1 3.9 AESTHETICS, LIGHT, AND GLARE 2 This section describes the existing aesthetic conditions within the study area, including visual resources 3 and existing sources of light and glare. This section also describes potential impacts to visual resources 4 and assesses the potential for visual impacts using accepted methods of evaluating visual landscape 5 quality and predicts the type and degree of effects the Project will likely have on those attributes. Potential 6 mitigation measures are also identified. 7 3.9.1 Study Methodology 8 The study area for aesthetics is the area surrounding the location of the WTGs to a distance of fifteen 9 miles. This distance was chosen because it is typically considered the maximum distance at which WTGs 10 will be distinguishable by the naked human eye (BLM 1986). 11 There are no established methods for conducting impacts analysis on aesthetics and visual resources at 12 the local or state level. Therefore, the methodology used to identify potential impacts within the study 13 area was a combination of the Scenery Management System defined in the USFS’s Landscape Aesthetics, 14 A Handbook for Scenery Management (USFS 1995) and the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) 15 Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects (FHWA 2015) and Visual Impact 16 Assessment for Highway Projects (FHWA 1988). 17 This methodology portrays the differing viewer groups and their sensitivity to visual change, defines 18 distances zones (foreground, middle ground, and background), and evaluates the contrast between pre‐ 19 and post‐Project conditions as seen from the different viewpoints, by different viewer groups, and from 20 different distances. 21 This analysis of visual effect was based on field observations and review of wind energy facilities’ visual 22 effects, public perception, design measures to reduce visual impacts, and local planning documents. 23 Project maps, drawings, technical data, and computer‐generated viewshed maps were used to determine 24 areas where the Project WTGs will be visible within the study area, and visual simulations were generated 25 to illustrate the change from the existing conditions if the Project is implemented. The analysis included 26 systematic documentation of the visual setting, evaluation of visual changes associated with the Project, 27 and measures designed to mitigate these visual effects. 28 3.9.1.1 Scenic Quality Assessment 29 Scenic quality ratings were developed based on observations in the field, photographs of the affected 30 area, methods for assessing visual quality, and research on public perceptions of the environment and 31 scenic quality ratings of landscape scenes. The final assessment of scenic quality was made based on 32 professional judgment that took a broad spectrum of factors into consideration, including the following: 33 Natural features, including topography, waterways, rock outcrops, and vegetation 34 The positive and negative effects of human alterations and built structures on visual quality 35 Visual composition, including an assessment of the vividness, intactness, and unity of patterns in 36 the landscape, defined as: 3.9‐1 1 o Vividness refers to the memorability of the visual impression received by the viewer from 2 contrasting landscape elements as they combine to form a striking and distinctive visual 3 pattern 4 o Intactness is the integrity of visual order in the natural and human landscape and the extent 5 to which the landscape is free from visual encroachment 6 o Unity is the degree to which the visual resources of the landscape join together to form a 7 coherent and harmonious visual pattern. 8 Each viewpoint was assigned a final rating based on the rating scale shown in Table 3.9‐1. This rating scale 9 incorporates the landscape assessment concepts developed in the USFS and FHWA methodologies. 10 Table 3.9‐1. Landscape Scenic Quality Scale Visual Quality Rating Explanation Outstanding This rating is reserved for landscapes with exceptionally high visual quality. These 6 landscapes are significant nationally or regionally. They usually contain natural or cultural features that contribute to this rating. They are what we think of as “picture postcard” landscapes. People are attracted to these landscapes to view them. High This rating includes landscapes that have high quality scenic value. This may be due to 5 cultural or natural features contained in the landscape or to the arrangement of spaces contained in the landscape that causes the landscape to be visually interesting or a particularly comfortable place for people. These landscapes have high levels of vividness, unity, and intactness. Moderately High This rating includes landscapes that have above average scenic value but are not of high 4 scenic value. The scenic value of these landscapes may be due to human or natural features contained within the landscape, to the arrangement of spaces in the landscape, or to the two‐dimensional attributes of the landscape. Levels of vividness, unity, and intactness are moderate