available along the shoreline (particularly developed portions of the shoreline), as well as in open agricultural areas, large wetland complexes, and areas of successional vegetation. Visibility is also indicated in the Villages of Sackets Harbor and Chaumont. However, buildings and street trees, which are not accounted for in this analysis, will likely screen many of those views. The Village of Cape Vincent is anticipated to have limited Project visibility along its southern boundary, but will otherwise be screened from view. Viewshed results also indicate that the small portion of the Village of Dexter that falls within the visual study area should be fully screened as well. It is also worth noting that if the FAA allows deployment of a radar-activated warning light system on this Project, nighttime visibility would be limited to those relatively rare instances when aircraft pass in proximity to the Project, activating the lights.

Factoring vegetation into the viewshed analysis eliminates visibility from another 35 of the inventoried visually sensitive resources, in addition to the 38 resources screened by topography alone (see Appendix C). These resources include five NRHP-listed sites; six NRHP-eligible sites; Long Point State Park; Stony Creek Boat Launch Marine Facility; NYSDEC properties, including Henderson Shores Unique Area, Crystal Lake Waterway Access, and Stony Creek Fishing Access; the hamlets of Point Peninsula and Smithville, the Village (and LWRP community) of Dexter, several trails within Robert Wehle State Park, Rustic Golf and Country Club, the “Top of Hill” on Gilman Road, and three locally important recreational resources. These resources are scattered throughout the visual study area, but are more heavily concentrated in the Town of Henderson.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

0According to this analysis, 117 of the identified visually sensitive resources will experience partial screening from the combination of mapped forest vegetation and topography, and the remaining 72 resources are indicated as having fully unobstructed views of the Project. The latter resources are primarily located along the shoreline, and are concentrated in the Villages of Sackets Harbor and Chaumont, and the hamlets of Three Mile Bay and Henderson Harbor. They include 14 NRHP-listed sites; 39 NRHP-eligible sites; the Galloo Island Lake Ontario Islands WMA and Little Galloo Lake Ontario Islands WMA; the hamlet of Boultons Beach; Stony Point Road; Ambrose Waterfront Park; Fort Pike Park and Trail; Battlefield Trail; Lake Ontario at the Isthmus Fishing Access Site; local historic resources including Fort Pike, Pickering- Beach Museum and Cottage, and Sackets Harbor Battlefield Museum; and other locally important resources including Stony Point Lighthouse, The Cut, the Lookout at Westcott Beach Campground, the Chaumont River Bridge, and the Village of Chaumont Beach. However, as mentioned previously, areas of actual visibility are anticipated to be more limited than indicated by the vegetation viewshed analysis, due to the slender profile of the turbines, the effects of distance, and screening from street trees, hedgerows, smaller wooded lots, and man-made structures, which are not considered in this analysis.

An analysis comparing potential daytime Project visibility within each LSZ is presented in Table 6 (below) and indicates that the screening effects of topography and forest vegetation are highly variable among the various zones, resulting in substantially different levels of potential visibility.

Table 6. Summary of Blade Tip Vegetation Viewshed Results by Landscape Similarity Zone Visual Study Area1 Blade Tip Vegetation Viewshed Results by Landscape Similarity Zone (LSZ) (% of LSZ w/ Potential Project Visibility) Number of Turbines Visible Open Maintained Naturalistic Agricultural/ Successional/ Village Forest2 Water Waterfront Waterfront Rural Residential Wetland

0 2.1 39.9 48.1 58.1 48.9 60.9 100

1-6 0.4 2.4 2.5 2.1 4.7 3.2 0

7-12 0.3 1.9 2.9 2.0 4.0 2.8 0

13-18 0.4 1.9 2.6 2.7 3.7 2.9 0

19-24 0.4 2.2 2.3 2.3 3.6 2.9 0

25-30 96.3 51.7 41.6 32.8 35.2 27.4 0

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Total Percent 97.9 60.1 51.9 41.9 51.1 39.1 0 Visible 1The visual study area encompasses 667.4 square miles. 2The viewshed analysis methodology concludes that there is no visibility in Forested areas as an assumption of the model. However, it is possible that areas classified as forest, especially on the edges, will have small areas of visibility (See Section 4.1.1).

Potential visibility of the Project (based on vegetation viewshed analysis) from the various LSZs within the study area is summarized as follows:

• The highest concentration of potential Project visibility is within the Open Water LSZ, with anticipated wind turbine visibility from approximately 97.9% of open water areas. This is not surprising, given that the Project is surrounded by open water, which makes up over 75% of the visual study area. The lack of topography and vegetation within this LSZ results in widespread open views except in areas that are screened by adjacent landforms. • The Project may be visible from approximately 60.1% of the Maintained Waterfront LSZ and approximately 51.9% of the Naturalistic Waterfront LSZ. Visibility is typically indicated in portions of these LSZs that are west-facing, while areas such as the back sides of islands (i.e., the side oriented away from Galloo Island) and waterfront along the north/south/east facing sides of the bays tend to be screened from view. Chaumont Bay is a notable exception, as visibility is indicated along the majority of its waterfront, regardless of orientation. Sizable areas of screened waterfront include the southern extent of Henderson Bay, the northern and southern portions of Black River Bay, the west side of Stony Island, the northeast side of Point Peninsula, the northern side of Grenadier and Fox Islands, the inner reach of Mud Bay, the eastern end of Wilson Bay, and the north-facing shoreline of the Town of Cape Vincent. • The Village LSZ is indicated as having potential views of the Project from approximately 41.9% of its area. Each of the villages within the visual study area are located along the shoreline and, as such, have increased potential for Project visibility. However, as mentioned previously, the viewshed analysis does not take into consideration the screening provided by structures and street trees, which are abundant features within this LSZ. Therefore, it is likely that the viewshed substantially overstates visibility within this LSZ in particular, due to that limitation of the analysis. • The proposed Project may be visible from approximately 41.9% of the Agricultural/Rural Residential LSZ. The viewshed results within this LSZ do not reveal a readily discernable geographic pattern, rather, they indicate a fairly consistent mix of visibility throughout the LSZ. Relatively elevated areas situated away from adjacent forest stands have the highest potential for Project visibility. • This analysis indicates that views of the Project may be available from approximately 39.1% of the Successional/Wetland LSZ. Larger areas of potential visibility within this LSZ include much of Galloo Island itself,

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

as well as the majority of Grenadier Island; the area between Dutch Point Road and Huff Road in the Town of Cape Vincent; large wetland complexes near the shoreline in the Town of Ellisburg in the western portion of Point Peninsula, and on either side of Swamp Road in the Town of Lyme (overlapping slightly into the Town of Cape Vincent). It should be noted that review of aerial photographs indicated that some wetland areas (such as the coastal wetlands in Ellisburg) may be heavily forested, and therefore, would include substantially less visible area than indicated by the viewshed analysis. • The Forest LSZ is indicated as having essentially no potential for Project visibility due to the screening effects of the forest canopy and the assumption of the viewshed model that views from areas of mapped forest will be screened. However, due to the resolution (30-meter by 30-meter cell size) of the USGS NLCD data used to classify forested areas, the mapping of the Forest LSZ may not be a precise match to vegetation conditions in some locations. These digital data do not recognize small clearings or other breaks in the vegetation that may allow for occasional outward views from forest areas. However, the occurrence of these areas is generally limited, and there will be little to no Project visibility from forested areas, particularly during the growing season.

Substation Viewshed Analysis The substation viewshed analysis suggests that approximately 69.1% of the 5-mile radius substation study area could potentially have views of the proposed on-island collection substation. Approximately 98.5% of the visible area associated with the substation is on open water and another approximately 1.2% is on Galloo Island itself. Additional visibility of the substation may be available from the west side of Stony Island, although this is questionable given that Stony Island is over 3 miles from the proposed substation site. Consequently, any public views of the proposed on-island substation will be restricted to the waters of Lake Ontario several miles from the mainland, and therefore will be available to a very small number of potential viewers. Additionally, it should be noted that the sample points used for the substation viewshed analysis represent the tallest structures proposed within the substation footprint. These lightening masts are also very narrow in profile thus further reducing the extent of potential substation visibility.

5.1.2 Line-of-Sight Cross Sections

Six line-of-sight cross sections were prepared for locations where the viewshed analysis suggested potential Project visibility, but field verification suggested otherwise. This analysis was used to establish the factors that influence visibility or lack thereof.

Section A runs from the Village of Cape Vincent to the Project site. As shown in Figure 9 Sheet 1, the village is generally screened by a substantial topographic feature between Cape Vincent and the Lake Ontario shoreline. The closest point from which visibility may be possible is approximately 2 miles from the village on the south side of the screening feature on

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Wilson Point Road. Section A also suggests that the Project will be screened from Wilson Bay, portions of Dablon Point, and the north side of Grenadier Island. Visibility occurs on the southern portion of Dablon Point and Grenadier Island where the slopes are oriented toward the Project. This visibility was also confirmed in the subsequent simulation created from Viewpoint 41 (Appendix D - Sheet 38). Potential visibility was also indicated between Dablon Point and Grenadier Island on Lake Ontario.

Section B (Figure 9 Sheet 2) begins at the Reuter Dyer House, a NRHP site on Point Peninsula in the Town of Lyme. The combination of vegetation and topography screen the Project from this site, along with large portions of Kent’s Creek and the associated river valley. Small pockets of visibility may be available in the vicinity of State Route 12E. Once past the Kent’s Creek valley, the slopes begin to orient toward the Project and potential Project visibility is generally available from Bates Road all the way to Lake Ontario.

Section C runs from the Village of Chaumont to the proposed Project site, and demonstrates a lack of Project visibility throughout the landward portion of the Village due to screening provided by vegetation (Figure 9 Sheet 3). Views of the Project are not available until the shores of Chaumont Bay. This line of sight also crosses Point Peninsula and demonstrates that the entire northeastern portion of the point will be screened from the Project. However, once the topography slopes down to the water on the southeastern side, views of the Project become available between multiple vegetated areas.

Section D demonstrates a lack of Project visibility from the Village of Dexter due to topographic and vegetative screening (Figure 9 Sheet 4). This line of sight also suggests a lack of Project visibility from the Black River and surrounding areas. Small pockets of visibility toward the Project may be available around Pillar Point between forested areas. Once at the Ontario shoreline at Bull Rock Point, consistent views of the Project will be available.

Section E is from the hamlet of Henderson and includes Henderson Harbor, Whites Bay, Stony Point, and Stony Island (Figure 9 Sheet 5). These locations will have very limited Project visibility due to the screening effect of topography and vegetation. The most likely potential for views occur where slopes are oriented toward the Project along the lake shore. This scenario occurs in the vicinity of Harbor Road and Route 3, where portions of the turbine blades may be visible through breaks in the forest vegetation. Additionally, visibility is possible from the western shore of Stony Point and Stony Island. This line of sight suggest that there will not be any views from Henderson Harbor due to the screening effect of topography.

Section F is from the Great Lakes Seaway Trail National Scenic Byway in Town of Ellisburg and intersects the Black Pond WMA, El Dorado Beach, Clark Point, and Stony Point (Figure 9 Sheet 6). This line of sight demonstrates the variable topography created by the multitude of points and bays along the Lake Ontario shoreline. This portion of the Seaway Trail

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

will be screened from views of the Project by forest vegetation. However, as one approaches the shoreline, portions of the Black Pond WMA and El Dorado Beach will have some Project visibility. Additionally, the line of sight suggests that Sawyer Bay, Clark Point, and Ray Bay will have Project visibility. As demonstrated previously, the eastern portion of Stony Point will be screened by vegetation, but the western shore will likely have open views toward the Project.

It is important to note that the line-of-sight cross sections provide a single line cut-away of the landscape and where features may block views along one transect, views may be available along a different transect.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Figure 9. Line-of-Sight Cross Sections (6 sheets)

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

5.1.3 Field Evaluation

As noted in Section 4.1.2, visual field review for the Project was conducted on multiple dates between September 2016 and June 2017. This field review resulted in the photographic documentation of views toward the Project site from 135 representative viewpoints within the visual study area (see Figure 10 and Appendix A), and confirmed that visibility of the Project would be largely restricted to the Lake Ontario waterfront/shoreline and open water portions of the visual study area, as is suggested by the viewshed analysis. However, actual Project visibility from inland areas is likely to be more limited than suggested by viewshed mapping (Figure 8). This is due to the fact that trees within the study area provide more extensive and effective screening than assumed in these analyses (e.g., vegetation is more extensive than indicated on the USGS NLCD) and screening provided by buildings is significant within more developed areas (e.g., the villages, hamlets, and lakefront residential areas). The results of EDR’s field review, organized according to Landscape Similarity Zone, are summarized below.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Figure 10. Viewpoint Location Map (1 sheet)

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Open Water / Lake Ontario LSZ The open water LSZ is defined almost entirely by Lake Ontario, and typically offers the most unobstructed views toward the Project site, along with all of the foreground views of the site. Additionally, the same unobstructed views of the Project site from the water may also include views of the existing Wolfe Island Wind Farm, thus introducing the potential for cumulative effect from open water locations (see discussion in Section 5.7). The large sheltered bays, including Black River Bay, Guffin Bay, Chaumont Bay and Henderson Bay, tend to focus and frame views toward the open water horizon, which at times will include Project site (Inset 18). However, other open water views within the bays tend to be focused in a north- south direction and views toward the Project are screened by intervening landform (Insets 19 and 20). For example, in many locations within Henderson Bay and Whites Bay, views toward the Project site are entirely screened by the mainland and Association Island. Additionally, some of the more substantial islands, such as Stony Island, will also serve to screen water level views toward the Project. Views from the water surface itself, up to and beyond Galloo Island, will offer the opportunities for foreground views of the proposed Project (Inset 21). In such locations, there is nothing to screen the potential views of the Project and some of the smaller project components such as the substation and docking facilities may be visible from some foreground open water locations.

Inset 18. – Photo from Lake Ontario in Sacket Harbor demonstrating how Inset 19 – Photo from Sackets Harbor demonstrating open water views that existing landforms in the view tend to frame Galloo Island and the Project tend to be focused on the scenic shoreline.

Inset 20 – Photo from Henderson Harbor demonstrating how open water Inset 21. – Photo from Lake Ontario near Galloo Island demonstrating

views are screened by interceding landforms. proximity to the Project and lack of screening features in the foreground.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Agricultural/Rural Residential LSZ

Field review within the Agricultural/Rural Residential LSZ generally confirms the results of the viewshed analysis, in that open fields close to the lake shore offer views toward the Project site over intervening hedgerows and structures. Additionally, the rural residences in this LSZ (especially in the northern portion of the study area) may have more open views toward the Project site than are available from ground level public viewpoints in this zone, which are typically screened by structures and vegetation. Field review of inland agricultural and rural residential areas demonstrated a greater lack of visibility than suggested by the viewshed analysis. This is largely due to numerous small wood lots, hedgerows, street-side trees and structures (Insets 22-25) that were not included in the NLCD vegetation layer used in the viewshed analysis.

