The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAppendix_Q_-_Visual_Impact_Assessement.pdfVisual Impact Assessment Black Oak Wind Project Town of Enfield, New York HMMH Report No. 304750.0 April, 2013 Prepared for: Black Oak Wind LLC 11 Resnik Road Enfield, NY 02360 Prepared by: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 77 South Bedford Street Burlington, MA 01803 T 781.229.0707 F 781.229.7939 Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 iii Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................1 2 Methodology................................................................................................................................1 3 Project Description......................................................................................................................1 4 Existing Visual Character............................................................................................................7 4.1 Towns ...........................................................................................................................................7 4.2 Study Area ....................................................................................................................................8 5 Visual Impact Assessment Methodology.................................................................................11 5.1 Viewshed Analysis.......................................................................................................................11 5.1.1 Viewshed Methodology................................................................................................................11 5.1.2 Nighttime Visibility .......................................................................................................................11 5.1.3 Viewshed Analysis Verification ....................................................................................................12 5.1.4 Daytime Viewshed Results ..........................................................................................................12 5.1.5 Nightime FAA Lighting Viewshed Results ....................................................................................16 5.2 Landscape Similarity Zones.........................................................................................................16 5.3 Viewer User Groups ....................................................................................................................18 5.4 Distance Zones ...........................................................................................................................18 5.5 Inventory of Visually Sensitive Resources....................................................................................19 5.6 Visibility Evaluation of Inventoried Resources ..............................................................................22 5.6.1 Field Verifications........................................................................................................................22 5.6.2 Line-of-Sight Cross Section .........................................................................................................22 5.6.3 Conclusions.................................................................................................................................22 5.7 Photosimulations.........................................................................................................................28 5.7.1 Resource Inventory .....................................................................................................................28 5.7.2 Characterizing Project Visibility....................................................................................................29 5.7.3 Photosimulation Results ..............................................................................................................32 5.7.4 Photosimulation Conclusion.........................................................................................................33 6 Construction Impacts................................................................................................................34 7 Mitigation...................................................................................................................................34 8 Summary and Conclusions.......................................................................................................35 9 References.................................................................................................................................37 Appendix A.Photosimulations.................................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B.Photo Log and Field Notes (Enclosed on CD)....................................................... B-1 Figures Figure 1 Project Site Location.......................................................................................................................................3 Figure 2 Turbine Locations ...........................................................................................................................................4 Figure 3 Computer Model of Proposed REpower mm100............................................................................................5 Figure 4 Example of a REpower MM100 Turbine........................................................................................................6 Figure 5 Five-Mile Visual Study Area ........................................................................................................................10 Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 iv Figure 6 Daytime Viewshed Analysis Results.............................................................................................................13 Figure 7 Nightime FAA Lighting Viewshed Analysis Results....................................................................................15 Figure 8 Inventoried Resource Locations....................................................................................................................26 Figure 9 Inventoried Resource Line-of-Site................................................................................................................27 Figure 10 Viewer Locations Chosen for Photosimulation Analysis............................................................................30 Figure A1 Photosimulation PS#38 at Black Oak Road Original Image....................................................................A-3 Figure A2 Photosimulation PS#38 at Black Oak Road Simulation...........................................................................A-5 Figure A3 Photosimulation PS#17 at The Noble House Original Image ..................................................................A-7 Figure A4 Photosimulation PS#17 at The Noble House Simulation.........................................................................A-9 