to high. Moderate This rating includes landscapes that are common or typical landscapes with average 3 scenic value. They usually lack significant human or natural features. Their scenic value primarily results from the arrangement of spaces contained in the landscape and the two‐dimensional visual attributes of the landscape. Levels of vividness, unity, and intactness are average. Moderately Low This rating includes landscapes that have below average scenic value but not low scenic 2 value. They may contain visually discordant human alternations, but these features do not dominate the landscape. They often lack spaces that people perceive as inviting and provide little interest in terms of two‐dimensional visual attributes of the landscape. Low This rating includes landscapes that how below average scenic value. They may contain 1 visually discordant human alterations, and often provide little interest in terms of two‐ dimensional visual attributes of the landscape. Levels of vividness, unity, and intactness are below average. 11 Source: FHWA (1988), FHWA (2015), and USFS (1995) 12 3.9.1.2 Visual Sensitivity Assessment 13 The analysis also assessed visual sensitivity, which involves predicting the general impact on the quality 14 of views from a given viewpoint. A combination of three factors determines how sensitive a landscape 15 scene is: 16 The number and type of viewers 3.9‐2 1 The viewing conditions 2 The quality of the view. 3 Residential areas with unobstructed views of a regionally important and notable scene will be very 4 sensitive to objects or structures that will impede views. A view from a seldom‐traveled rural road where 5 motorists have only distant, oblique views of WTGs in an unremarkable setting will likely qualify as an area 6 of low sensitivity. 7 The main types of viewers in the Project Area who have predictably high levels of sensitivity to visual 8 impacts include: 9 Resident viewers 10 Roadway viewers (drivers and passengers) 11 Recreating viewers such as hikers, water recreationists, and mountain bikers. 12 This analysis defines three levels of visual sensitivity: 13 Low: Viewer types representing low visual sensitivity include agricultural and 14 industrial/warehouse workers. Compared with other viewer types, the number of viewers is 15 generally considered small and the duration of view is short. Low levels of sensitivity are assigned 16 to areas 5 miles or more from the closest WTG, where a wind power Project will be a distant and 17 a relatively minor element in the overall landscape. 18 Moderate: Viewer types representing moderate visual sensitivity include highway and local 19 travelers. The number of viewers can vary depending on location; however, on average they tend 20 to be moderately large, based on overall densities of surrounding areas and highway commuters. 21 Viewer awareness and sensitivity are also considered moderate because destination travelers 22 often have a focused orientation. Moderate levels of sensitivity were assigned to areas where 23 WTGs will be visible from 0.5 mile to 5 miles within the primary view of residences and roadways. 24 The primary view refers to the central area that the eye can see clearly without moving and is 25 surrounded by the peripheral vision. In distinguishing between moderate and low levels of 26 sensitivity in the 0.5‐mile to 5‐mile zone, contextual factors were also considered, including the 27 viewing conditions in the immediate foreground of the view. 28 High: Residential, recreational, and viewers congregating in public gathering places (churches, 29 schools, trails, designated scenic viewpoints, etc.) are considered to have comparatively high 30 visual sensitivity. The visual setting may in part contribute to the enjoyment of the experience. 31 Views may be of long duration and high frequency. High levels of sensitivity are generally assigned 32 in those cases where WTGs will be potentially visible within 0.5 mile or less from residential 33 properties, heavily traveled roadways, or heavily used recreational facilities. The principal types 34 of viewers in the Project Area who have predictable high levels of sensitivity to visual impacts 35 include residential viewers, roadway viewers (drivers and passengers) and recreating viewers 36 such as hikers, water recreationists, and mountain bikers. 37 These criteria were used to establish the sensitivity levels of each view using a systematic approach based 38 on the distance of the Project from the viewpoint, the number of WTGs or percentage of the Project Area 39 that could be viewed from this viewpoint, and the dominant viewer types for each view. Through this 40 analysis, an overall sensitivity rating was established for each existing landscape view. 3.9‐3 1 3.9.1.3 Visibility Analysis 2 The Applicant conducted a visibility analysis to identify locations within the surrounding area from which 3 the Project will be visible. The analysis was done to support the Applicant’s goal to locate the WTGs such 4 that they will have minimal visual impact on the surrounding area.