Inset 22 – Photo from County Route 4 and Wilson Road. The vegetation Inset 23 – Photo from Smith Road in the Town of Henderson. Vegetation viewshed analysis suggested potential Project visibility at this location, but viewshed analysis suggests visibility in this location, but tall hedgerow structures and taller vegetation suggest a lack of visibility. vegetation is blocking views toward the Project.

Inset 24 – Photo from Flat Rock West Road in the Town of Henderson Inset 25 – Photo from View from Dr. Samuel Guthrie House on County Route demonstrating lack of visibility resulting from a hedge row. 75 demonstrating lack of visibility resulting from street-side trees and

structures.

Successional/Wetland LSZ

The vegetation viewshed analysis suggests that 39% of the Successional/Wetland LSZ will have potential Project visibility. However, field review determined that many of these areas are similar in character to the Forest LSZ, in that dense vegetation, albeit lower in height, screens views toward the Project site. In particular, successional fields typically contain dense masses of shrubs and small trees which screen long distance views in both summer and winter. Wetland areas

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

include scrub-shrub vegetation, tall reeds and cattails, and occasional forest vegetation. In many cases this foreground vegetation effectively blocked views toward the lake (Insets 26 and 28). Some successional/wetland areas that were elevated or directly adjacent to the shoreline of Lake Ontario had partially screened views toward the Project site. However, in these instances, the proposed Project would be seen as a distant backdrop behind a dominant vegetated foreground (Inset 27). Some wetland and successional areas exist on the islands throughout Lake Ontario, including Galloo Island. In these locations, due to exposure to the elements, the vegetation tends to be lower and sparser. Additionally, these areas offer foreground and mid-ground views of the Project. There will likely be substantial turbine visibility in these locations (Inset 29), although for the most part, these views will be available to very few viewers.

Inset 26 – Photo from Stony Creek Boat Launch in the Town of Henderson Inset 27 –Photo from Gilman Road in the Town of Henderson. Foreground demonstrating open water surrounded by wetland vegetation, which is vegetation dominates the view, but glimpses of Galloo Island are available effective in screening views toward the Project. in the background.

Inset 28 – Photo from Lake View Pond demonstrating minimal visibility of the Inset 29 –Photo from Galloo Island demonstrating wetland areas with lower Project from the Wetland/ Successional LSZ vegetation, allowing for more open views from the Wetland/ Successional

LSZ

Forest LSZ

Field review confirmed that actual visibility of the Project from the Forest LSZ, which covers approximately 19% of the landward visual study area, is very limited. The density of tall forest vegetation in larger forest stands, as well as small woodlots, block nearly all outward views from this LSZ toward the Project site (Inset 30). Field review from the forested areas such as Black Pond Wildlife Management Area, Robert Wehle State Park, and Lakeview Marsh and Barrier Beach

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

National Natural Landmark, indicated that views toward the Project site would likely be screened from within the Forested LSZ (Inset 31). However, field review also suggested that more open views toward the Project site would likely be available from nearshore forested areas (such as the shoreline portions of Robert Wehle State Park), where canopy trees become sparser near the bluffs and views toward the Project site are available through the understory (Inset 32). Nearshore forested areas throughout the study area could offer some open views toward Lake Ontario. In most cases, however, these views will be filtered or tightly framed by intervening trees and understory vegetation. Most forested areas further inland from the Lake consisted of dense, multilayered vegetation, thus preventing outward views toward the Project site. Exceptions may occur in cleared, elevated areas directly abutting forest land, such as the overlook from Westcott Beach State Campground (Inset 33).

Inset 30 – Photo from Black Pond WMA demonstrating screening by forest Inset 31 – Photo from Robert Wehle State Park interior, demonstrating forest vegetation. screening.

Inset 32 – Photo from Robert Wehle State Park waterfront demonstrating the Inset 33 – Photo from Westcott Beach State Campground Overlook thinning forest vegetation, offering slight views toward the project. demonstrating partially screened views from the elevated forest edge.

Maintained Waterfront LSZ

As suggested by the viewshed analysis, field review confirmed that Maintained Waterfront areas will generally have the greatest potential for Project visibly from the mainland. In most cases these managed and maintained waterfront areas are situated to take advantage of their proximity to Lake Ontario. For example, shoreline residences, marinas, parks (e.g.,

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Tibbets Point Lighthouse) and beaches (e.g., Southwick Beach State Park) will often have some level of Project visibility due to the fact they have been purposely sited to take advantage of access to, and views of, the lake. However, in all cases these views are distant, and from a very short distance inland, vegetation and structures typically screened or obscured views to the Project site. Less frequently, shoreline vegetation and structures also helped to frame views of the lake in some locations, such as Sacketts Harbor Battlefield State Park and Fort Pike Park (Inset 34). These types of views are scattered throughout the waterfront and shoreline area, in some instances facing the Project site, while in others the view is focused away from the site.

Inset 34 - View from Fort Pike Park, Sackets Harbor. Notice the vegetation framing the view to the many coves and bays of Lake Ontario.

The multiple bays and harbors associated with the Lake Ontario shoreline provide a unique character to the offshore views. The interaction of water and interceding land masses creates visual interest, and will also result in partially screened views of the Project in many locations. As with the Open Water views, the interceding land masses can also serve to screen the Project from view completely.

The Maintained Waterfront LSZ also hosts a large number of visually sensitive resources, which, due to their position on the shoreline will have potential views of the proposed Project. For example, the Sackets Harbor Battlefield, Tibbets Point Lighthouse, and Westcott Beach State Park all provide open views toward Galloo Island. Additionally, the villages within the visual study area all have a maintained waterfront which is typically associated with multiple visually sensitive resources, and open views toward Lake Ontario. Exceptions occur in Chaumont and Cape Vincent, where intervening landform and vegetation minimize or eliminate views toward the Project site from the Maintained Waterfront LSZ.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Naturalistic Waterfront LSZ

Field review suggests that, similar to the Maintained Waterfront, the Naturalistic Waterfront LSZ will have frequent views toward the proposed Project site. As described in Section 3.3.6, this LSZ is typically defined by a natural sand or rocky shoreline, backed by dunes, bluffs, or dense wetland or forest vegetation. Therefore, Project visibility will typically diminish quickly as one moves inland. For example, the beach at Black Pond WMA (Inset 35) consists of a narrow beach backed by large vegetated sand dunes just 50-100 feet inland. Once beyond the dunes, only the sound of the water hints that water views may be available nearby (Inset 36). Similarly, from the Snake Foot Trail in Robert Wehle State Park (Inset 37), dense forest vegetation leads up to a tall bluff overlooking Stony Island toward Galloo Island. This overlook provides a framed view of the Project site, but elsewhere along the trail vegetation entirely screens views toward the lake.

Inset 35 – Photo from the beach at Black Pond WMA Inset 36– Photo from Black Pond WMA just a few hundred feet inland from the beach.

Inset 37 – Photo from Snake Foot Trail in Robert Wehle State Park Inset 38 – Photo from Lake View March and Barrier Beach National Natural demonstrating open views from the bluffs. Dense forest just behind the Landmark, demonstrating open views of the water.

viewer would partially to complete obscure views toward the Project site.

However, the Naturalistic Waterfront LSZ offers plentiful views toward the proposed Project site that are generally unobscured, but long distance. Fully and partially screened views are also available from Naturalistic shorelines along bays and harbors where other landforms block views toward the Project site, such as portions of Black River Bay, Chaumont Bay, and Mud Bay. Views from this LSZ are particularly notable for the lack of built features in the foreground of the view (Inset 38).

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Village LSZ

Field review within the Village LSZ suggests that buildings and vegetation will block most views toward the Project site. The village core tends to have views that are focused on the streets, vegetation, and nearby buildings. In Sackets Harbor, field review confirmed that the closely situated buildings, orientation of the narrow streets, flat topography, and vegetation effectively screen outward views toward the water from most locations (Inset 39). Exceptions occur near the edges of villages, adjacent to the lake. For example, Boultons Beach is a residential extension of the Village of Sackets Harbor which leads up to the water’s edge. Here, views are available between the houses and vegetation from public roads. However, these views are often fleeting and of short duration (Inset 40). Similarly, Chaumont contains concentrated development which prevents outward views to the lake. In addition, because the Village of Chaumont is situated at the outlet of the Chaumont River between Chaumont and Sawmill Bays, even where water views are available, views toward the Project site are screened by intervening land and vegetation. Again, exceptions occur near the west-facing edges of the village core where fleeting views up along the narrow bays will open toward the Project site. These fleeting views typically occur on the river’s edge or on one of the two bridges crossing the river, and include intervening land masses, such as Cherry Island or Point Peninsula (Inset 41). Field review suggests there will not be any views available from Cape Vincent since it occurs in a topographic low point along the St. Lawrence River, and water views are typically oriented to the north. Intervening topography, vegetation, and structures will entirely screen views toward the Project site from Cape Vincent’s Village core (Inset 42).

Inset 39 – Photo from Sackets Harbor demonstrating how closely situated Inset 40 – Sackets Harbor (Boultons Beach) demonstrating a narrow view to buildings and vegetation contain views. the water through residential properties on the lake.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Inset 41 – Photo from State Route 3 Seaway Trail National Scenic Byway Inset 42 – Photo from Cape Vincent Village Core demonstrating the lack of demonstrating views from the bridge over the Chaumont River. outward views.

5.2 Analysis of Existing and Proposed Views

To illustrate anticipated visual change associated with the proposed Project, 21 photographic simulations of the completed Project from 19 selected locations were prepared (see Figure 10 and Table 5). These simulations, along with an existing conditions photo and context map, are presented in Appendix D of this report. Review of these images allowed for comparison of the aesthetic character of each view with and without the proposed Project in place. Results of this evaluation are presented below.

Viewpoint 2

Existing Conditions Viewpoint 2 is located on County Route 59 in the Town of Brownville, approximately 9.7 miles from the nearest proposed turbine on Galloo Island (see Sheet 2 in Appendix D). This viewpoint occurs within the Maintained Waterfront LSZ, but features of the shoreline/waterfront are lacking in the existing view to the west-southwest toward the Project site. This view features the broad expanse of Lake Ontario from the immediate foreground to the horizon. The tip of Point Peninsula is present on the horizon on the far right side of the view, with the low horizontal form of Galloo Island and Stony Island also discernable along the horizon line from the center to the left side of the view. The setting sun backlights the clouds and illuminates the lake’s water on the right side of the view. The sun and its reflection draw the viewer’s eye to the tip of Point Peninsula. Scenic quality in this view is relatively high.

Proposed Conditions With the proposed Project in place, a cluster of backlit turbines is clearly visible rising above the low landform of Galloo Island (see Sheet 3 in Appendix D). Because of the low profile of Galloo Island, the turbines almost appear to be rising out of the water. Their height above the horizon, novel form, and movement will attract viewer attention, and become the new

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

focal point in this view. Due to the viewer’s orientation in relation to the Project, the turbines tend to appear clustered. The turbines are the only obvious man-made features in the view, but at this distance they do not substantially alter the expansive open water character of the view. Some viewers will likely find addition of the turbines interesting, while others will be concerned about their effect on scenic quality (including sunset).

Viewpoint 4

Existing Conditions Viewpoint 4 is located on the breakwater surrounding the marina at the Madison Barracks in the Village of Sackets Harbor (see Sheet 5 in Appendix D). This viewpoint is located in the Maintained Waterfront LSZ, approximately 13.5 miles east of the nearest proposed turbine on Galloo Island. This view is representative of the most open, unobstructed view available to the tourists and recreational users at the historic Madison Barracks site. The selected view from this location is oriented to the west, and features the setting sun over the open waters of Lake Ontario. The sunset adds orange color to the sky and is reflected in the rippling surface of the lake. The open water at the horizon line is flanked by areas of wooded shoreline on both the left and right sides of the view. The land mass of Stony Island and Galloo Island are visible as slightly irregular elevated areas on the horizon, beyond the shoreline vegetation on the left. Bands of clouds in the sky reflect the color of the sunset and reinforce the strong horizontal lines created by the land masses and water at the horizon line. Overall scenic quality in this view is considered high.

Proposed Conditions With the proposed Project in place, the turbines on Galloo Island are clearly visible against the orange/yellow sky on the left side of the view (see Sheet 6 in Appendix D). Under this backlit condition, they present appreciable contrast with the sky. The novel form and movement of the turbines will draw the viewer’s eye and become a focal point in this view. However, at this distance, their vertical line and scale present minimal to moderate contrast with the existing wooded land masses in the view. Clustering of turbines on the island also creates a horizontal form that is consistent with the adjacent land masses. The most substantial contrast presented by the Project is in the area of land use and viewer activity. Introduction of these utilitarian, man-made features to a largely natural view could reduce the enjoyment of the sunset for some viewers.

Viewpoint 7

Existing Conditions Viewpoint 7 is located on the Snake Foot Trail at Robert Wehle State Park, approximately 6.2 miles east-southeast of the nearest proposed turbine on Galloo Island. This viewpoint is located at an open overlook on a bluff along the lakeshore,

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

and is representative of the Naturalistic Waterfront LSZ. The existing view featured in this photo is a nighttime view to the west-northwest, across Lake Ontario toward Stony Island and Galloo Island. Under these dark (moonless) conditions, the horizon line is barely discernable, but can be perceived due to some distant/faint sky glow. Stars and occasional lights (from airplanes) are visible in the dark sky, but otherwise the view of both sky and water is uniformly dark. More obvious background sky glow is visible to both the west and north of the selected photo (see Figure 8 in Appendix D). Existing scenic quality at this viewpoint is difficult to determine under nighttime conditions.

Proposed Conditions With the proposed Project in place, a row of red aviation warning lights can be seen spanning the central portion of the view (see Sheet 9 in Appendix D). The lights help to define/reinforce the horizon line, and become a new focal point in the view. Although the lights present moderate to appreciable contrast with the dark night sky, the Project’s contrast with other components of the landscape is not apparent under nighttime conditions. Even though this viewpoint is in a state park setting near a camping area, impact on land use and viewer activity will be relatively minor at this location because nighttime use of the Snake Foot Trail is limited. For a discussion of potential daytime views at Robert Wehle State Park, see Viewpoint 9, below.

Viewpoint 9

Existing Conditions Viewpoint 9 is located adjacent to a guest cottage at Robert Wehle State Park (see Sheet 11 in Appendix D). This elevated viewpoint is within the Maintained Waterfront LSZ, approximately 6.0 miles east-southeast of the nearest proposed turbine on Galloo Island. The existing view to the west-northwest features a broad expanse of open water in the foreground and mid-ground, backed by the low, horizontal land form of Stony Island, which defines the horizon line and blocks views of Galloo Island and other more distant landscape features. Stony Island is characterized by uniform coverage of woody vegetation, with a sandy shoreline that spans the full field of view in this photo. The island is the focal point in the view, and appears to lack any man-made/developed features. Broken horizontal bands of clouds across the sky reinforce the strong horizontal lines created by the shoreline and tree line of Stony Island. Overall scenic quality is considered moderate.