Figure A5 Photosimulation PS#48 at Rolfe Cemetery Original Image...................................................................A-11 Figure A6 Photosimulation PS#48 at Rolfe Cemetery Simulation..........................................................................A-13 Figure A7 Photosimulation PS#54 at Finger Lakes Trail and Connecticut Hill Road Original Image ...................A-15 Figure A8 Photosimulation PS#54 at Finger Lakes Trail and Connecticut Hill Road Simulation..........................A-17 Figure A9 Photosimulation PS#56 at Bostwick and Applegate Road Original Image............................................A-19 Figure A10 Photosimulation PS#56 at Bostwick and Applegate Road Simulation.................................................A-21 Figure A11 Photosimulation PS#18 at McIntyre Road Original Image..................................................................A-23 Figure A12 Photosimulation PS#18 at McIntyre Road Simulation.........................................................................A-25 Figure A13 Photosimulation PS#34 at Farm Hill Original Image...........................................................................A-27 Figure A14 Photosimulation PS#34 at Farm Hill Simulation..................................................................................A-29 Figure A15 Photosimulation PS#35 at Williamee Road Original Image.................................................................A-31 Figure A16 Photosimulation PS#35 at Williamee Road Simulation.......................................................................A-33 Figure A17 Photosimulation PS#57 at Harvey Hill Road and Rothermich Road Original Image ..........................A-35 Figure A18 Photosimulation PS#57 at Harvey Hill Road and Rothermich Road Simulation.................................A-37 Figure A19 Photosimulation PS#62 at County Line and Enfield Center Road Original Image..............................A-39 Figure A20 Photosimulation PS#62 at County Line and Enfield Center Road Simulation.....................................A-41 Figure A21 Photosimulation PS#63 at Chapman and County Line Road Original Image......................................A-43 Figure A22 Photosimulation PS#63 at Chapman and County Line Road Simulation.............................................A-45 Figure A23 Photosimulation PS#64 at Chapman Road Farm Original Image ........................................................A-47 Figure A24 Photosimulation PS#64 at Chapman Road Farm Simulation...............................................................A-49 Tables Table 1 Daytime Viewshed Coverage Summary within Five Miles of the Project Site..............................................14 Table 2 Nightime FAA Lighting Viewshed Coverage Summary within Five Miles of the Project Site.....................16 Table 3 Inventory of Aesthetic Resources...................................................................................................................23 Table 4 Viewer Locations Selected for Photosimulation.............................................................................................29 Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 1 1 Introduction Potential visual impacts from the proposed Black Oak Wind Project (“Project”) were assessed by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (HMMH). The Project will be located in the Town of Enfield, New York, and consists of up to seven wind turbines totaling approximately 14 MW of clean wind power. The primary purpose of the visual impact assessment (VIA) is to identify and describe potential visual impacts from the Project within the study area along with proposed measures to mitigate impacts to the aesthetic resources. The VIA was conducted using industry standard methodologies consistent with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) existing visual policy “Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts” (NYSDEC 2000). 2 Methodology HMMH employed a VIA methodology consistent with the NYSDEC visual policy. The visual study area typically entails a five-mile radius from the outermost turbines. Depending on the size of the project, the study area could be expanded beyond the five-mile radius; however, since the proposed Project is relatively small in terms of the number of turbines and not spread out over a wide area; the visual study area was not expanded beyond the five-mile radius. This is consistent with the NYSDEC Policy for other similar size wind turbine projects. The VIA analysis consisted of the following steps: 1.Describe the existing conditions within a five-mile area of the Project; 2.Inventory Aesthetic Resources using the 15 categories outlined in the NYSDEC policy; 3.Inventory Aesthetic Resources of local interest; 4.Determine the extent of potential Project visibility within the visual study area (e.g., viewshed mapping); 5.Identify viewer locations for photosimulations based on viewshed analysis and field survey; 6.Prepare photosimulations at 12 viewer locations; and 7.Identify proposed mitigation measures. 3 Project Description The Project will be located in the Town of Enfield, Tompkins County New York, approximately 9 miles southwest of Ithaca, New York. The Project site area is generally bounded by Weatherby Road and Harvey Hill Road to the north, Chapman Road and Co Route 6 to the west, Cayutaville Road to the south, and Trumbulls Corner Road to the east. The turbines will be located on private land, under lease arrangement. Figure 1 shows the project site location while Figure 2 shows the proposed turbine locations. Each turbine will include a tall steel tubular tower, a rotor with three blades, and a nacelle containing the generator and gearbox. The tubular tower, rotor, nacelle and blades will be off-white in color. The Project is proposing to install seven 2.0 MW REpower mm100 turbines. The turbines will consist of a hub height of 80 meters above the ground and a rotor blade diameter of 100 meters. Figure 3 presents a Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 2 computer image of the proposed turbine with dimensions. The steel tubular tower will support the nacelle and blades and will be a conical carbon steel tube barrel comprised of four sections with a wider base and gradual tapering in width at the hub height. The towers will sit on a concrete foundation mostly below the ground; however, there will be a small area that will be slightly exposed above ground level. An example of the 2.0 MW REpower mm 100 turbine is presented in Figure 4. ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ" " " " " " " " " " " " T o m p k i n s C o u n t yTompkins C o u n t ySchuyler C o u n t ySchuyler C o u n t y Enfield Mecklenburg Cayutaville Millers Corners Trumbull Corners Bostwick Corners Applegate Corner Black Oaks Corners aaTompkins County Schuyler County Tioga CountyChemung County Yates County Seneca County Cayuga County SteubenCountyaaNew York PA VT NH MA CT NJ RI Black Oak Wind Farm, LLCEnfield, New YorkPath: H:\GIS\USA\NY\304750_Enfield\304750_Enfield_Figure1_Project_Location_Map.mxdFigure 1Project Site Location ©0 5,000 10,000 Ft Proposed Wind Turbines ÂProject Location Project Location ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ#* T o m p k i n s C o u n t yTompkins C o u n t y S c h u y l e r C o u n t ySchuyler C o u n t y Cayutavil le R d H a r v e y H i l l R d Tower RdChapman RdG r i f f i n R dBlack Oak RdC u l v e r R d We a t he r by R dCounty Line RdSaxton Hill Rd Ru mse y Hil l Rd 7 6 54 3 2 1 ©0 2,000 4,000 Ft Black Oak Wind Farm, LLCEnfield, New YorkPath: H:\GIS\USA\NY\304750_Enfield\304750_Enfield_Figure2_Turbine_Location.mxdÂProposed Wind Turbines Figure 2Turbine Locations Met Tower Location#* Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 5 Figure 3 Computer Model of Proposed REpower mm100 Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 6 Figure 4 Example of a REpower MM100 Turbine Prior to construction, two laydown areas will be created to provide a central location to store parts and support construction operations. One location will be at Black Oak Road just north of the meteorological tower location and the other location will be along the access road to Turbine 4. The Black Oak Road laydown area will consist of 1.3 acres while the area near Turbine 4 will consist of 4.1 acres. A metal fence will enclose the perimeter of the site. The laydown aspect of the project will be short in duration and any associated visual impacts are expected to be temporary and should not adversely affect the impact to residents or the traveling public. No new buildings will be required for operation and maintenance (O&M) of the turbines. The Project will utilize an existing building for O&M activities offsite in Howard, New York located approximately 45 miles west of the Project site. Since there will be no new building there should be minimal land disturbance associated with the O&M activities and ancillary operations. The substation for the Project will be located on the southern half of the laydown area just west of Black Oak Road along the access road to Turbine 7 just south of the meteorological tower. The electricity generated by the turbines will be transmitted to the substation via underground lines which will then deliver power to the existing transmission lines located to the south of the substation. The new substation will be fenced with proper signage and lighting. The wind turbines are the most visible feature of the Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 7 proposed Project in terms of size and height, therefore, the VIA did not evaluate the substation since these are much smaller in size and height compared to the turbines consistent with NYDEC guidance. Adjacent to the substation is the 60 meter tilt–up meteorological tower. The tower is located in a mowed field near the top of a hill at an elevation of 606 meters above sea level. The meteorological tower was not included in the analysis because it is temporary and will be removed once the Project commences operation. In order to prevent risks to aviation, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires the lighting of wind turbines. FAA guidelines do not require daytime lighting provided the turbines are painted in a bright white or light off-white color per the Notice of Proposed Construction (e.g., FAA Form 7460) process under FAA 14 CFR Part 77. Obstruction lighting for night-time use will be located on the rear of the nacelle for each turbine. The Project will synch the obstruction lights to flash simultaneously and for minimum exposure time to limit strobing effect. Currently, lighting is proposed for all seven turbines consisting of medium or low intensity aviation red-colored flashing lights (FAA L- 884) rather than white or strobes, or steady burning red lights. The Project may request FAA for a revised lighting plan that lights fewer turbines and utilizes low intensity lighting (L-864) based on the final Project design. The relative low intensity of the light which is generally pointed upward should help to mitigate the perceptibility from the ground of the lighting at night. Black Oak submitted a Form 7460 determination in 2011 for the preliminary project design and received a “No Hazard Determination” from FAA on May 8, 2012. The project, as submitted to FAA, consisted of twelve turbines each rated at 3MW. The Project as currently proposed is smaller compared to the original submittal in terms of the number of turbines (7 vs. 12) and the size of each turbine (2 MW vs. 3 MW). Ultimately, once the final design is chosen, Black Oak will submit a final 7460 notice to FAA to include all the changes since the original submittal. 4 Existing Visual Character The visual study area for the Project was defined as the area within five-miles from each turbine location and extends beyond the municipal boundary of Enfield into the adjacent town of Newfield and Schuyler County. Figure 4 shows the five-mile visual study area. 4.1 Towns Town of Enfield The Town of Enfield is located in the western part of Tompkins County in the Finger Lakes region of New York State approximately 9 miles southwest of the city of Ithaca, New York. The Finger Lakes are a pattern of eleven lakes in upstate New York which are long and thin (e.g., resembling fingers) running north to south which were formed by glaciers approximately two million years ago. The town has a total area of 36.9 square miles and is bordered by the towns of Ulysses to the north and Newfield to the south. The western town line is the border of Schuyler County while the eastern town line is defined by Cayuga Lake, one of the Finger Lakes of New York. The population of the Enfield is approximately 3,512 based on the 2010 census. The town is predominately a rural farming community with numerous roads named after its settlers. The landscape in Enfield consists of rolling hills with areas of dense woods and cleared farmland. The center of town is located at the intersection of Enfield Center Road and Route 327 approximately 3.25 miles to the northeast of the Project site. Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 8 Town of Newfield The Town of Newfield is a rural town with two hamlets. The Hamlet of Newfield Village located approximately 5 miles southeast of the Project site. The other hamlet is Trumbulls Corners. The total area of the town is approximately 59 square miles with a population of 5,179 based on the 2010 census. The town consists of rolling, wooded hills including Pony Hollow, a broad flat fertile glacial valley. State Route 13 runs through Pony Hollow between the cities of Ithaca and Elmira. On the northern border lies Robert H. Treman State Park. The countryside is conducive to numerous outdoor activities including cross country skiing, biking, and hiking along a portion of the 563 mile Finger Lakes Trail. The town is also home to a number of creeks and streams including the Pony Hollow Creek, Fish Kill, Carter, Chaffee and the Cayuga Inlet which flows north into the Cayuga Lake. Located in or near the center of the Village are a number of historic places including the Newfield Covered Bridge, the Newfield Hotel, the Cook House, and the The Gables. Hector The Town of Hector is also a rural town located on the western border of Enfield and is home to numerous farms and wineries, waterfalls and forests. The town includes12 hamlets and has a total area of approximately 112.5 square miles, of which approximately 8.9 percent is comprised of water. The population in Hector is approximately 4,854 based on the 2000 census. The Finger Lakes National Forest is located in Hector and the western borders of the town run along Seneca Lake which is also one of the Finger Lakes. A part of Texas Hollow State Forest is also located in Hector on the southern side of town. Catharine The Town of Catharine, which borders the southwest side of Enfield, is a rural town with rolling hills. The town includes two Hamlets, Alpine and Catharine along with the Village of Odessa. Catherine has a total area of 39.2 square miles with a population of 1,930 as of the 2000 census. The town is home to Cayuta Creek, a tributary of the Susquehanna River and Cayuta Lake, also known as the “Little Lake.” It is approximately 588 acres in size. A part of Texas Hollow State forest is also located in Catharine on the northern side of town. 4.2 Study Area Topography The topography of the study area consists predominantly of rolling hills and farmland with numerous hill peaks and valleys. The elevation averages approximately 1,110 feet above sea level with slightly higher and lower elevations in places ranging from 482 feet to 2,087 feet within the five-mile area of the Project. The Project area elevation ranges from 496 feet to 587 feet. The terrain generally rises as one travels from the southern portion of the study area towards the northern part. Vegetation A large portion of the study area has historically been used for agricultural purposes. The remaining area is either forested or residential/commercial. The natural vegetation of the area is northern temperate forest dominated by deciduous trees like maple, beech, and birch mixed with pine and spruce. Significant forested areas include Robert H. Treman State Park to the east (including Stevenson Forest Preserve and Riemen Woods), Connecticut Hill Wildlife Management Area to the south and Texas Hollow State Forest to the west-southwest. Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 9 Water Features The two largest water features in the area are Cayuga Lake and Seneca Lake which are two of the Finger Lakes and are located outside of the five-mile study area. Cayuga Lake is the second largest of the Finger Lakes, approximately 40 miles long, and is located approximately 8.5 miles to the northeast of the Project site. Seneca Lake, the largest of the Finger Lakes, is approximately 38 miles long and is located approximately 10 miles to the west of the Project site. There are numerous creeks and tributaries within the five-mile study area that drain into nearby Cayuta Lake to the southwest of the Project. Cayuta Lake is approximately 588 acres in size and supports recreational fishing, boating, and camping. Transportation There are a number of state roadways within the five-mile study area where the turbines might be visible including Route 79, Route 228, Route 327 and Route 13. Route 79 runs east-west from Ithaca to Mecklenburg and is located approximately 3.5 miles to the north of the Project site. Route 228 runs north-south on the western side of the study area through Mecklenburg to Odessa and is located approximately 3 miles to the west of the Project site. Route 327 is located approximately 1.5 miles to the east of the Project site and runs south from Route 79 through the center of Enfield and turns east- southeast through the northern edge of Robert H. Treman State Park. Route 13 is located approximately 4 miles to the southeast of the Project site and runs southwest-northeast through the Village of Newfield Hamlet. There are numerous other smaller roads, mostly two lanes, traversing through the Town of Enfield connecting other villages and hamlets. Other nearby major interstate roadways are located outside of the five-mile study area. Interstate 86 (I- 86) is the closest major roadway to the Project site located approximately 18.5 miles to the southwest of Enfield. I-86 (Southern Tier Expressway) generally runs east-west along the southern side of the state and intersects Interstate 81(I-81) in Binghamton approximately 43 miles to the southeast of the site. I-81 at its closest pass to the Project site is approximately 30 miles to the east and northeast of the Project site. I-81 runs north-south from just north of Watertown to just south of Binghamton. Interstate 90 (I-90) also known as the New York State Thruway is approximately 38.5 miles to the northwest of the site. The New York State Thruway is a major roadway running east-west through the state with the Massachusetts border to the east and the Pennsylvania border to the west. All of these highways are located outside the five-mile study area. ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 5 M ile B u fferFinger Lakes TrailFinger Lakes Trail Finger Lak es Trail Finger Lakes TrailT o m p k i n sTompkinsCountyCounty S c h u y l e rSchuylerCountyCounty UV79 UV228 UV227 UV327 UV224 UV96 UV13 UV228 Robert TremanState Park Finger Lakes National Forest NewfieldHamlet Odessa NorthwestIthaca Connecticut HillWildlife Management Area NewfieldState Forest Texas HollowState Forest Alpine Enfield Newfield Perry City Mecklenburg Cayutaville Krum Corner Smith Valley Reynoldsville Butternut Park Christian Hill Whipple Corner Duboise Corner Kennedy Corner Kellogg Corners Millers Corners Cloverland Park Van Dorn Corner Meadowbrook ParkTrumbull Corners Spaulding Corner Bostwick Corners Applegate Corner Black Oaks Corners Black Oak Wind Farm, LLCEnfield, New YorkPath: H:\GIS\USA\NY\304750_Enfield\304750_Enfield_Figure5_5Mi_Study_Area.mxdFigure 5Five-Mile Visual Study Area Wildlife Management Area National/State Park or Forest Village/Hamlet TrailRoads ©0 1 2 3 Miles Proposed Wind Turbines Â Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 11 5 Visual Impact Assessment Methodology 5.1 Viewshed Analysis A viewshed analysis was conducted to assess the visual impact of the proposed wind turbines by identifying locations where portions of one or more turbines could be visible during the daytime and where the FAA lights could be visible during nighttime conditions. Viewshed maps are created using industry standard methodologies and software with descriptive information specific to the project turbines, digital elevation model (DEM), and land cover data. 5.1.1 Viewshed Methodology Typically, viewshed maps are used to identify