Proposed Conditions With the proposed Project in place, the upper portions of the Galloo Island turbines (rotors and nacelles) are clearly visible against the sky above the tree line on Stony Island (see Sheet 12 in Appendix D). The turbines do not extend high into the sky, but span approximately 70 to 75% of the field of view. Under the lighting and sky conditions illustrated in this photo, the turbines’ white color stands out against the darker background of the sky, and contrast with the dark color of the water and vegetation on Stony Island. The number and extent of visible turbines also presents moderate to appreciable contrast

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

with other components of the landscape, and creates a new focal point in the view. Their novel form, movement, and appearance as the only man-made features in the view, will attract viewer attention. The impact on viewers in the state park will be variable based upon the expectations and preferences of those individual viewers. However, they will alter the undeveloped character of the existing view.

Viewpoint 12

Existing Conditions Viewpoint 12 is located on Route 3 at a designated scenic overlook that is part of the Seaway Trail National Scenic Byway (see Sheet 14 in Appendix D). This viewpoint is near the Village of Henderson Harbor in the Town of Henderson. It is located in the Agricultural/Rural Residential LSZ, approximately 10.3 miles from the nearest visible turbine on Galloo Island. The existing view to the west-northwest from this elevated viewpoint includes the tops of trees in the immediate foreground, backed by the open water of Henderson Bay on Lake Ontario. A point of land with shoreline residences (Stony Point) occurs on the far side of the bay, and a portion of Stony Island can be seen further out in Lake Ontario, beyond the end of Stony Point. Lake Ontario extends to the horizon at the right edge of the view, and open views are available further to the northwest from this viewpoint. Scenic quality at this location is considered relatively high.

Proposed Conditions With the proposed Project in place, only the blade tips of a few turbines are visible above the land mass of Stony Point on the opposite side of Henderson Bay (see Sheet 15 in Appendix D). The turbines are largely screened by this land mass as well as the tree foliage in the immediate foreground. Because of this screening, the turbines are barely noticeable and other elements of the landscape, including the vegetation and shoreline development, continued to be the focal points in the view. Although movement of the turbines could attract viewer attention, they present insignificant contrast with the landscape, and impact on scenic quality will be minimal from this viewpoint.

Viewpoint 18

Existing Conditions Viewpoint 18 is located on the Lake Ontario shoreline at the Black Pond Wildlife Management Area in the Town of Ellisburg (see Sheet 17 in Appendix D). This viewpoint occurs along the Black Pond Trail, approximately 11.2 miles from the nearest proposed turbine on Galloo Island. It is representative of the Naturalistic Waterfront LSZ. The existing view to the west- northwest from this viewpoint is dominated by the shoreline and open water of Lake Ontario. A portion of the wooded lakeshore to the north is visible in the mid-ground and background on the right side of the view, along with the low profile

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

of Galloo Island in the more distant background. Otherwise, views of the open water extend to the horizon. The dark blue color of the lake creates an abrupt horizon line where it meets the light blue, partly cloudy sky.

Proposed Conditions With the proposed Project in place, the turbines can be seen rising above Galloo Island on the right side of the view (see Sheet 18 in Appendix D). A substantial number of turbines are partially or fully screened by the mid-ground and background peninsulas along the wooded shoreline north of Viewpoint 18. The unscreened turbines are clearly visible, but their white color limits contrast with the light blue/gray sky in the background. Due to the low profile and distant location of Galloo Island, the turbines appear to rise out of the open water of the lake and suggest an extension of the land out into the water. Addition of these utilitarian structures to a largely undeveloped view presents moderate contrast with land use and could be viewed negatively by some visitors to the Wildlife Management Area who are there to enjoy the largely natural view. However, the limited number of turbines, their distance from the viewer, and their peripheral location relative to more open outward views over the lake tend to reduce their visual contrast with existing components of the landscape.

Viewpoint 20

Existing Conditions Viewpoint 20 is located on the beach at Southwick Beach State Park, in the Town of Ellisburg (see Sheet 20 in Appendix D). This viewpoint is approximately 13.4 miles from the nearest proposed turbine on Galloo Island, and is representative of the Maintained Waterfront LSZ (although maintained features of the landscape are not visible in the selected view). The existing view to the northwest includes a gently sloping sandy beach and curving water edge in the immediate foreground, backed by the open water of Lake Ontario extending to the background. The lack of foreground vegetation or structures results in an expansive, open, long distance view to the horizon. Wooded portions of the lakeshore to the north extend as a low-profile land mass from the right side to the center of the view in the background. A significant amount of shoreline development can be seen on this land mass (Stony Point), and the very low profile of Stony Island and Galloo Island are barely visible on the horizon immediately beyond the point of shoreline land in the center of the view. The dark blue water and dark green vegetation on the land mass contrast with the light blue sky and band of light-colored developed features on the background shoreline. These features, along with subtle band of clouds, create strong horizontal lines in the landscape. The scenic quality of this view is considered high.

Proposed Conditions With the proposed Project in place, the turbines on Galloo Island are clearly visible against the blue sky, and extend from the center to the left side of the view in the background (see Sheet 21 in Appendix D). Due to the effects of distance and the low profile of Galloo Island, the turbines appear to rise out of the water in this view. As in the previous view, they also

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

appear to be a continuation of the shoreline land mass, extending further into the lake and across the full field of view. Despite their distance from the viewer, the turbines’ line, color and scale contrast with the existing landform, vegetation, water, and sky is moderate to appreciable. By introducing utilitarian, man-made structures into a largely natural, undeveloped view, the turbines will result in a noticeable change to the current view, and will present a new focal point for beach goers. However, it is worth noting that other developed features outside the field of view associated with the beach (parking lot, bath house, etc.) will be visible to beach users as well. In addition, the presence of the turbines on the horizon is unlikely to affect viewer activity or decrease user enjoyment of the beach.

Viewpoint 22

Existing Conditions Viewpoint 22 is the same location as Viewpoint 4 at the Madison Barracks Marina in the Village of Sackets Harbor. During the nighttime, the view to the southwest toward Galloo Island is uniformly dark, with the exception of some shoreline lighting on the far left and right sides of the view. Under the moonless sky conditions represented by this photo, scattered stars are visible, but the horizon line where the lake meets the sky is difficult to discern. The horizon is more obvious outside the field of view to the northwest, where additional lights along the shoreline and sky glow associated with distant development helps distinguish the boundary between sky and water (see Sheet 23 in Appendix D). Scenic quality of this viewpoint cannot really be evaluated under dark nighttime conditions.

Proposed Conditions With the proposed Project in place, a band of small red lights can be seen immediately to the right of the lighted shoreline structure on the left side of the view (see Sheet 24 in Appendix D). Due to their distance from the viewer, the lights are not overly obtrusive, compared to the existing shoreline lighting in the foreground. The lights helps define the distant horizon line, and somewhat alter the existing dark, open nighttime view. Due to their abundance, synchronized flashing, and the lack of other visible lighting on the lake surface, the lights will attract viewer attention. They will have minimal effect on users of the marina, but could be more noticeable to nearby residences with similar views. However, as mentioned previously, if the FAA allows deployment of a radar-activated warning light system on this Project, nighttime visibility would be limited to those relatively rare instances when passing aircraft pass in proximity to the Project.

Viewpoint 23

Existing Conditions Viewpoint 23 is located at the Lakeview Marsh and Barrier Beach National Natural Landmark in the Town of Ellisburg (see Sheet 26 in Appendix D). This viewpoint is on a section of boardwalk on the Big Dead Maple Trail. It is approximately 13.8

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

miles from the nearest proposed turbine on Galloo Island, and is representative of the Naturalistic Waterfront LSZ. The existing view to the northwest includes a vegetated shoreline dune, and gently sloping sand beach in the immediate foreground. The open water of Lake Ontario extends from the edge of the beach to the horizon. Portions of the wooded shoreline of Lake Ontario to the north, and the very low profile of Stony Island and Galloo Island, extend into the center of the view from the right on the horizon line.

Proposed Conditions With the proposed Project in place, turbines span the central portion of the view (see Sheet 27 in Appendix D). As in some previous views, the effects of distance and the low profile of Galloo Island result in the turbines appearing to rise off the lake surface, and extending the shoreline further out into the lake. The turbines are clearly visible against the sky, and their scale contrast, relative to Galloo Island and the nearby vegetated shoreline, is noticeable. However, at this distance, and under these sky conditions, the turbines appear delicate, and do not extend significantly above the horizon or present strong contrast with the light blue sky. Their contrast with existing vegetation and landform is generally minimal, but they do represent a new focal point in the view. Their greatest impact is the introduction of a large number of man-made, utilitarian structures to a natural, undeveloped setting. This is a substantial change, and could have an adverse effect on viewer enjoyment of this designated natural area.

Viewpoint 28

Existing Conditions Viewpoint 28 is located on the Lake Ontario shoreline in the community of Boultons Beach at Ambrose Waterfront Park in the Village of Sackets Harbor (see Sheet 29 in Appendix D). This viewpoint is in the Village LSZ, and is located approximately 12.2 miles east of the nearest proposed turbine on Galloo Island. The existing view to the west-southwest features a broad expanse of open water that extends from the immediate foreground to the background. A few exposed stones are visible at the water’s edge in the foreground and a small island (Bass Island) and a peninsula extending from Association Island at the northern tip of Stony Island is present in the mid-ground on the left side of the view. The low profile of Stony Island and Galloo Island define the horizon line across the central portion of the view. The partly cloudy sky is primarily blue overhead and white at the horizon line. Existing scenic quality of this view is relatively high.

Proposed Conditions With the proposed Project in place, a cluster of turbines is visible at the horizon in the center-right portion of the view (see Sheet 30 in Appendix D). Under these lighting conditions, the turbines are somewhat backlit and appear slightly darker than the background sky. Due to their distance from the viewer, the turbines appear delicate and do not present strong contrast with the sky, water, vegetation, or land form. Bass Island, in the mid-ground, left center portion of the view remains

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

the focal point. However, the presence of the turbines above the lake’s surface are the only significant developed features, and do alter the generally undeveloped character of the existing view.

Viewpoint 31

Existing Conditions Viewpoint 31 is located at the Sackets Harbor Battlefield State Historic Site in the Village of Sackets Harbor (see Sheet 32 in Appendix D). It is representative of the Maintained Waterfront LSZ and is located approximately 12.8 miles from the nearest proposed turbine on Galloo Island. The existing view to the west from this viewpoint includes an expanse of mowed lawn in the immediate foreground, backed by a paved road and some scrubby vegetation along the Lake Ontario shoreline. Beyond that, the dark surface of the lake extends to horizon. The light, partly cloudy sky creates a strong horizon line where it meets the waters of the lake. The low profile of Stony Island and Galloo Island are visible at the horizon on the left side of the view. Both scenic quality and viewer sensitivity are considered high at this location.

Proposed Conditions With the proposed Project in place, a cluster of turbines can be seen rising above Galloo Island on the horizon (see Sheet 33 in Appendix D). The turbines are slightly backlit, and thus appear dark against the light gray sky. Although they generally present minimal to moderate contrast with existing features of the landscape, they become a focal point in the view and draw attention to the islands on the horizon. The shoreline vegetation is somewhat distracting to the more distant view, but the turbines punctuate the sky and add a utilitarian, man-made feature to the view. Their greatest potential impact will be on the experience of viewers visiting this historic site. Although they are certainly not the only discordant element in the existing view, they do change the generally undeveloped character of the lake and the distant islands.

Viewpoint 38

Existing Conditions Viewpoint 38 is located at the Tibbets Points Lighthouse in the Town of Cape Vincent (see Sheet 35 in Appendix D). This viewpoint is located approximately 12.4 miles north of the nearest proposed turbine on Galloo Island, and is representative of the Maintained Waterfront LSZ. The existing view to the south from this viewpoint includes the broad expanse of Lake Ontario from the foreground to the background. The low profile of a portion of Grenadier Island defines the horizon in the mid-ground on the left side of the view, with open water extending to the horizon on the right. The dark color of the lake and vegetation on Grenadier Island create a strong horizon line where they meet the light blue sky. Scenic quality at this viewpoint is considered moderate.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Proposed Conditions With the proposed Project in place, the turbines on Galloo Island can be seen on the horizon (see Sheet 36 in Appendix D). Under the lighting conditions in this photograph, they appear as dark vertical lines against the light sky. Due to the effects of distance, the turbines have a delicate profile, and approximately half of the array is substantially screened by the vegetation on Grenadier Island. The presence of the turbines serves to extend the land mass further across the view, and draw viewer attention to Galloo Island in the distance. They also add developed features to the largely natural view, and will serve as a new visual focal point. Although the turbines could have an adverse effect on visitors to the Lighthouse, their distance from the viewer lessens this impact. Their impact is also lessened by the presence of Grenadier Island, which competes for viewer attention, includes vertical elements that appear similar in line and scale to the turbines, and partially screen the Project from view.

Viewpoint 41

Existing Conditions Viewpoint 41 is located at the boat launch on Lisa Drive in the Town of Cape Vincent (see Sheet 38 in Appendix D). This site is approximately 10.5 miles north of the proposed Project site and is representative of Successional/Wetland and the Maintained Waterfront LSZs. The existing view to the south from this location features a mowed lawn in the immediate foreground, backed by a line of tall grass and occasional shrubs at the shoreline of Lake Ontario. Beyond this line of shoreline vegetation, the open water of the lake dominates the mid-ground of the view. The low horizontal land mass of Grenadier Island spans the background of the view along the full extent of the horizon line. Grenadier Island is approximately 1.2 miles offshore from this viewpoint. The island is a mix of open land and scattered trees, and blocks views of more distant portions of Lake Ontario and Galloo Island. The band of vegetation along the shoreline in the foreground, the low landform of Grenadier Island, and the waters of the lake between the two create strong horizontal lines in the landscape. Overall scenic quality of this view is considered moderate.

Proposed Conditions With the proposed Project in place, the upper portions of several turbines can be seen extending above the land mass of Grenadier Island in the background (see Sheet 39 in Appendix D). The turbines appear as narrow, vertical features between gaps in the tree cover on the island. At this distance, the turbines appear comparable in height with the trees on Grenadier Island, and mimic their low vertical form. Although movement of the rotor blades will make the turbines more noticeable,

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

they will be largely screened by, or intermixed with, the vegetation on Grenadier Island. Consequently, their level of contrast with existing landscape features, and effect on scenic quality, at this viewpoint is insignificant.

Viewpoint 43

Existing Conditions Viewpoint 43 is located near the historic Getman Farm House on Point Peninsula in the Town of Lime (see Sheet 41 in Appendix D). This viewpoint is representative of the Maintained Waterfront LSZ, and is approximately 6.4 miles from the nearest proposed turbine on Galloo Island. The existing view to the southwest from this location features a broad expanse of open water, with a wooded point of land and rocky shoreline extending into the view from the left in the foreground. Beyond the point of land, the low horizontal profile of Galloo Island can be seen on the horizon line. In the remainder of the view, the open water of Lake Ontario extends to the horizon under a sky that is clear and blue overhead, but transitions to a white cloud bank at the horizon. Overall scenic quality of this view is moderate.

Proposed Conditions With the proposed Project in place, the turbines are clearly visible as a cluster of delicate vertical features extending into the sky above the horizontal mass of Galloo Island (see Sheet 42 in Appendix D). The turbines accentuate the presence of the island, and draw the viewers’ eye from the wooded point of land on the left to this new focal point in the view. The height of the turbines above the trees on the island presents appreciable scale contrast, and the number of visible turbines across the full extent of the island results in a noticeable change in land use on what formally appeared to be an undeveloped offshore land mass. The overall contrast of the Project with existing conditions is moderate to appreciable, but its distance from the viewer, the white sky conditions, the vast expanse of Lake Ontario, and the visual interest created by the point of land in the foreground on the left, serve to mitigate its overall impact.

Viewpoint 51

Existing Conditions Viewpoint 51 is located at Village Beach in the Village of Chaumont. This viewpoint is located approximately 15.7 miles from the nearest proposed turbine on Galloo Island, and is representative of the Naturalistic Waterfront LSZ (see Sheet 44 in Appendix D). The existing view to the southwest, toward the Project site, includes the open water of Chaumont Bay extending from the foreground to the horizon. The bay is largely enclosed by the irregular shoreline of Lake Ontario on both sides. Masses of land (Point Peninsula and Pillar Point) appear at various distances, including a point of land with brushy shoreline vegetation in the mid-ground on the right. Open water extends to the horizon on the left side of the view.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

The southwestern orientation of this view is looking into the sun. This results in backlighting of the land masses (which appear dark) and reflection of bright sunlight on the water in the distance. Scenic quality of this view is considered relatively high.

Proposed Conditions With the proposed Project in place, the upper portions of a cluster of distant turbines can be seen rising above the large land mass enclosing the bay on the right (Point Peninsula) (see Sheet 45 in Appendix D). Although their movement may draw the viewer’s eye, the turbines are not prominent in this view due to their distance from the viewer and the screening provided by the intervening land mass. At this distance, the scale and texture of the turbines appear consistent with the shoreline vegetation. Existing mid-ground trees and the sunlit portion of the open lake that extends to the horizon, remain the focal points in the view. The Project’s contrast with the existing landscape features, and their potential effect on viewer activity, are minor to insignificant at this viewpoint.

Viewpoint 66

Existing Conditions Viewpoint 66 was photographed from a boat on Lake Ontario, northeast of Galloo Island (see Sheet 47 in Appendix D). This viewpoint is located approximately 1.0 mile from the nearest proposed turbine, and is accessible only to boaters on Lake Ontario. The existing view to the southwest from this location is representative of the Open Water LSZ, and includes the entirety of Galloo Island spanning almost the full field of view in the selected photo. An expanse of dark water occurs between the viewer and the island, and an ominous cloudy sky occurs overhead. The island presents strong horizontal lines and is the only focal point in this view. A delicate communication antenna can be seen above the tree line, otherwise the island appears wooded and undeveloped. Despite the overcast skies, scenic quality over this view is considered moderate.

Proposed Conditions With the proposed Project in place, the proposed turbines are clearly visible above the tree line on the island (see Sheet 48 in Appendix D). The closest turbines extend high into the sky, and present strong scale and line contrast with the existing vegetation and land form. The turbines essentially fill the island and dominate the existing landscape features. They change the character of the view and now define the land use as developed and utilitarian. Although the overcast sky minimizes color contrast, the turbines, are still prominent against the sky and become the new focal point above the horizon in this view. Visual impact at this viewpoint is substantial, but is mitigated by the fact that relatively few people will experience this view.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Viewpoint 75

Existing Conditions Viewpoint 75 is located at a designated scenic overlook at the Westcott Beach State Park Campground (see Sheet 50 in Appendix D). This viewpoint is approximately 13.1 miles from the nearest proposed turbine on Galloo Island, and is representative of the Forest LSZ. The existing view to the west from this elevated viewpoint is characterized by an area of dormant forest vegetation in the foreground, dropping to the Lake Ontario shoreline in the mid-ground. A few scattered homes and small open fields can be seen among the trees. Some ice on the lake at the shoreline gives way to the open water of Henderson Bay. The tip of Stony Point (including Snow Shoe Island and Association Island) defines the far side of the bay and cuts across the lake in the background. Beyond the islands, additional open water extends to the horizon where the low profile of Galloo Island can be seen in the distance. The shorelines, horizon line, and bands of clouds in the sky create strong horizontal lines in this view. Scenic quality at this viewpoint is relatively high.

Proposed Conditions With the proposed Project in place, the turbines on Galloo Island are clearly visible at the horizon (see Sheet 51 in Appendix D). They are substantially taller than the existing vegetation, and accentuate the presence of Galloo Island. Under the lighting conditions in this simulation, the turbines appear dark against the light sky. However, due to the effects of distance (and elevated viewer position) they do not appear to project high above the horizon, and therefore do not present appreciable contrast with the strong horizontal lines in the view. Their narrow profile also make the turbines appear delicate and less obtrusive at this distance. However, the turbines do add a distant developed/utilitarian element to the landscape and will become a new focal point in the view. The existing land form of Stony Point draws the viewer’s eye to the center of the view toward the proposed turbines. Their presence will diminish the natural character of the existing view from this scenic overlook. However, the complexity of the foreground vegetation will tend to diminish this impact. In addition, not all viewers at the campground will consider the turbines to be an adverse visual impact.

Viewpoint 94

Existing Conditions Viewpoint 94 is a view from Route 3 (which is part of the Seaway Trail National Scenic Byway) near the Village of Henderson Harbor (see Sheet 53 in Appendix D). This viewpoint is approximately 10.3 miles from the nearest proposed turbine on Galloo Island and is located in the Agricultural/Rural Residential LSZ. Viewpoint 94 is “leaf-off” version of Viewpoint 12

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

(evaluated earlier in this report). During the leaf-off season, the bare branches and crowns of dormant trees and shrubs are present in the immediate foreground. This vegetation drops to the shore of Lake Ontario, which appears as an expanse of exposed ice with patches of snow in the mid-ground. The ice-covered lake surface extends to the wooded shoreline of Stony Point on the opposite side of Henderson Bay, and is the focal point in this view. Numerous homes are present along the shoreline on the opposite side of the lake. The land mass of Stony Point creates a dark, slightly irregular horizon line, and blocks views of more distant landscape features in the central and left portions of the view. On the right side of the view the tip of Stony Island and the open water of Lake Ontario can be seen extending to the horizon. The sky in this view is dark blue overhead, with only a few small clouds, fading to a lighter blue/grey at the horizon. Scenic quality at this viewpoint is considered relatively high.

Proposed Conditions With the proposed Project in place, the upper portions of the majority of the turbines can be seen above the land mass of Stony Point on the opposite side of Henderson Bay (see Sheet 54 in Appendix D). Although less fully screened than in the summer view (Viewpoint 12), most the turbines are at least partially obscured by the bare branches of trees in the foreground. Although the turbines’ white color presents clear contrast with the dark vegetation and blue sky, it is compatible with the shoreline development and patches of white snow on the frozen lake. Foreground screening considerably reduces the prominence of the turbines in this view. This screening, and the effects of distance, generally results in the Project having minimal contrast with existing features of the landscape, and little if any effect on viewer activity/enjoyment at this location. Although the turbines’ movement will attract viewer attention, the ice-covered expanse of Lake Ontario and development along the Stony Point shoreline remain the focal points in this view.

Viewpoint 103

Existing Conditions Viewpoint is 103 is located on Lake Ontario, immediately off the southeast shoreline of Galloo Island, approximately 0.5 mile from the nearest proposed turbine (see Sheet 56 in Appendix D). Representative of the Open Water LSZ, this view to the north-northwest features the rough, dark blue surface of the lake in the immediate foreground, backed by the horizontal land mass of Galloo Island. The island is characterized by low bluffs along the shoreline, and a grassy open field backed by a solid line of trees. A temporary met tower (associated with the proposed Project) is the only obvious man-made feature on the far right side of the view. The land mass of the island blocks views of more distant features, and creates a horizontal green band between the open blue expanses of sky and water. Overall scenic quality of this view is considered moderate.

Proposed Conditions

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

With the proposed Project in place, the collection substation and several turbines are now prominently visible on the island (see Sheet 57 in Appendix D). Although these features reflect the vertical line and utilitarian character of the existing met tower, they now dominate the view and redefine the character of the island. The former, largely undeveloped character of Galloo Island is now more utilitarian in nature. At this distance, details of the turbines, as well as the substation, are clearly visible against the background vegetation and sky. Their vertical line, light color, large size and man-made form present strong contrast with the existing components of the landscape, and will have an adverse effect on scenic quality at this location. Although their presence could affect viewer activity and enjoyment, that effect will be limited to the relatively small number of viewers capable of accessing this distant offshore viewpoint by boat.

Viewpoint 120

Existing Conditions Viewpoint 120 is located on the surface of Lake Ontario off the southwest tip of Galloo Island approximately 0.5 mile from the nearest proposed turbine (see Sheet 59 in Appendix D). The existing conditions photo for this viewpoint has an approximately 80-degree field of view, to take in the entire expanse of Gallo Island, from shore to shore. Within this view, an expanse of open water dominates the immediate foreground, with the dark mass of Galloo Island spanning the mid- ground of the view. Due to the overcast sky condition, the island appears uniformly dark and dominated by forest vegetation. However, the abandoned Galloo Island Lighthouse, as well as an additional shoreline structure and a communication tower, are visible man-made features in the view. More distant views of the lake, and other land forms, in the background are available only on the periphery of the image, to the left and right of the island. Scenic quality is considered moderate.

Proposed Conditions With the proposed Project in place, numerous turbines are visible above the trees on the island (see Sheet 60 in Appendix D). The turbines present strong line, form, and scale contrast with the existing trees, and their penetration of the skyline alters the horizontal character of the land form. Although the turbines are not the only man-made features in the view, their number, scale, and novel form change the character of the island from lightly developed to utilitarian. The turbines will become the new focal points in this view, and will likely be viewed as having an adverse effect on scenic quality and viewer enjoyment. However, as with other foreground views, this effect will be experienced only by those viewers with the ability to travel long distances offshore in a boat.

Viewpoint 124

Existing Conditions

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Viewpoint 124 is located on the surface of Lake Ontario, immediately offshore of Galloo Island. It is approximately 580 feet from the southeast shoreline of the island and 0.2 mile from the nearest project component (see Sheet 62 in Appendix D). The view to the northwest from this location features an expanse of open water in the immediate foreground, backed by the horizontal land mass of Galloo Island. The island in this view is a mix of open grassy areas and scattered trees, intermixed with occasional man-made structures, including the former Coast Guard Station (at the water’s edge), and a communication tower. A boat behind a rock break water indicates the location of the island’s man-made harbor (Gill Harbor). The land mass of Galloo Island blocks more distant views of Lake Ontario and forms the visible horizon in this location. A dynamic sky of mixed clouds adds interest to this view. Existing scenic quality is considered moderate.

Proposed Conditions With the proposed Project in place, several turbines, the proposed O&M building, and a proposed personnel landing dock have been added to the view (see Sheet 63 in Appendix D). The O&M and docking facilities are consistent in scale and character with the other man-made features in the existing view. The turbines however, present appreciable to strong contrast with the existing elements of the landscape. Their vertical line, novel form, white color, and substantial height make them the dominant features of the view. They become focal points that will draw the viewers’ eye, and redefine the land use that characterizes the island. The effect of their presence is somewhat diminished by the existing man-made structures on the island, but they will have an adverse effect on the existing scenic quality and rural character of Galloo Island. However, this effect will only be experienced by the relatively few visitors with the ability to access this location with a boat during the recreational season.

5.3 Visual Impact Assessment Rating

As described in Section 4.2.3 of this VIA, three registered landscape architects (LAs), two in-house, one independent, evaluated the visual impact of the proposed Project. Utilizing 11 x 17-inch digital color prints of the 21 selected viewpoints described above, the LAs reviewed the existing and proposed views, evaluated the contrast/compatibility of the Project with various components of the landscape (landform, vegetation, land use, water, sky, land use and viewer activity), and assigned quantitative visual contrast ratings on a scale of 0 (insignificant) to 4 (strong). The average contrast score assigned by each LA was calculated for each viewpoint, and an average score for each viewpoint was determined. Copies of the completed rating forms are included in Appendix E, and the results of this evaluation process are summarized in Table 7.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Table 7. Summary of Results of Rating Panel Review of Simulations

Distance to Viewer Groups Contrast Rating Scores Viewpoint Nearest Distance Landscape Number Visible Zone Similarity Zone Tourists & Contrast Component Residents Travelers #1 #2 #3 Average Recreation Rating Result Maintained Moderate / 2 9.7 Background ● ● ● 1.3 3.3 2.8 2.5 Waterfront Appreciable Maintained 4 13.5 Background ● ● 2.3 2.7 1.3 2.1 Moderate Waterfront Naturalistic 7 6.2 Background ● ● 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.9 Minimal Waterfront Maintained Moderate / 9 6.0 Background ● ● 2.7 3.1 1.8 2.5 Waterfront Appreciable Agricultural/R Insignificant / 12 10.3 Background ural ● ● ● 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 Minimal Residential Naturalistic Minimal 18 11.2 Background ● ● 1.2 1.7 1.7 1.5 Waterfront /Moderate Maintained 20 13.4 Background ● ● 1.5 2.9 2.2 2.2 Moderate Waterfront Naturalistic 22 13.5 Background ● ● 0.4 1.1 0.3 0.6 Minimal Waterfront

Naturalistic 23 13.8 Background ● ● 1.8 2.7 1.2 1.9 Moderate Waterfront

28 12.2 Background Village ● ● 1.3 2.5 1.3 1.7 Moderate

Maintained 31 12.8 Background ● ● 1.9 2.4 1.3 1.9 Moderate Waterfront Maintained 38 12.4 Background ● ● 1.6 2.3 1.3 1.8 Moderate Waterfront Successional/ Wetland & Insignificant / 41 10.5 Background ● ● ● 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.3 Maintained Minimal Waterfront Maintained 43 6.4 Background ● ● ● 2.3 3.0 1.8 2.4 Moderate Waterfront Seldom Naturalistic Insignificant / 51 15.7 ● ● 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.5 Seen Waterfront Minimal

Appreciable/ 66 1.0 Mid-ground Open Water ● ● 3.8 3.8 2.8 3.4 Strong

Minimal / 75 13.1 Background Forest ● ● 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.6 Moderate Agricultural/ 94 10.3 Background Rural ● ● ● 0.7 1.3 0.5 0.8 Minimal Residential

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Distance to Viewer Groups Contrast Rating Scores Viewpoint Nearest Distance Landscape Number Visible Zone Similarity Zone Tourists & Contrast Component Residents Travelers #1 #2 #3 Average Recreation Rating Result Appreciable/ 103 0.2 Foreground Open Water ● ● 4.0 4.0 2.8 3.6 Strong 120 0.5 Foreground Open Water ● ● 3.9 3.8 1.8 3.2 Appreciable Appreciable/ 124 0.2 Foreground Open Water ● ● 3.8 3.7 3.2 3.6 Strong Average 1.9 Moderate 1Contrast Rating Scale: 0 (insignificant contrast), 1 (minimal contrast), 2 (moderate contrast), 3 (appreciable contrast), 4 (strong contrast).