whether the turbines or lighting could be visible during the daytime or nighttime from a given location. When prepared, a viewshed map identifies the geographic area where there is a high probability that some portion of the turbine will be visible. In this case, the geographic area is defined as a five-mile radius from the outermost turbine locations. The purpose of the viewshed map is to provide a general understanding of the potential visibility of the project and identify areas where a more refined analysis using photosimulations of visual impacts at specific viewpoints is warranted. ArcGIS (version 10) was used to develop the viewshed maps for this analysis. The two main elements used in ArcGIS to develop the viewshed maps are importing DEM or terrain data and landcover data sets. The DEM data were obtained from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and is sampled at a 10 meter grid cell resolution. Vegetation data was obtained from the National Land Cover Data Set (NLCD) for 2001. The NLCD data was used to estimate line-of-sight calculations assuming a canopy cover, or “leaf on” conditions. A conservative tree height of 40 feet (12.2 m) was assumed for forested areas. As confirmed by field site reconnaissance, this is conservative assumption in that the majority of trees in the area are greater than 40 feet. Line-of-sight calculations were made from each point in the geographic area assuming turbine dimensions of 80 meter hub height and a 100 meter rotor diameter turbine blade. For this analysis, the turbine blade was conservatively assumed to be stopped in the straight-up position, giving an effective height of the turbine to the blade tip of 130 meters above ground level. Figure 6 presents the results of the daytime viewshed analysis. As discussed earlier, since this is a relatively small project in terms of turbines, NYSDEC protocol states that the viewshed analysis be conducted for a geographic area out to five-miles from the furthest turbine location. Some of the turbines may be visible beyond five-miles from the site; however, distance and natural conditions will significantly mitigate the visual impact at these locations as one moves further away from the Project. The viewshed map shows the areas where one or more of the turbines could be visible during daytime conditions. The map denotes different colors for the number of turbines that might be visible from any given location from one turbine up to seven turbines. 5.1.2 Nighttime Visibility A viewshed analysis was also conducted to assess potential visibility of the FAA turbine lights during nighttime conditions. The viewshed analysis was conducted using the same methodology as described above; however, instead of using the blade tip as the control point, the hub height of 80 meters was used for the nighttime visibility which is the approximate height of the FAA lighting on the nacelle. Figure 7 presents the results of the nighttime viewshed analysis. Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 12 Similar to the daytime analysis, the nighttime viewshed map shows the areas where one or more of the turbine lights could be visible during nighttime conditions. The map denotes different colors for the number of turbine lights that might be visible from any given location from one turbine up to seven turbines. 5.1.3 Viewshed Analysis Verification The viewshed analysis data used by the GIS consists of DEM terrain data from USGS and vegetation data from NLCD. The land cover data from NLCD is based on vegetation analysis data from 2001 and may have changed over the last ten years. In order to check the accuracy of the vegetation data used in the viewshed analysis, the NLCD data was overlaid on the color aerial image from Google Earth (5/26/2011, 4/30/2007), Bing Maps (Pictometry Birds Eye 2012 MDA Geospatial Services Inc., no Image Date), and ArcGIS Aerial Photos (Bing Image Server, No Image Date) for the 5-mile study area and reviewed for consistency. The comparison shows there are some minor inconsistencies especially in single tree stands and small tree areas near residential areas. These discrepancies are not considered significant and should not affect the viewshed analysis results in meaningful way. The majority of woodlands areas visible on the aerial image are consistent with the 2001 NLCD land cover data set. Unlike the NLCD data, the DEM terrain data stays constant and does not change year to year. 5.1.4 Daytime Viewshed Results The viewshed results presented in Figure 6 show the locations within the five-mile radius where each of the seven turbines could be visible during daytime conditions. Table 1 presents the viewshed coverage summary in acres and percentage of study area by number of turbines where the Project is visible. The results show that the turbines will likely not be visible from approximately 85% of the area due to existing topography and vegetation. The remaining 15% of the area could theoretically see any combination of the 7 turbines, with one turbine visible for approximately 2% of the area, two to six turbines potentially visible from 7.5% of the area and seven turbines potentially visible from approximately 5.6% of the area. The turbines could be most visible in areas north of the Project site where the landscape is flatter and more open due to agricultural and residential land uses providing for less impeded views of the turbines. The turbines will most likely not be visible over a large area south of the Project site due to lower terrain and forest cover which will tend to screen (or block) the turbines from the viewer. The results show the highest concentration for multiple turbine views within the immediate vicinity of the Project site around the Black Oak Road, Wheatherby Road, Rumsey Hill Road and Harvey Hill Road. The next closest area with potential multiple turbine view locations is west and north of the turbines in an area from Cayutaville to the south up to Mecklenburg to the north. The area north of Route 79 also shows the potential for concentrated areas with multiple views of the turbines. There are other scattered less concentrated areas around the study area where turbines could be visible mostly at hilltops and open fields where there are limited obstructions blocking the view of the distant horizon. ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 5 M ile B u fferFinger Lakes TrailFinger Lakes Trail Finger Lak es Trail Finger Lakes TrailT o m p k i n sTompkinsCountyCounty S c h u y l e rSchuylerCountyCounty UV79 UV228 UV227 UV327 UV224 UV96 UV13 UV228 Robert TremanState Park Finger Lakes National Forest NewfieldHamlet Odessa NorthwestIthaca Connecticut HillWildlife Management Area NewfieldState Forest Texas HollowState Forest Alpine Enfield Newfield Perry City Mecklenburg Cayutaville Krum Corner Smith Valley Reynoldsville Butternut Park Christian Hill Whipple Corner Duboise Corner Kennedy Corner Kellogg Corners Millers Corners Cloverland Park Van Dorn Corner Meadowbrook ParkTrumbull Corners Spaulding Corner Bostwick Corners Applegate Corner Black Oaks Corners Black Oak Wind Farm, LLCEnfield, New YorkPath: H:\GIS\USA\NY\304750_Enfield\304750_Enfield_Figure6_Visibility.mxdFigure 6Daytime Viewshed Analysis Results Number of Visible Turbines 7654321 Wildlife Management Area National/State Park or Forest Village/Hamlet TrailRoads ©0 1 2 3 Miles Proposed Wind Turbines Â Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 14 Table 1 Daytime Viewshed Coverage Summary within Five Miles of the Project Site Number of Turbines Visible Acres Percentage of Study Area 0 (No Turbines) 52,250 84.7% 1 Turbine 1,235 2.0% 2 Turbines 1,007 1.6% 3 Turbines 882 1.4% 4 Turbines 1,096 1.8% 5 Turbines 825 1.3% 6 Turbines 888 1.4% 7 Turbines 3,471 5.6% The viewshed analysis shows that the turbines should not be visible from the Enfield Town Center or the immediate center of Newfield Hamlet. Field observations concurred with the assessment which indicated numerous large mature trees in these areas along with one and two storied structures which will block views in the direction of the Project site. In addition, the Newfield Hamlet is located approximately 4 to 5 miles to the southeast of the Project where the terrain gradually drops and forest cover increases as one moves south which will tend to block the turbines from view at these locations. The analysis did show that turbine views are possible outside of these town centers, in areas of elevated terrain and less tree cover which allows for the potential of unimpeded views of the horizon. ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 5 M ile B u fferFinger Lakes TrailFinger Lakes Trail Finger Lak es Trail Finger Lakes TrailT o m p k i n sTompkinsCountyCounty S c h u y l e rSchuylerCountyCounty UV79 UV228 UV227 UV327 UV224 UV96 UV13 UV228 Robert TremanState Park Finger Lakes National Forest NewfieldHamlet Odessa NorthwestIthaca Connecticut HillWildlife Management Area NewfieldState Forest Texas HollowState Forest Alpine Enfield Newfield Perry City Mecklenburg Cayutaville Krum Corner Smith Valley Reynoldsville Butternut Park Christian Hill Whipple Corner Duboise Corner Kennedy Corner Kellogg Corners Millers Corners Cloverland Park Van Dorn Corner Meadowbrook ParkTrumbull Corners Spaulding Corner Bostwick Corners Applegate Corner Black Oaks Corners Black Oak Wind Farm, LLCEnfield, New YorkPath: H:\GIS\USA\NY\304750_Enfield\304750_Enfield_Figure7_FAA_Visibility.mxdFigure 7Nightime FAA Lighting Viewshed Analysis Results Wildlife Management Area National/State Park or Forest Village/Hamlet TrailRoads ©0 1 2 3 Miles Proposed Wind Turbines ÂNumber of Visible FAA Lights 7654321 Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 16 5.1.5 Nightime FAA Lighting Viewshed Results The viewshed results presented in Figure 7 show the locations within the five-mile radius where each of the seven turbine FAA lights could be visible during nighttime conditions. Table 2 presents the viewshed coverage summary in acres and percentage of study area by number of turbines where the Project lighting is visible. The results show that the turbine lights will likely not be visible from approximately 87% of the area due to existing topography and vegetation. The remaining 13% of the area could theoretically see any combination of the seven turbine lights, with one turbine light visible for 2.5% of the area, two to six turbine lights potentially visible from 7.6% of the area and seven turbine lights potentially visible from 2.5% of the area. Similar to the daytime VIA analysis, the turbine lights could be most visible in areas north of the Project site where the landscape is flatter and more open due to agricultural and residential land uses providing for less impeded views of the turbines. The turbine lights will most likely not be visible over a large area south of the Project site due to lower terrain and forest cover which will tend to screen (or block) the turbines from the viewer. Table 2 Nightime FAA Lighting Viewshed Coverage Summary within Five Miles of the Project Site Number of Turbine Lights Visible Acres Percentage of Study Area 0 (No Turbines) 53,912 87.4% 1 Turbine 1,557 2.5% 2 Turbines 1,045 1.7% 3 Turbines 1,022 1.7% 4 Turbines 940 1.5% 5 Turbines 664 1.1% 6 Turbines 987 1.6% 7 Turbines 1,527 2.5% Similar to the daytime VIA, the nighttime viewshed analysis shows that the turbine lights should not be visible from Enfield Town Center or the immediate center of Newfield Hamlet. The analysis did show that views of the turbine lights are possible outside of these town centers, in areas of elevated terrain and less tree cover which allows for the potential of unimpeded views of the horizon. It should be noted that the Project may request FAA for a revised lighting plan that lights fewer turbines and utilizes low intensity lighting (L-864). If FAA agrees with the revised lighting plan, the results presented in Table 2 are conservative, and therefore, fewer turbine lights would be visible within the five mile study area. 5.2 Landscape Similarity Zones Three distinct landscape similarity zones were identified within the five-mile study area. A description of each zone is described below along with the approximate location and characterization of potential turbine views. Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 17 Village Hamlet Zone -This zone is comprised of the downtown centers of Enfield, Newfield Hamlet and Mecklenburg and is characterized by residential and small commercial buildings. These areas are usually identified by a main roadway running through the downtown with small community centers, churches, stores, buildings and tree lined streets. The buildings are generally one to three stories tall and are a mix of older and modern architecture. Development and population density generally decline away from the center toward the more rural countryside. In general, distant views from these areas are limited due to buildings and trees which tend to block or obscure the distant horizon. This is consistent with the VIA analysis which shows potential views of the turbines in these areas are limited. Just beyond the town centers there are locations where the Project may be visible due to increase terrain and/or decrease tree density allowing for a more unobstructed view of the horizon. Forest Land Zone –Forested areas define a large part of the five-mile study area and include the Robert H. Treman State Park, Texas Hollow State Forest, the Connecticut Hill Wildlife Management Area and other privately held forest land. Vegetation consists of northern temperate forest dominated by deciduous trees like maple, beech, and birch mixed with pine and spruce. These areas are conducive to numerous outdoor activities including but not limited to snowmobiling, hiking, camping, fishing, and swimming. The Finger Lakes Trail is located in the Connecticut Hill Wildlife Area while the Robert