As Table 7 indicates, the average, overall composite contrast ratings for the 21 selected viewpoints ranged from 0.2 (insignificant) to 3.6 (appreciable-strong), and averaged 1.9 (moderate). The results of this evaluation are summarized as follows.

The viewpoints that received the lowest contrast rating scores were Viewpoints 7, 12, 22, 41, 51, and 94. These viewpoints received average scores less than 1.0, indicating insignificant to minimal visual contrast. Viewpoints 7 and 22 are both background nighttime views. Viewpoint 7 is located in Robert Wehle State Park on the Snakefoot Trail in the Naturalistic Waterfront LSZ, approximately 6.2 miles from the nearest turbine. Viewpoint 22 is a view from the Madison Barracks Marina and is located approximately 13.5 miles from the Project. The low contrast rating for both nighttime views can be attributed to the fact that, while the FAA lights have the potential to detract from the stars and the night sky, the Project presents little contrast with features of the landscape other than the dark sky. In addition, because of its distance from the viewer, the cluster of lights affect only a limited portion of the night sky (one location, near the horizon), and in the case of the Madison Barracks, other sources of light are already present in the view (see Inset 43). It was also noted that visitation to these locations would likely be minimal at night.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Inset 43 – View from Madison Barracks Marina demonstrating existing light sources along the shoreline.

Viewpoint 12 and 94 are from the same location on the Seaway Trail National Scenic Byway, approximately 10.3 miles from the nearest visible turbines. Rating panel results indicate that the Facility has insignificant to minimal contrast with other landscape features in this view under both summer (leaf on) and winter (leaf off) conditions. From this location, the turbines are difficult to perceive on the horizon due to the screening effects of intervening topography and vegetation. Although the winter view (Viewpoint 94), received a slightly higher contrast rating due to the lack of screening provided by leaf-on vegetation, the overall degree of contrast presented by the Facility is still minimal.

Viewpoint 51 from Chaumont Bay Village Beach is located approximately 15.7 miles from the Project. The insignificant to minimal contrast rating received by the simulation from this viewpoint can be attributed to the fact that the turbines are not only far away, but also partially obscured by vegetation and landform associated with Point Peninsula and other portions of the mainland. One rating panel member did suggest that turbine movement, may make the turbines more noticeable, but this would not likely increase the Facility’s contrast with the existing landscape. Similar results were noted for Viewpoint 41 in the Town of Cape Vincent, where views of the turbines approximately 10.5 miles away are substantially screened/obscured by the intervening Grenadier Island.

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Viewpoints 4, 18, 20, 23, 28, 31, 38, 43 and 75 all received contrast rating scores between 1.5 and 2.4, indicating minimal to moderate contrast. Viewpoints 4, 20, 31, 38 and 43 are representative views from within the Maintained Waterfront LSZ and range in distance from 6.4 to 13.4 miles from the Project. In viewpoints 4, 31, and 38 the presence of either the Madison Barracks, Sackets Harbor Battlefield, or Tibbets Point Lighthouse, respectively, contribute to slightly higher contrast ratings due to their historic significance and connection to the waterfront. In the case of Viewpoint 20, a view from Southwick Beach State Park, the turbines add a strong vertical element to an otherwise consistently level horizon, and present moderate scale contrast. A reoccurring comment for each of these viewpoints is that the water views are generally natural, undeveloped landscapes and the turbines will introduce a new built feature. Additionally, one rating panel member suggested that the clustering of the turbines from Viewpoint 43 (Point Peninsula) made the Project more dominant from that location. However, a consistent mitigating factor is the distance of the viewpoints from the Project (all except Viewpoint 43 are over 12 miles), which effectively reduces the Project’s overall contrast.

Viewpoints 18 and 23 are in the Naturalistic Waterfront LSZ, and are 11.2 and 13.8 miles from the Project, respectively. Viewpoint 18 is a view from the Black Pond Wildlife Management Area and Viewpoint 23 is from the Lakeview Marsh and Barrier Beach National Natural Landmark. In both locations, there is little to no evidence of human development in the view, and rating panel comments consistently mention the undisturbed nature of the landscape. The presence of the turbines alters this undeveloped character to some extent. Additionally, some rating panel members commented that the turbines appear to rise out of the water and effectively extend the visible shoreline in these views. However, the rating panel also suggested that the effects of distance and atmospheric scattering is a significant factor mitigating the visibility and contrast of the proposed turbines. In some comments, it was also suggested that viewer attention would be focused on the open water portions of the view, thus the turbines would not be the major focal point.

Viewpoint 28 is representative of the Village LSZ and located at the Boultons Beach Community in the Village of Sackets Harbor. This viewpoint is approximately 12.2 miles from the proposed Facility, and rating panel results suggest that the visual contrast would be moderate at this location due to the relative size of the turbines when compared to existing mature vegetation as well as the lack of built features in the existing view. However, the results also conclude that due to the effects of atmosphere and distance, the turbines are somewhat difficult to discern on the horizon and in some ways, balance the view from this location.

Viewpoint 75 is in the Forest LSZ and is approximately 13.1 miles from the Project at Westcott Beach State Park. Rating panel results indicate a minimal to moderate contrast, due largely to potential impacts on the viewer activity at this overlook near the park campground. Other comments suggest the scale of the turbines relative to other features in the landscape is disproportionate, thus drawing viewer attention. The impacts are mitigated by the distance to the turbines, and the

100

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

elevated nature of the view, which makes the windfarm appear relatively low on the horizon when compared to a water- level view.

Viewpoints 2 and 9 received scores indicating a moderate to appreciable visual impact. These viewpoints were the only landward simulations to receive moderate to appreciable contrast ratings. Viewpoint 9 is from Robert Wehle State Park, which is approximately 6.0 miles from the Project, and is representative of the Maintained Waterfront LSZ. The ratings received by this simulation can be attributed to the relative proximity of the turbines to the viewer, in combination with their position behind Stony Island. This, in combination with the bright front lighting of the turbines, resulted in relatively high contrast with most existing landscape elements. Additionally, comments suggest that the location of this viewpoint within a State Park resulted in somewhat higher contrast ratings in the areas of viewer activity and land use, since visitors to this location would likely expect a naturalistic view over Lake Ontario. Viewpoint 2, from County Route 59 in the Town of Brownville, also received a contrast rating of moderate to appreciable. Rating panel members commented that the strong backlighting and water glare contributed to the dominance of the turbines from this location. Similarly to Viewpoint 43, the clustering of the turbines resulting from the angle of the view also contributed to the higher rating scores.

Viewpoints 66, 103, 120 and 124 all received ratings indicating appreciable to strong visual contrast. All of these viewpoints were from the foreground and near mid-ground distance zones (0.2 – 1.0 mile) offshore of Galloo Island on Lake Ontario. At these distances, the turbines generally present strong contrast with existing features of the landscape and become the character-defining elements in the view. With the Project in place, the formerly undeveloped, or lightly developed, character of Galloo Island becomes dominated by utility infrastructure. Support facilities such as the met towers, collection substation and O&M building contribute to this change, but their effect is relatively minor compared to that of the turbines. However, all of these viewpoints are far offshore from the mainland and only accessible by boat. They will therefore be available to only a very small percentage of viewers within the visual study area.

As demonstrated by the contrast rating summary in Table 7 (see also Appendix E), the rating scores provided by the three landscape architects were generally consistent. Aspects of the existing views and simulations of the Project that were noted by all three panelists included the dominant presence of water, the generally undeveloped character of the existing views, the contrast in line, scale and form presented by the turbines, the importance of the number of turbines visible, the mitigating efforts of distance, and the screening effect of foreground and mid-ground vegetation. It was also noted that the strong horizontal lines created by the water, shorelines, and land masses in the views generally increase the perceived contrast of the turbines due to their size and vertical line. The overall results of the contrast rating indicate that the number of turbines visible, and their line, scale and form contrast with the landform, vegetation, and viewer activity, were the primary

101

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

sources of visual contrast with the existing landscape. However, this contrast was substantially mitigated by the effects of distance, as reflected in the moderate overall average contrast score (1.9).

Based on the results of numerous visual impact assessments of wind power projects conducted or reviewed by EDR since 1999, along with published studies of viewer reaction to proposed or constructed projects, the perceived contrast and visual impact of wind turbines are highly variable. Wind turbines are unlike most other energy/infrastructure facilities, such as transmission lines or conventional power plants, which are almost universally viewed as aesthetic liabilities. Wind turbines have a clean sculptural form that is considered attractive by some viewers (Pasqualetti et al., 2002). Consistent with the findings of the contrast rating evaluation summarized above, the greatest perceived visual impact typically occurs when numerous turbines are visible, where the turbines are close to the viewer, or where the turbines appear out of place in their setting. These conditions tend to heighten the Project's contrast with existing elements of the landscape in terms of line, form, and especially scale.

Although at times offering appreciable contrast with elements of the landscape, the distance of the proposed Project from viewers on the mainland (a minimum of 6 miles) substantially mitigates its visual impact. In addition, the proposed turbines will not be perceived by all viewers as having an adverse visual impact. In EDR’s experience, operating wind power projects in New York State have generally received a positive public reaction following their construction. This observation is supported by several annual surveys conducted by Jefferson County Community College in Lewis County, New York (location of the 195-turbine Maple Ridge Farm Project, in operation since 2006), which revealed strong community support for wind power (JCCS, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012). A significant majority (approximately 90%) of Lewis County residents who participated in these surveys expressed support for the development of additional wind energy projects (JCCS, 2010, 2011, 2012), and approximately 70% of respondents indicated that wind farms have had a positive impact on Lewis County (JCCS, 2009, 201, 2012). The 2008 survey indicated that 77% of individuals that were able to see and/or hear turbines from their homes indicated that the wind farms have had a positive impact on Lewis County. Additionally, only 7.5% of participants who live within 1 mile of the nearest wind turbine felt that wind farms have had a negative impact (JCCS, 2008).

This finding is consistent with a number of broader studies that have found increased local support for wind projects once they are constructed and become operational. Public support often follows a “U” pattern, in which acceptance is initially high, drops during the planning and construction, and then rebounds after the wind farm commences operation, and impacts are found to be less detrimental than feared (Firestone et al., 2009). Similar results have also been documented in public opinion/acceptance surveys regarding constructed wind power projects in other locations (Bishop and Proctor, 1994; Gipe, 2003). A study of public perception of wind power in Scotland and Ireland (Warren, et. al., 2005) provided the following conclusions:

102

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

“A remarkably consistent picture is emerging from surveys of public attitudes to wind power, and the case studies provide further evidence that this picture is a representative one. Large majorities of people are strongly in favour of their local windfarm, their personal experience having engendered positive attitudes. Moreover, although some of those living near proposed windfarm sites are less convinced of their merits, large majorities nevertheless favour their construction. This stands in marked contrast with the impression conveyed in much media coverage, which typically portrays massive grassroots opposition to windfarms.”

Based on the analysis in this VIA, it is expected that similar overall reactions, with some individual variability in acceptance, will result for the proposed Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility.

5.4 Nighttime Impacts

The potential visibility of FAA warning lights on the proposed turbines, as determined through viewshed analysis, is described in Section 5.1.1 of this VIA (see Table 5 and Figure 8). Although this area is fairly extensive, field review indicates that nighttime views will be largely restricted to viewpoints along the immediate shoreline of Lake Ontario. In addition, as indicated in Section 5.3, nighttime simulations from the Madison Barracks Marina (Viewpoint 22) and Robert Wehle State Park (Viewpoint 7) received minimal contrast ratings. This is generally due to the distance of the turbines from the mainland shoreline and/or the presence of existing lights in the view. However, the introduction of the lights to the night sky will be noticeable from many locations, and contrast of the aviation warning lights with the night sky could be appreciable in dark settings with water views that include few, if any, other man-made light sources. In such settings viewer attention will be drawn by the flashing of the lights, which suggest a more commercial/industrial land use. Any positive reaction that wind turbines engender (due to their graceful form, association with clean energy, etc.) is lost at night. While generally not an issue from roads and public resources visited almost exclusively during the day (parks, trails, historic sites, etc.), turbine lighting could be perceived negatively by area residents who may be able to view these lights from their homes and yards. However, this impact will be limited by the distance of the Project from the mainland, and the abundance of existing lights in areas of concentrated human settlement along developed sections of the Lake Ontario shoreline. In addition, if the FAA allows deployment of a radar-activated warning light system on this Project, nighttime visibility would be limited to those relatively rare instances when passing aircraft pass in proximity to the Project.

5.5 Visual Impact of Associated Support Facilities

The proposed wind turbines are the visually dominant feature of the proposed Galloo Island Facility and therefore are the primary focus of the detailed analyses presented in this VIA. However, the Project does include some additional above- ground components, which could also have a visual effect on aesthetic resources and viewers within the study area.

103

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Collection Substation As described in Section 2, and shown on Figure 2 of this VIA, the Project includes construction of a collection substation on the south side of Galloo Island, approximately 300 feet from an undeveloped portion of the shoreline. Preliminary engineering plans suggest that the substation will have a footprint measuring approximately 230 feet by 210 feet and will include electrical equipment up to 70 feet tall (Figure 3, Sheet 2). Substation lighting will be kept to the minimum necessary for safety and security. Lights at the substation will be hooded downward and activated only as needed by a motion detector or auto-off switch. Due to the limited size and height of the substation, along with the narrow profile of the taller substation equipment, the collection substation will only be visible from foreground and near mid-ground viewpoints on the surface of Lake Ontario, Galloo Island itself, and possibly from Little Galloo Island and Stony Island. From these foreground and mid- ground locations, the collection substation may introduce an industrial element to the landscape that contrasts with the current undeveloped/lightly developed character of Galloo Island. However, as illustrated in the simulation from Viewpoint 103, from locations where the substation is visible, the wind turbines will be the dominant, character-defining features of the proposed Project. The collection substation, in and of itself, will not significantly influence the character of views around Galloo Island once the turbines are in place. In addition, relatively few people will experience these types of views, which are a significant distance from the shoreline and require a boat to access. The collection substation is approximately 6.5 miles from the nearest mainland location and therefore will be imperceptible from visually sensitive resources and viewers on the mainland. Given this lack of visibility, the collection substation will have an insignificant impact on views from the mainland.

O&M Building The O&M building will be located on the south side of Galloo Island north of Gill Harbor. This building will be a 4000-square foot, one story, pole barn style structure (Figure 3, Sheet 2). As indicated in the simulation from Viewpoint 124, like the substation, the O&M facility will only be discernable from foreground and near mid-ground views, thus limiting potential impacts to viewer on the water and the surrounding islands. If visible from these areas, the O&M building will appear consistent in line, scale and form with other existing buildings on this portion of Galloo Island. The structure is unlikely to be visible from mainland locations, but even if it is, it will be subservient to the turbines, which will be the focus of viewer attention.

Barge Landing and Met Towers The barge landing site will only be in place during construction and the only portion of the landing site that will remain in place after construction will be a concrete bulkhead and abutment structure which will serve as the upland transition for the temporary dock system. This bulkhead will have minimal visibility at the completion of the Project. The potential visual impact of the barge landing during construction is described in further detail in Section 5.6. The met towers are visible in

104

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

simulations from Viewpoints 66 and 120, and one of these towers is prominently visible in the simulation from Viewpoint 120. As this simulation illustrates, while these structures may contribute to the overall change in character resulting from Project construction, even when clearly visible, the met towers are subservient to the wind turbines, which are the character- defining elements in the view. Beyond near mid-ground distances, the met towers will be difficult to perceive, and will be barely perceptible in background views from the mainland.

5.6 Visual Impacts During Construction

Visual impacts during construction are anticipated to be relatively minor, generally only visible from the island itself, and temporary in nature (lasting no more than __ months). Representative photographs of construction activities are included in Figure 11. Anticipated visual effects during construction include the following:

• The on-island construction laydown yard will be developed by removing vegetation, stripping the topsoil, and installing a level gravel-surfaced working area. During Project construction, the yard will be occupied by vehicles, construction trailers and stockpiled materials. Following construction the gravel surface will be removed and natural vegetation restored. • Project construction will be initiated by clearing woody vegetation from all turbine sites, access roads, and electrical collection line routes. It is generally assumed that a radius of up to 200 feet will be cleared around each turbine, a 75-foot wide corridor will be cleared along access roads, and a 40-foot-wide corridor will be cleared along underground electric collection lines that are not adjacent to access roads. • Wherever feasible, existing unimproved roads on the island will be upgraded for use as Project access roads in order to minimize impacts to active agricultural areas, forest, and wetlands. Road construction will involve soil stripping and grubbing of stumps, as necessary. Stripped topsoil will be stockpiled along the road corridor for use in site restoration. Following removal of topsoil, subsoil will be graded, compacted, and surfaced with up to 12 inches of crushed stone. During construction, access roads with a travel surface of up to 40 feet wide will be required to accommodate large cranes and oversized construction vehicles. • Once the roads are complete for a particular group of turbine sites, turbine foundation construction will commence on that completed access road section. Topsoil will be stripped from the excavation area, and stockpiled for future site restoration. Following topsoil removal, tracked excavators will be used to excavate the foundation hole. Subsoil and rock will be segregated from topsoil and stockpiled for reuse as backfill. Once the foundation concrete is poured and sufficiently cured, the excavation area around and over it is backfilled with the excavated on-site material. The base of each tower will be surrounded by a 6-foot wide gravel skirt, and an area approximately 100 feet by 60 feet will remain as a permanent gravel crane pad.

105

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

• Collection lines will be installed underground by direct burial or through excavation of an open trench. Using this installation technique, topsoil and subsoil are excavated, segregated, and stockpiled adjacent to the trench. Following cable installation, the trench is backfilled with suitable fill material and any additional spoils are spread out or otherwise properly disposed of. Following installation of the buried collection line, areas will be returned to pre-construction grades and revegetated. • Turbine assembly and erection involves the use of cranes, boom trucks, and rough terrain fork-lifts for off-loading materials. The tower sections, rotor components, and nacelle for each turbine will be delivered to the island by barge, and then delivered to each individual turbine site by flatbed trucks and unloaded by cranes. A large erection crane will set the tower segments on the foundation, place the nacelle on top of the tower, and install the rotor. The visibility of these cranes will be comparable to the visibility of the proposed turbines (in terms of height). However, use of crane equipment at each turbine site will be temporary, generally one or two days per turbine. • During Project construction, there will also be a temporary increase in boat traffic and vehicle parking at mainland launch sites where contractors and construction vehicles for the Project will depart for Galloo Island. However, as mentioned in Section 2.2.12, the facilities to accommodate this activity either already exist, or require only minor expansion. • Turbine components and bulk materials (concrete and aggregate) will be transported by barge and/or specialized vessels departing out of the Port of Oswego. Consequently, oversize/overweight transport vehicles are not anticipated on mainland roads within the visual study area. In addition, widening of the pavement of local roads and intersection will not be required to accommodate the turning movements of delivery vehicles, and damage by heavy construction vehicle traffic is not anticipated. However, barges transporting large turbine components to and from the Port of Oswego will be visible on occasion to some shoreline residents and boaters on Lake Ontario. These views will generally be at substantial distances and of short duration. • A temporary dock system will be installed to accommodate the barge deliveries of construction equipment and Project components. A temporary barge ramp will be installed consisting of a steel truss structure measuring approximately 30 feet wide and 120 feet long and will remain in place until the conclusion of construction activities (see Insets 44 and 45). At that time the barge ramp will be removed, leaving only a concrete bulkhead and up to four underwater anchoring points so that the dock system can be reconstructed during Project operation in the event subsequent deliveries are required.

106

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Inset 44 – View from the west side of Galloo Island toward the temporary barge landing structure, during construction.

Inset 45 – View from the west side of Galloo Island toward the temporary barge landing, after construction.

107

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

With the exception of turbine erection, all of the construction activity, materials and equipment described above will be difficult, if not impossible, to see due to the fact that 1) a vegetated buffer will generally be maintained between Project components and the island shoreline, 2) during the dormant season when a vegetative buffer may be less effective in screening ground level views, viewers on Lake Ontario (i.e., in boats) will be minimal, 3) ground disturbance associated with Project construction will be restored/revegetated, 4) temporary facilities such as the barge ramp and batch plan will be disassembled and removed at the end of construction, and 5) views available to the public from the mainland are all at least 6 miles away. The distance of mainland views will essentially limit the view of construction activity to barge deliveries, somewhat increased boat traffic on the lake, and the upper sections of the cranes as they assemble and erect the turbines. As indicated previously, all of the construction activities will be restricted to the background in all views except those from the waters immediately surrounding Galloo Island. These on-water views will only be available to boaters and thus will be perceived by only a small number of viewers. Due to the offshore location of the Project, the visual impact of its construction is thus limited in both duration and magnitude.

Because temporarily disturbed areas will be restored to original grades (where feasible) and seeded to reestablish vegetative cover, no long term visual impacts associated with soil and vegetation disturbance are anticipated from nearby areas on Lake Ontario.

108

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Figure 11. Typical Construction Photographs for Wind Energy Projects (4 pages)

109

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

5.7 Cumulative Visual Impacts

Per the requirements set forth in 16 NYCRR § 1000.24(a), the potential cumulative visual effect of the Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility as well as other existing or proposed wind energy projects in the surrounding region must be considered. Cumulative impacts are two or more individual environmental effects which, when taken together, are significant or that compound or increase other environmental effects. This section addresses the potential cumulative visual impacts that may arise from interactions between the impacts of the proposed Galloo Island Project and the impacts of the existing Wolfe Island Wind Farm on Wolfe Island in the Province Ontario, Canada. The Wolfe Island Wind Farm is a 198 MW facility consisting of 86 turbines with a maximum blade tip height of 415 feet (http://www.transalta.com/sites/default/files/WolfeIslandBrochure_2010.pdf). No other wind projects exist nor are currently progressing through the approval process within 15 miles of Galloo Island. The proposed Horse Creek Wind Project is located approximately 17 miles northeast of the Galloo Island Facility, in the Towns of Brownville, Clayton, Lyme and Orleans in Jefferson County, New York, but it is very unlikely that these two projects would have a cumulative visual impact. This conclusion is based not only on the distance between the two projects, but the fact that views of the Galloo Island Facility would be largely restricted to the Lake Ontario shoreline, in the opposite direction of the Horse Creek Wind Farm. The Wolfe Island Project is located approximately 14 miles north of the proposed Galloo Island Facility, and like Galloo Island, is visible across the open water of Lake Ontario. Other operating projects are too distant to pose the potential for significant adverse cumulative impacts.

To evaluate the potential cumulative visual impact of the Wolfe Island and Galloo Island projects, a cumulative viewshed analysis was prepared. To complete this analysis, the Wolfe Island turbine locations were digitized from aerial photographs, and a vegetation viewshed analysis was performed based on a maximum blade tip height of 416 feet (126.5 meters). A 15-mile radius study area was used for the Wolfe Island facility to determine the geographic areas of potential visibility that occur within in the Galloo Island visual study area. It should be noted that the combined visual study area for the two projects encompasses an area that, in some locations, is in excess of 30 miles wide. It is not anticipated that cumulative impacts will be a factor at these distances. To account for this, only the portion of the two 15-mile radius viewsheds that overlap are considered to represent the area of potential cumulative impact (cumulative visual study area). The cumulative viewshed analysis of the Galloo Island and Wolfe Island projects is presented in Figure 16 and summarized in Table 8.

110

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Table 8. Summary of Cumulative Viewshed Results

Cumulative Visual Study Area Results Blade Tip Vegetation and Topography 1, 2

Area Percent Only Galloo Island Wind Project Visible 25.9 11.2 Only Wolfe Island Wind Farm Visible 16.7 7.2 Both Galloo Island Wind and Wolfe Island Visible 169.6 73.1 Both Galloo Island Wind and Wolfe Island Not Visible 19.9 8.5 Total Study Area 232.1 100

Landward Cumulative Visual Study Area Results Blade Tip Vegetation and Topography 1, 2

Area Percent Only Galloo Island Wind Project Visible 11.4 18.5 Only Wolfe Island Wind Farm Visible 13.3 21.5 Both Galloo Island Wind and Wolfe Island Visible 18 29.3 Both Galloo Island Wind and Wolfe Island Not Visible 18.9 30.7 Total Study Area 61.6 100 1The Cumulative Visual Study Area encompasses 232.0 square miles where the 15-mile radius study areas for each project overlap. The landward portion of the visual study area totals 61.6 square miles and the remaining 170.4 square miles are comprised of Lake Ontario and its associated bays. 2The numbers presented in this table have been rounded to the nearest tenth of a square mile or tenth of a percent, thereby introducing a small margin of rounding error. The totals presented herein are based on more precise figures.

The cumulative viewshed analysis suggests that views of only the Galloo Island Project will be available 11.2% of the total cumulative visual study area. Views of only the Wolfe Island Wind Farm will be available from approximately 7.2% of the cumulative visual study area. Both the Galloo Island Project and the Wolfe Island Wind Farm will be visible together from approximately 73.1% of the cumulative study area. The remaining 8.5% of the cumulative visual study area will not have visibility of either project. Cumulative visibility tends to be concentrated within Lake Ontario and the various associated bays which have outward views to the north and west (Figure 12). When considering just the landward portion of the cumulative visual study area, the viewshed analysis suggests that the Galloo Island Project, alone, will be visible across 18.5% of the land area. Only the Wolfe Island Project will be visible within 21.5% of this same landward area, and both projects may be visible within 29.3% of the landward portion of the Cumulative Visual Study Area. The landward areas with the highest concentration of cumulative visibility, include the peninsulas and shores that are oriented to the north and northwest, such as the north side of Point Peninsula, Grenadier Island, and the north side of Pillar Point. Additionally, the

111

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

northwestern shores of Cape Vincent (Tibbets Point) and portions of Chaumont Bay coast line may have view of both projects.

Field review confirmed that in areas where both facilities could be visible, they will generally appear in different portions of the view. Visibility of the existing Wolfe Island Wind Farm was confirmed from several viewpoints during field review, including two of the simulation locations. These include Viewpoint 7, from Robert Wehle State Park, and Viewpoint 38 from Tibbetts Point Light House. As field review and subsequent simulations from these viewpoints indicate, the greatest cumulative visual effect will occur during the nighttime, as a result of the aviation obstruction warning lights on the turbines. From the surface of Lake Ontario, and dark shoreline viewpoints with open views to the west and north, the lights of both facilities could be visible within the same field of view (see Figure 13). However, as mentioned previously, if the FAA allows deployment of a radar-activated warning light system on this Project, nighttime visibility would be limited to those relatively rare instances when passing aircraft pass in proximity to the Project. In addition, in shoreline locations, an open field of view of approximately 70-160 degrees would be required to take in both projects, depending on viewer position. Sky glow created by lights in the City of Kingston, Ontario will diminish the cumulative impact of the Wolfe Island lights in many locations to the south of Galloo Island. Potential views of the lights from both projects will be most available from the surface of Lake Ontario. However, these views will only be experienced by those few viewers who are out in a boat during nighttime hours.

Daytime cumulative visibility of the two projects will be most available from open shoreline locations, but as indicated in the cumulative visual impact of the two projects during daytime hours will be limited due to the effects of distance and characteristics of turbines (e.g., white color, narrow profile) that reduce their visibility against the sky in the background. Under different sky/lighting conditions, each project could be more visible, but given the separation of the two projects, conditions that accentuate the visibility of one project (e.g., back lighting) would likely not have the same effect on the other. Consequently, the cumulative daytime visual impact of the Galloo Island and Wolfe Island Projects should be insignificant to minor.

112

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Figure 12. Cumulative Viewshed Analysis 1 page

113

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

Figure 13. Cumulative Visual Simulations (2 pages)

114

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

6.0 Conclusions

The VIA for the Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility allows the following conclusions to be drawn:

1. Worst cast viewshed analysis (i.e., based only on topography) conducted as part of this VIA indicates that the Project could theoretically be visible from approximately 96% of the 15-mile study area and approximately 85% of the landward portion of the study area. However, factoring forest vegetation into the viewshed analysis significantly reduces potential Project visibility. Within the landward portion of the study area, vegetation, in combination with topography, will serve to block daytime views of the Project from approximately 61% of the study area (i.e., approximately 39% of the landward portion of study area is indicated as having potential Project visibility). Field review confirms that actual Project visibility is expected to be even less than indicated by viewshed analysis, and restricted largely to Lake Ontario and the immediate lake shore. Research suggests that significant visual effects of wind power projects are generally concentrated within the foreground and mid-ground distance zones (Eyre, 1995; Bishop, 2002). Public views within this distance will only be available from the surface of Lake Ontario.

Potential visibility of the Project from the various LSZs within the study area (based on vegetation viewshed analysis) and field review is summarized as follows:

• The LSZ with the least amount of potential Project visibility is Forest, which offers minimal outward views due to the screening effects of the forest canopy. Note that portions of the Forest LSZ may, in reality, include small breaks in the vegetation that allow for occasional outward views (e.g., the overlook in Robert Wehle State Park). However, the occurrence of these areas is limited, and views of the Project will generally be fully or substantially screened within the Forest LSZ. • The Open Water LSZ offers the most potential for unobscured views of the Project. This LSZ makes up approximately 78% of the 15-mile visual study area, and viewshed analysis indicates that 98% of this zone has potential Project visibility. Open water areas provide opportunities for foreground, mid-ground, and for distant views due to the lack of screening by intervening foreground vegetation or topography. However, this zone also includes very few viewers, and within the study area islands and peninsulas can still provide screening from the Open Water LSZ in many near shore areas. • The more populated portions of the study area that make up the Village LSZ offer potential Project visibility in 42% of their acreage. However, as confirmed by field review, this greatly overstates the opportunities for Project visibility in these areas, as the buildings and associated vegetation that typify village and hamlet centers significantly screen views of the Project from these areas.

115

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

• The potential for substantial turbine visibility is indicated within the Maintained and Naturalistic Shoreline LSZs. The blade-tip vegetation viewshed indicates that 60% and 52%, respectively, of the land area in these zones could potentially have daytime views of the Project. However, together the Maintained and Naturalistic Waterfront LSZs make up less than 5% of the landward portion of the study area (less than 1% of the total study area). Additionally, despite their shoreline location, viewshed analysis indicates that the Project will be screened by islands and interceding land masses in several locations within each of these LSZ’s. Field review also suggests that actual Project visibility from these zones is often limited to the immediate shoreline, with buildings trees, and/or dunes blocking views only a short distance in from the shore.

• Viewshed analysis results suggest that visibility of the turbines will be available from approximately 39% of the Wetland/Successional LSZ. However, field review suggested that visibility toward the Project would be substantially reduced due to the density and height of the vegetation found at many locations in this LSZ. Field observations revealed that dense wetland vegetation blocked outward views from shoreline bays and river valleys and successional fields were more in character with the Forested LSZ in that the density, albeit lower height, vegetation screened views toward the water. There were some exceptions found in elevated upland successional and wetland areas in which the vegetation was lower and less dense, thus offering partially screened views toward the Project.

2. With respect to the collection substation, the viewshed analysis indicates that views of this component of the Project could be available in approximately 69% of a 5-mile study area surrounding it. However, due to the low height, relatively small size, and narrow profile of the substation components, actual visibility is unlikely to be available beyond 3 miles. Within this distance, viewers would be restricted to Galloo Island, Little Galloo Island, Calf Island, Stony Island, and the open waters of Lake Ontario. These areas are inaccessible to the vast majority of viewers within the visual study area.

3. Viewshed analysis indicates that the Project could be at least partially visible from many of the identified aesthetic resources of statewide and local significance that occur within the study area (see Appendix C). Field review confirmed that the area with greatest potential Project visibility occurs along the Lake Ontario shoreline. Examples of sensitive visual resources along the shoreline that will likely have views of the Project include, Tibbets Point Lighthouse, Sackets Harbor Battlefield, Madison Barracks, Getman Farmhouse, Robert Wehle State Park, and Lakeview Marsh and Barrier Beach NNL. The Project will be at least partially screened by vegetation and topography at most inland sites, including most village/hamlet areas where many of the residents, tourist attractions and historic properties in the study area are concentrated.

116

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

4. The 15-mile study area includes 110 individual properties and seven districts that are listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP. Viewshed analysis indicates that 25 of these sites will be fully screened from view of the Project and that an additional 11 sites will be at least partially screened. For those sites with open views, the Project’s potential effect would be a change (resulting from the introduction of wind turbines) in the property’s visual setting.5 The analyses included in this study indicate that the Project will generally be at least partially screened from most locations in village and hamlet settings by structures and trees. However, views of turbines or turbine blades will be available from many shoreline areas, and the outskirts of some villages and hamlets.

The simulations prepared for the Project illustrate a representative range of Project visibility and visual contrast that could be experienced at historic sites within the study area, all of which would be at background distances (over 6 miles). At this distance, the Project’s effect on the visual setting of a historic site will typically be limited. It is also worth noting that visibility of a Project does not necessarily indicate that an adverse effect will occur.6 The potential effect resulting from the introduction of wind turbines into the visual setting for any historic or architecturally significant property is dependent on a number of factors including distance, visual dominance, orientation of views, viewer context and activity, and the types and density of modern features in the existing view (such as prominent features like modern buildings/residences, overhead electrical distribution lines, cellular towers, billboards, highways, and silos). It is also worth noting that in many instances, visual setting may not be an important factor contributing to a given property’s historical significance. Many properties are determined NRHP-eligible because they are representative examples of vernacular nineteenth-century architectural styles that retain their overall integrity of design and materials. These properties would retain the characteristics that caused them to be recommended eligible after the introduction of wind turbines into their visual settings. For these types of resources, the potential change in the setting resulting from the Project will not necessarily result in diminished public enjoyment and appreciation of a given historic property, or impair its character or quality.

5 The Federal Regulations entitled “Protection of Historic Resources” (36 CFR 800) include in Section 800.5(2) a discussion of potential adverse effects on historic resources. The following types of effects apply to wind energy projects include: “Adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to: [items i-iii do not apply]; (iv) Change of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the property's setting that contribute to its historic significance; (v) Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features; [items vi-vii do not apply]” (CFR 2004). 6 The NYSDEC guidance concerning visual impacts on aesthetic resources of statewide significance (which include NRHP-listed and NRHP-eligible structures) defines significant aesthetic impacts as 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… 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” (NYSDEC, 2000:5).

117

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

5. Simulations of the proposed Project indicate that the visibility and visual impact of the wind turbines will be variable, based on landscape setting, extent of natural screening, presence of other man-made features in the view, baseline scenic quality, viewer sensitivity, distance of the viewer from the Project, and the number of turbines visible in the view. Evaluation by a panel of three registered landscape architects indicates that the Project’s overall contrast with the visual/aesthetic character of the area will generally be moderate. However, based on the contrast rating scores and comments from the panel, greater levels of contrast can be anticipated where open views of turbines are available at foreground and mid-ground distances, or from sensitive aesthetic resources or areas with higher overall scenic quality and/or viewer sensitivity. Conversely, contrast is reduced when turbines are partially screened, viewed at greater distances, or viewed in a setting with existing man-made features. Because the vast majority of potential viewers will only see the proposed Project from background distances, the degree of turbine visibility and visual impact will be limited. Foreground and mid-ground views of the turbines and other above-ground Project components will only be available to a relatively small sub-set of viewers on Galloo Island, Stony Island and the surface of Lake Ontario, well offshore from the mainland. Based on experience with currently operating wind power projects elsewhere, public reaction to the Project is likely to be highly variable based on proximity to the turbines, the affected landscape, and personal attitude of the viewer regarding wind power. Not all viewers consider wind turbines to be aesthetic liability. As Stanton (1996) notes, although a wind power project is a man-made facility, what it represents "may be seen as a positive addition" to the landscape by viewers.

6. Based upon the nighttime observations and simulations, the red flashing lights on the turbines could result in a nighttime visual impact on certain viewers. The actual significance of this impact from a given viewpoint will depend on how many turbines are visible, what other sources of lighting are present in the view, the extent of screening provided by structures and trees, and nighttime viewer activity/sensitivity. However, night lighting could be somewhat distracting, and could have an adverse effect on shoreline residents and recreational users that currently experience (or expect) dark nighttime skies. It is anticipated that nighttime visibility/visual impact will be reduced due to 1) the distance of the Project from mainland viewers, 2) the limited nighttime boating that occurs on Lake Ontario, 3) existing vegetation and topography that screen inland portions of the visual study area, 4) the concentration of residences in villages, hamlets, and along developed shorelines where existing lights already compromise dark skies and compete for viewer attention, and 5) the Applicant’s proposal to utilize a radar activated warning lights when aircraft travel within a certain perimeter around the Project.

7. Based on the cumulative viewshed analysis, visibility of both the Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility and the Wolfe Island Wind Farm could be available in approximately 73 percent of the cumulative visual study area. The majority of this area is Lake Ontario. When considering just the landward portion of the cumulative visual study area, only 29.3

118

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

percent of the area has potential cumulative visibility. Field review confirmed that cumulative visibility of both projects will be limited from the landward portion of study area, and much more widely available from the water. However, when available, these views are often in excess of 100 degrees apart in the field of view. Thus both projects will rarely be viewed together in the same, single field of view. Due to the effects of distance, cumulative daytime visibility of the two projects is less likely to have an adverse impact than cumulative nighttime visibility. From some landward locations (such as Robert Wehle State Park), the nighttime visibility of both projects will extend the portion of the horizon occupied by the blinking FAA lights. However, if the FAA allows deployment of a radar-activated warning light system on this Project, nighttime visibility would be limited to those relatively rare instances when passing aircraft pass in proximity to the Project. In addition, this visibility would be further diminished by the sky glow resulting from the City of Kingston, Ontario.

8. Mitigation options are limited, given the nature of the Project and its siting criteria (very tall structures on an offshore island). However, in accordance with NYSDEC Program Policy (NYSDEC, 2000), various mitigation measures were considered. These included the following:

A. Professional Design. All turbines will have uniform design, speed, color, height and rotor diameter. Turbines will be mounted on conical steel towers that minimize visual clutter. The placement of any advertising devices (including commercial advertising, conspicuous lettering, or logos identifying the Project owner or turbine manufacturer) on the turbines will be prohibited.

B. Screening. Due do the height of the turbines and their distance from most viewers, on-site screening of individual turbines with earthen berms, fences, or planted vegetation would not be effective in reducing Project visibility or visual impact. Additionally, based on field review and visual simulations, the collection substation, O&M building, barge landing, and met towers are not anticipated to be visible to a substantial number of viewers, or from visually sensitive sites. Therefore, visual screening of these components of the Project is not anticipated to be necessary.

C. Relocation. Due to the proposed Project’s location on a distant island, relocation of the Project to an alternate (i.e., mainland) location would bring the turbines and other Project components closer to more viewers and more visually sensitive resources, thus likely increasing overall visual impact. Because of the variety of background distances and direction from which the Project may be seen in its current proposed locations, individual turbine relocation will not significantly alter visual impact. Where visible from sensitive resources within the study area, the turbines are typically viewed as a distant cluster rather than individual machines. Therefore, turbine relocation would not be effective in mitigating visual impacts. Additionally, the Project layout has been designed to avoid

119

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

sensitive on-island resources and relocation of individual Project components could result in greater environmental impacts and/or reduced power generation.

D. Camouflage. The white/off white color of wind turbines (as mandated by the FAA to avoid daytime lighting) generally minimizes contrast with the sky under most conditions. This is demonstrated by simulations prepared under a variety of sky conditions. Consequently this color will be utilized on the Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility. The size and movement of the turbines prevents more extensive camouflage from being a viable mitigation alternative (i.e., the turbines cannot be made to look like anything else). Nielsen (1996) notes that efforts to camouflage or hide wind farms generally fail, while Stanton (1996) feels that such efforts are inappropriate. She believes that wind turbine siting "is about honestly portraying a form in direct relation to its function and our culture; by compromising this relationship, a negative image of attempted camouflage can occur." The O&M building for the Project will be designed to minimize contrast with the existing buildings on Galloo Island.

E. Low Profile. A significant reduction in turbine height is not possible without significantly decreasing power generation. Less generating capacity (resulting from smaller turbines) could threaten the Project’s economic feasibility. To avoid generation losses, use of smaller turbines would require that additional turbines be constructed, as was proposed for the previous __-turbine Hounsfield Wind Project on Galloo Island. Visual simulations proposed for that project demonstrate the effect of an increased number of smaller turbines. Several studies have concluded that people tend to prefer fewer larger turbines to a greater number of smaller ones (Thayer and Freeman, 1987; van de Wardt and Staats, 1988).

F. Downsizing. reducing the number of turbines could reduce visual impact from certain foreground and mid-ground viewpoints (primarily on Lake Ontario). However, from most locations within the study area where the turbines will be visible, the visual impact of the Project would change only marginally, unless the reduction was substantial. Elimination of a substantial number of turbines would threaten the economic viability of the Project significantly reduce the socioeconomic benefits of the Project, and reduce the Project’s ability to assist the State in meeting its energy policy and climate change objectives and goals.

G. Alternate Technologies. Alternate technologies for comparable power generation, such as solar-powered facilities, would have different visual impacts than wind power, but would likely result in reduced Project visibility from mainland portions of the study area. However, whereas the wind resource on the island is generally superior to that on mainland, thus supporting the premium cost of the underwater cable, the solar resource is equal or lesser to what is found on the mainland and an island solar project would not be economically competitive. Consequently,

120

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

this alternative is not considered acceptable by either the Applicant. Alternative wind power technologies (e.g., vertical axis turbines), which may or may not reduce visual impacts, do not currently exist in a form that could be used on a commercial/utility-scale Project.

H. Lighting. Turbine lighting will be kept to the minimum allowable by the FAA. As mentioned previously, the Applicant intends to deploy a radar-activated (i.e., radar detected) lighting system, pending site approval by the FAA. These systems allow lights on the wind turbine hubs to remain off at night while no aircraft are in the area. Radar units placed within the Facility Site will detect if any aircraft come within the vicinity of the Facility. When an aircraft is detected within a set range, the lights are activated. Once the aircraft has left the vicinity, the lights automatically deactivate. Medium intensity red strobes will be used at night, rather than white strobes or steady burning red lights. Fixtures with a narrow beam path will be utilized as a means of minimizing the visibility/intensity of FAA warning lights at ground-level vantage points. Lighting at the substation will be kept to a minimum necessary for security and maintenance safety. Substation lighting will be set on a motion detector or an auto-off switch, and hooded downward. The lights will be lowest intensity required to accomplish their safety purpose, and will not be sodium vapor lights. Following Certification of the Project, a lighting designer will be employed to design a lighting plan for the substation in order to avoid any redundant and ineffective lighting. O&M building lights will be set on a motion detector and will be dark sky compliant. It is anticipated that these lights will be hooded and of the lowest intensity to accomplish its safety purpose, and will not be a sodium vapor lights.

I. Maintenance. The turbines will be maintained to ensure that they are clean, and operating efficiently. Research and anecdotal reports indicate that viewers find wind turbines more appealing when the rotors are turning (Pasqualetti et al., 2002; Stanton, 1996). In addition, the Project developer will establish a decommissioning fund to ensure that if the Project goes out of service and is not repowered/redeveloped, all visible above-ground components will be removed.

J. Offsets. Correction of an existing aesthetic problem within the viewshed is a viable mitigation strategy for wind power projects that result in significant adverse visual impact. Historic structure restoration/maintenance activities could be undertaken to offset potential visual impacts on cultural resources along the Lake Ontario shoreline.

121

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

7.0 Literature Cited/References

America’s Byways. 2017. America’s Byways [website]. Available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/byways/ (Accessed February 20, 2017). U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration.

Beck, J. 1985. Historic and Natural Districts Inventory Form for Broadway Historic District, Cape Vincent, New York. August 1985. Prepared by JoAnn Beck, St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission, Watertown, New York.

Bishop, I.D. 2002. Determination of Thresholds of Visual Impact: The Case of Wind Turbines. Environmental and Planning B: Planning and Design (29) 707-718.

Bishop and Proctor. 1994. Love Them or Loathe Them? Public Attitude Towards Wind Farms in Wales. Cardiff, Wales.

Brooke, C. E. 1974. National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form for Madison Barracks. September 1974. Prepared by Cornelia Brooke, Research Assistant, New York State Division of Historic Preservation, Albany, New York.

Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects (CEIWEP). 2007. Appendix D: A Visual Impact Assessment Process for Evaluating Wind-Energy Projects. In, Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects, pp. 349-376. National Research Council, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

EDR. 2007. Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, Heritage Area Management Program, Harbor Management Plan for the Village of Sackets Harbor. March 2007 Draft prepared for the Village of Sackets Harbor.

EDR. 2016. Re: Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility Identification of Visually Sensitive Resources Official Request for Information. Letter from Gregory S. Liberman, Senior Project Manager, EDR, Syracuse, NY, to Municipal Planning Representatives and State Agencies (various). October 4, 2016.

Eyre, N.J. 1995. European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE, Externalities of Energy, “Extern E” Project. Volume 6. Wind and Hydro, Part I, Wind, pp. 1-121, Report No. EUR 16525.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2005. Development of Obstruction Lighting Standards for Wind Turbine Farms. DOT/FAA/AR-TN 05/50. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.

Fenneman and Johnson. 1946. Physiographic Divisions of the Conterminous U.S. [shapefile]. Available at: http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getspatial?physio (Accessed March 10, 2015).

Firestone, J., W. Kempton, and A. Krueger. 2009. Public Acceptance of Offshore Wind Power Projects in the United States. Wind Energy, 12, 183-202.

Gipe, P. 1993. The Wind Industry’s Experience with Aesthetic Criticism. Leonardo, No. 26, pp. 243-248.

Gipe, P. 2003. Tilting at Windmills: Public Opinion Toward Wind Energy [website]. Available at: www.wind- works.org/articles/tilting.html (Accessed January 20, 2011).

Jefferson County Community College (JCCC). 2008. Presentation of Results: Second Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community December 2008. Jefferson County Community College, Center for Community Studies, Watertown, NY. Available at: http://www.sunyjefferson.edu/ccs/index.html.

122

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

JCCC. 2010. Presentation of Results: Third Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community February 2010. Jefferson County Community College, Center for Community Studies, Watertown, NY. Available at: http://www.sunyjefferson.edu/ccs/index.html.

JCCC. 2011. Presentation of Results: Fourth Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community February 2011. Jefferson County Community College, Center for Community Studies, Watertown, NY. Available at: http://www.sunyjefferson.edu/ccs/index.html.

JCCC. 2012. Presentation of Results: Fifth Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community February 2011. Jefferson County Community College, Center for Community Studies, Watertown, NY. Available at: http://www.sunyjefferson.edu/ccs/index.html.

Jones and Jones. 1977. Esthetics and Visual Resource Management for Highways. Prepared by Jones and Jones for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Environmental Policy.

Lake Ontario LAMP. 1998. Executive Summary Stage 1: Problem Definition. May 1998.

Macaulay Land Use Research Institute. 2010. Perceptual Studies of Windfarms [website]. Available at: http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/ccw/task-two/strategies.html (Accessed March 10, 2016).

National Park Service (NPS). 2009. Nationwide Rivers Inventory New York Segments [website]. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/states/ny.html (Accessed February 20, 2017).

NPS. 2017a. Dexter Marsh. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nnlandmarks/site.htm?Site=LAMA-NY (Accessed February 19, 2017).

NPS. 2017b. Find a Park in NY [website]. Available at: http://www.nps.gov/state/ny/index.htm (Accessed February 20, 2017). U.S. Department of the Interior.

NPS. 2017c. Lakeview Marsh and Barrier Beach. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nnlandmarks/site.htm?Site=LAMA-NY (Accessed February 19, 2017).

NPS. 2017d National Heritage Areas [website]. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/heritageareas/ (Accessed February 20, 2017).

NPS. 2017e. National Natural Landmarks in New York [website]. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nnlandmarks/state.htm?State=NY (Accessed February 20, 2017).

NPS. 2017f. National Register of Historic Places [website]. Available at: http://www.nps.gov/nr/ (Accessed February 20, 2017). U.S. Department of the Interior.

NPS. 2017g. National Trails System [website]. Available at: http://www.nps.gov/nts/nts_trails.html (Accessed February 20, 2017). U.S. Department of the Interior.

National Recreation Trails (NRT). 2017. The National Recreation Trails Database [website]. Available at: http://www.americantrails.org/ee/index.php/nationalrecreationtrails (Accessed February 21, 2017).

123

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

National Register of Historic Places. 2017a. Historic Districts [website]. Available at: http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/districts.html (Accessed February 20, 2017).

National Register of Historic Places. 2017b. State Listings [website]. Available at: http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/state.html (Accessed February 20, 2017).

National Wild and Scenic Rivers. 2017. Explore Designated Rivers [website]. Available at: http://www.rivers.gov/rivers/map.php (Accessed February 20, 2017).

Nature Conservancy, The (TNC). 2017a. El Dorado Beach Preserve. Available at: http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/newyork/places-preserves/central-el-dorado- beach.xml (Accessed February 20, 2017).

Nature Conservancy, The (TNC). 2017b. New York: Places We Protect [website]. Available at: http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/newyork/places-preserves/index.htm (Accessed February 20, 2017).

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). nda. D.E.C. Aesthetics Handbook. NYSDEC. Albany, NY.

NYSDEC. ndb. New York State Boat Launching Sites. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/nyboatlaunch2009.pdf (Accessed February 20, 2017).

NYSDEC. ndc. Public Fishing Rights Maps Stony Creek. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/pfrstonyck.pdf (Accessed February 20, 2017).

NYSDEC. 2000. Program Policy: Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts. DEP-00-2. Division of Environmental Permits, Albany, NY.

NYSDEC. 2002 Lake Ontario Islands Wildlife Management Area Management Plan. February 2002.

NYSDEC. 2014. DEC announces that three mile bay waterway access site is now open for public use. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/96756.html (accessed February 20, 2017).

NYSDEC. 2017a. Ashland Flats WMA. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/35474.html (Accessed February 20, 2017).

NYSDEC. 2017b. Black Pond Wildlife Management Area. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/46385.html (Accessed February 19, 2017).

NYSDEC. 2017c. Boat Launch Sites for Jefferson County. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/23890.html (Accessed February 20, 2017).

NYSDEC. 2017d. Critical Environmental Areas [website]. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6184.html (Accessed February 20, 2017).

NYSDEC. 2017e. Dexter Marsh WMA. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/40663.html (Accessed February 20, 2017).

124

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

NYSDEC. 2017f. Environmental Education Centers and Programs [website]. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/education/74.html (Accessed February 20, 2017).

NYSDEC. 2017g. Henderson Shores Unique Area. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/8041.html (Accessed February 20, 2017).

NYSDEC. 2017h. Lakeview Wildlife Management Area. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/9328.html (Accessed February 20, 2017).

NYSDEC. 2017i. List of New York State Wildlife Management Areas [website]. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/8297.html (Accessed February 20, 2017).

NYSDEC. 2017j. List of State Forests By Region [website]. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/34531.html (Accessed February 20, 2017).

NYSDEC. 2017k. New York’s Forest Preserve [website]. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/4960.html (Accessed February 20, 2017).

NYSDEC. 2017l. Part 591: Procedures for the selection, review, approval and funding of state projects under the 1986 Environmental Quality Bond Act [website]. Available at: https://govt.westlaw.com/nycrr/Browse/Home/NewYork/NewYorkCodesRulesandRegulations?guid=If1120df0b5a011dda0 a4e17826ebc834&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&bhcp=1 (Accessed February 20, 2017).

NYSDEC. 2017m. Point Peninsula Wildlife Management Area. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/49643.html (Accessed February 19, 2017).

NYSDEC. 2017n. Public Facilities at the Cape Vincent Fisheries Station. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/27069.html (Accessed February 20, 2017).

NYSDEC. 2017o. State Lands Interactive Mapper [website]. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/45415.html (Accessed February 20, 2017).

NYSDEC. 2017p. Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers [website]. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/32739.html (Accessed February 20, 2017).

NYS Department of State (NYSDOS). 2017a. Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance [website]. Available at: http://www.dos.ny.gov/opd/programs/consistency/scenicass.html (Accessed February 20, 2017). Office of Planning and Development.

NYSDOS. 2017b. Significant Coastal Fish & Wildlife Habitats. Available at: https://www.dos.ny.gov/opd/programs/consistency/scfwhabitats.html (Accessed February 20, 2017). Office of Planning & Development.

New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). 2015. Traffic Data Viewer. Available at: https://www.dot.ny.gov/tdv (Accessed February 20, 2017).

NYSDOT. 2017a. Bicycling in New York [website]. Available at: https://www.dot.ny.gov/bicycle (Accessed March 3, 2015).

125

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

NYSDOT. 2017b. New York State Scenic Byways [website]. Available at: https://www.dot.ny.gov/scenic-byways (Accessed February 20, 2017).

New York State Education Department (NYSED). 1999a. Colleges and Universities in NY [shapefile]. Available at: http://gis.ny.gov/gisdata/inventories/details.cfm?DSID=415 (Accessed February 20, 2017).

NYSED. 1999b. Public Schools (K-12) in NY [shapefile]. Available at: http://gis.ny.gov/gisdata/inventories/details.cfm?DSID=411 (Accessed February 20, 2017).

NYSED. 2017. Jefferson County Data. Available at: https://data.nysed.gov/profile.php?county=22 (Accessed February 20, 2017).

New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). 2016. View Interconnection Queue. Available at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/services/planning/planning_resources/index.jsp.

New York State Office of Cyber Security (NYSOCS). 2005. Municipal Recreation [shapefile]. Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services, January 2005. Available at: http://gis.ny.gov/gisdata/ inventories/details.cfm?DSID=931 (Accessed September 15, 2014).

NYSOCS. 2009. NYS Place Locations [shapefile]. Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services, February 2009. Available at: http://gis.ny.gov/gisdata/ inventories/details.cfm?DSID=930 (Accessed September 15, 2014).

New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services. 2015. NYS GIS Clearinghouse [website]. Available at: http://gis.ny.gov/ (Accessed March 10, 2015).

New York State Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO). 2006. New York State Historic Preservation Office Guidelines for Wind Farm Development Cultural Resources Survey Work. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, Waterford, NY.

NYSHPO. 2017. Welcome to the Cultural Resource Information System [website]. Available at: https://cris.parks.ny.gov/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2f (Accessed February 20, 2017).

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP). 2007. Heritage Development Resource Guide. Available at: http://nysparks.com/historic- preservation/documents/HeritageDevelopmentResourceGuide.pdf (Accessed March 5, 2015).

NYSOPRHP. 2014a. National Register Sites [shapefile]. File “allnr” received via email December 23, 2014 from Cristina Croll at New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.

NYSOPRHP. 2014b. State Park and Historic Site Boundaries [shapefile]. File “oprhp14” received via email May 30, 2014 from Cristina Croll at New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.

NYSOPRHP. 2014c. NYS Heritage Areas System [shapefile]. File “urban_heritage_areas12” received via email May 30, 2014 from Cristina Croll at New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.

NYSOPRHP. 2016. State Park Trails [shapefile]. File “OPRHP_trls16” received via email April 01, 2016 from Cristina Croll at New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.

126

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

NYSOPRHP. 2017a. Cultural Resource Information System (CRIS) [website]. Available at: https://cris.parks.ny.gov/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2f (Accessed February 20, 2017).

NYSOPRHP. 2017b. Heritage Areas [website]. Available at: http://nysparks.com/historic-preservation/heritageareas.aspx (Accessed February 20, 2017).

NYSOPRHP. 2017c. State Parks [website]. Available at: http://parks.ny.gov/parks/ (Accessed February 20, 2017).

NYSOPRHP. 2017d. Trails [website]. Available at: http://www.nysparks.com/recreation/trails/ (Accessed February 20, 2017).

Nielsen, F.B. 1996. Wind Turbines and the Landscape: Architecture and Aesthetics. Prepared for the Danish Energy Agency’s Development Programme for Renewable Energy. 63 pp.

Palisades Parks Conservancy. 2017. Parks & Historic Sites [website]. Available at: https://www.palisadesparksconservancy.org/parks.php (Accessed February 20, 2017).

PCI. 2009. Historic Building Survey of Ten-Mile APE for the Proposed Hounsfield Wind Farm, Galloo Island, Town of Hounsfield, Jefferson County, New York (OPRHP #07PR6733). Prepared for Upstate NY Power Corp. Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Buffalo, New York. April 2009.

Pasqualetti, M.J., P. Gipe, and R.W. Righter (eds.). 2002. Wind Power in View: Energy Landscapes in a Crowded World. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Sackets Harbor Battlefield Alliance. 2015. Sackets Harbor Battlefield Alliance. Available at: http://www.sacketsharborbattlefield.org/ (Accessed February 21, 2017).

Seaway Trail Inc. 2017. Great Lakes Seaway Trail. Available at: http://www.seawaytrail.com/ (Accessed February 19, 2017).

Smardon, R.C., J.F. Palmer, A. Knopf, K. Grinde, J.E. Henderson and L.D. Peyman-Dove. 1988. Visual Resources Assessment Procedure for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Instruction Report EL-88-1. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington, D.C.

Stanton, C. 1996. The Landscape Impact and Visual Design of Windfarms. ISBN 1-901278-00X. Edinburgh College of Art, Heriot-Watt University. Edinburgh, Scotland.

Thayer, R.L. and C.M. Freeman. 1987. Altamont: Public Perception of a Wind Energy Landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning. Vol. 14, pp. 379-398.

Thayer, R.L. and C.M. Freeman. 1988. Wind on the Land. Landscape Architecture. Vol. 78, No. 2, pp. 69-73.

Thousand Islands Snowmobile club. 2017. Thousand Islands Snowmobile Club. Available at: http://www.1000islandssnowmobileclub.com/ (Accessed February 20, 2017).

United States Census Bureau. 2010. American Fact Finder. Available at: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml# (Accessed February 20, 2017).

127

Visual Impact Assessment Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agricultural Handbook 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 the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2013. Best Management Practices for Reducing Visual Impacts of Renewable Energy Facilities on BLM-Administered Lands. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 342 pp, April.

United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 1981. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. Office of Environmental Policy. Washington, D.C.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. National Wildlife Refuge Locator [website]. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/refuges/refugeLocatorMaps/index.html (Accessed February 20, 2017).

United States Forest Service (USFS). 2013. Find National Forests and Grasslands [website]. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/map/finder.shtml (Accessed February 20, 2017).

Van de Wardt, J.W. and H. Staats. 1998. Landscapes with wind turbines: environmental psychological research on the consequences of wind energy on scenic beauty. Research Center ROV Leiden University.

Village of Cape Vincent. 1988. Village of Cape Vincent Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Available at: https://docs.dos.ny.gov/opd-lwrp/LWRP/Cape%20Vincent_V/Index.html (Accessed February 21, 2017).

Village of Dexter. 1985. Village of Dexter Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Available at: https://docs.dos.ny.gov/opd-lwrp/LWRP/Dexter_T/Index.html (Accessed February 21, 2017).

Village of Sackets Harbor. 1986. Village of Sackets Harbor Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Available at: https://docs.dos.ny.gov/opd-lwrp/LWRP/Sackets%20Harbor_V/Index.html (Accessed February 21, 2017).

Warren, C.R., C Lumsden, S. O’Dowd, and R.V. Birnie. 2005. ‘Green On Green’: Public Perceptions of Wind Power in Scotland and Ireland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. Vol. 48, No. 6, pp 853-875.

Werbizky, T. 1990a. Building Structure Inventory Form for Chaumont Historic District. May 1990. Prepared by Tania Werbizky, St. Lawrence – Eastern Ontario Commission.

Werbizky, T. 1990b. Building Structure Inventory Form for Point Salubrious Historic District. May 1990. Prepared by Tania Werbizky, St. Lawrence – Eastern Ontario Commission.

Werbizky, T. 1990c. Building Structure Inventory Form for Three Mile Bay Historic District. May 1990. Prepared by Tania Werbizky, St. Lawrence – Eastern Ontario Commission.

Wooden, Ronald W. 1974. Fredonia Grange #1. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. On file, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, Waterford, NY

128