H. Treman State Park also includes numerous trails. Since the forest land zone in this area tends to consist of dense trees which in turn block distant views, potential views of the Project from these areas are not expected. However, there are some areas near the hilltops that may have less dense forest and higher terrain which may allow for full or limited views of the Project. Rural Agricultural Zone – Rural agriculture land comprises another large part of the five-mile study area and is comprised of open farmland and pastures generally located away from town and hamlet centers. Population within this zone is sparse and there are not an abundance of buildings or structures. Typical buildings and structures in these areas include small residential houses, barns, sheds and small commercial buildings generally consisting of 1-2 levels. In addition to farmland, there are several vineyards within this zone along with state roadways which tend to bisect the areas to the north and west of the Project site. Views from these areas are generally distant and occur in open areas or hilltops which tend Rural Agricultural Zone Forested Land Zone-Stevenson Forest Preserve Village Hamlet Zone-Town of Enfield Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 18 to have limited trees or structures to block views. The rural agricultural zones, because of their higher elevation and open field views, are where the majority of the turbines could be visible and are generally located to the west and north of the Project site. 5.3 Viewer User Groups There are three main viewer categories or viewer user groups identified within the five-mile study area. A description of viewer user groups is described below. Local Residents - Local residents are those who live or work in the study area. Except when traveling, residents are likely to be stationary and view the turbines from their homes, yards or places of employment. They are familiar with the local landscape and could be sensitive to changes to their environment especially if they currently have an unobstructed view of the landscape. Conversely, some of these groups could have an obstructed view of the distant horizon due to trees or houses, or may have a current view of a commercial or industrial facility and may be less sensitive to changes to the landscape. Through Travelers or Commuters - Commuters and travelers are typically those people passing through the area and would view the turbines from the highways and roadways within the study area. The travelers or commuters are typically moving in their vehicles and their views of the turbines would be temporary and intermittent. The views could either be straight ahead or within the periphery of their vision. These viewer groups could be local or they could be from other nearby towns, so the sensitivity to changes could vary. However, unlike the local residents which tend to be stationary, commuters are moving. As such, they will have a temporary or infrequent view of the turbines and will be less sensitive to changes in the landscape. Tourists/Recreation – This group includes both the local residents and tourists that may travel to the region to enjoy the recreational activities, scenic vistas and parks within the study area. Tourists’ sensitivity to the visual quality and character of the landscape could be highly sensitive to the wind turbines and covet the aesthetic quality and character of the landscape. However, there may be other tourists where the presence of turbines could be less sensitive depending on the reason for visiting the area such as hiking or fishing in a forested area where the turbines may never be seen due to the trees blocking the distance views. The type of recreational activity could also dictate the sensitivity to viewing the wind turbines. For example, joggers, snowmobilers, and bicyclists will be constantly moving and the visual impact will be temporary or intermittent compared to other types of recreationalists and tourists who are visiting the region for the recreational activity but also for the scenic views encountered during hiking, boating or camping activities. 5.4 Distance Zones Distance zones were divided into three categories: foreground, middleground, and background - based on the USDA National Forest definitions1. Distance affects both the size of the object between the viewer and the object, and the contrast to its surroundings. A brief description of each zone is discussed below. Foreground:The foreground distance is defined as the distance between 0 and ½ mile from the observer to the object (e.g., turbines). This is the distance where the object is most recognizable to the viewer. The visual impact is likely to be the greatest in this zone when compared to the middleground and background. 1 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Forest Service, 1995.Landscape Aesthetics- A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agricultural Handbook, No. 701. Washington, D.C. Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 19 Middleground:The middleground distance is defined as the distance between ½ mile and 4 miles. Visual detail is reduced; however, the objects are still identifiable. As one moves further away from the object in the middleground, the contrast and color are more recognized using regional features than nearby surroundings. Background:The background distance is defined as the distance between 4 miles and beyond. At these distances, detail becomes less and the object is less recognizable compared to the middleground and foreground. 5.5 Inventory of Visually Sensitive Resources The five-mile study area includes a few sites that the NYSDEC Visual Policy identifies as aesthetic resources of statewide significance under the program policy. These resources as identified under the NYSDEC policy along with other local areas of interest are described below and presented in Figure 6. National or State Register of Historic Places 1.Newfield Covered Bridge 2.Enfield Falls Mill 3.Miller’s House State Parks 1.Robert H. Treman State Park Heritage Areas – There are no Heritage areas identified within the five--mile study area. State Forest Preserve; Adirondack and Catskill Parks-There are no State Forest Preserves related to the Adirondack or Catskill Parks located within the five-mile study area. National Wildlife Refuges, State Game Refuges, and State Wildlife Management Areas 1.Connecticut Hill Wildlife Management Area National Natural Landmarks – There are no National Natural Landmarks identified within the 5-mile study area. The National Park System, Recreation Areas, Seashores, and Forests- There are no National Park System, Recreation Areas, Seashores, and Forests identified within the five-mile study area. Rivers designated as National or State Wild, Scenic, or Recreational – There are no Rivers designated as National or State Wild, Scenic, or Recreational identified within the five-mile study area. Designated Scenic Sites or Roadways – There are no designated scenic sites or roadways identified within the five- mile study area. Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance – There are no scenic areas of statewide significance within the five-mile study area. State or Federally designated trail – 1.Finger Lakes Trail Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 20 Adirondack Park Scenic Vistas - There are no Adirondack Park Scenic Vistas identified within the five- mile study area. State Nature and Historic Preserve Area - There are no state nature or historic preserve areas identified within the five-mile study area. Palisades Park – There are no Palisades Park resources identified within the five-mile study area. Bond Act Properties – There are no Bond Act Properties identified within the five-mile study area. In addition to the statewide significance scenic resources identified under the NYSDEC Visual Policy, the visual study also includes areas that are locally or regionally significant. These would include but not limited to local playgrounds, parks, schools, areas of local historical significance, campgrounds, lakes and nearby local roadways. Resources of Local Interest - Lakes, campgrounds, etc. 1.Cayuta Lake Boat Launch 2.Cayuta Lake Campground 3.Lake Grove Park 4.Cool Lea Camp 5.Pike Creek Campground 6.Cayuga Lake (Beyond the five-mile study area) Nearby Towns and Hamlets 1.Enfield 2.Newfield Hamlet 3.Catharine 4.Hector 5.Christian Hill Transportation Corridors There are several highways within the five-mile study area of the project that could be considered locally significant due to the number of vehicles traveling daily along these roadways. Traffic counts for these roadway segments were obtained from the New York State Department of Transportation website for the latest years available (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/highway-data- services/local-traffic-volumes). 1.Route 79 which is just north of the Project site and runs east-west from Hector through Enfield, average of 3,191 vehicles per day; 2.Route 327 which is just east of the Project site and runs through Enfield Center and through the Robert Treman State Park, average 1,320 vehicles per day; 3.Route 13 located southeast of the Project site and runs through the Newfield Hamlet, average 8,490 vehicles per day; and 4.Route 228 which is west of the Project site and runs north-south through Hector and Catharine in Schuyler County, average 1,791vehicles per day. Smaller Roadways 1.Carley Road 2.Farm Hill 3.Williamee Road 4.McIntyre Road 5.Swamp Road 6.Cox Road Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 21 7.Black Oak Road (near meteorological tower) 8.Harvey Hill Road 9.Fish Road 10.Connecticut Hill 11.Hulford Road 12.County Route 6 13.Kelsey Road 14.Enfield Center Road Residential Developments 1.Residential Development east of Project Site Schools 1.Enfield Elementary School 2.Enfield Community Christian School 3.Newfield Central School 4.Alpine Children House State Forest and Preserves 1.Texas Hollow State Forest 2.Stevenson Forest Preserve 3.Rieman Woods 4.Stevenson Trail Lodging/Bed & Breakfasts 1.Bostwick House Bed and Breakfast 2.A Touch of Country Bed and Breakfast 3.The Noble House Recreation 1.Hillendale Golf Course Cemeteries 1.Budd Cemetery 2.Woodward Cemetery 3.Woodlawn Cemetery 4.Sebring Cemetery 5.Laurel Hill Cemetery 6.Rolfe Cemetery Farmstands 1.Finger Lakes Farmstand Cheese Churches 1.First Baptist Church 2.Agape Bible Church 3.Mecklenburg United Methodist 4.Trumballs Corner Community Church 5.Newfield United Methodist 6.Peoples Baptist Church 7.Csiko Sawyer Arts 1.MacMillan Arts Center Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 22 5.6 Visibility Evaluation of Inventoried Resources Each of the sites were evaluated using the viewshed methodology described in Section 5.1 along with aerial photos and field observations using GPS waypoints to determine unobstructed line-of-sight to verify the viewshed results, in order to determine whether the turbines could be visible at a sensitive resource location. Table 3 lists the visual resources identified above within the five-mile study area along with potential visibility to the Project based on the viewshed and field verifications. 5.6.1 Field Verifications A total of 76 statewide significant and local interest aesthetic resources were identified within the study area. Field verifications were conducted on December 12th and 13th of 2012 and on March 14th and 15th of 2013 for three reasons, 1) verify the viewshed results for a majority of resources and assess the vegetative land cover data, 2) photo document as many resource locations as possible, 3) Identify additional locations along local roadways and public vantage points with open views toward the Project and photo document those locations for evaluation in the photosimulation analysis. The weather conditions for both trips consisted of mostly to partly sunny skies which are conducive for visibility and provides for a wide variety of sky conditions for use in the photosimulation analysis. Section 5.7 discusses the methodology employed for taking photos. Table 3 documents the results of the inventoried resources along with the additional resources identified during the field verifications. These locations are also presented in Figure 8. Appendix B contains the photo log and field notes from the field verification exercise. 5.6.2 Line-of-Sight Cross Section A line-of-sight cross section analysis was conducted for each of the visual resources identified in Table 3 to determine the potential visibility of each of the seven turbines from the resource location. Figure 9 presents the results of the line-of-site analysis from each of the identified visual resources. The analysis shows where the turbines could be visible along the line-of-sight from the visual resource location, where red denotes the turbines are not expected to be visible and green denotes where the turbines could be visible. The line-of-sight analysis includes the cross-section view from the visual resource toward each turbine taking account topography and vegetation. The cross sections were derived using terrain from the USGS DEM topography data and NLCD land cover data similar to the VIA analysis. 5.6.3 Conclusions As shown in the VIA, the turbines will not be visible from 85 percent of the area within five miles of the Project due to existing structures, topography or forested areas blocking the Project from a majority of viewing locations within the area. The remaining 15% of the area could theoretically see a combination of the seven turbines, with one turbine visible for 2% of the area, two to six turbines potentially visible from 7.5% of the area and seven turbines potentially visible from 5.6 % of the area. In addition, the VIA along with field verification shows that 46 of the 76 resource locations are expected to have no turbines visible from the Project due to topographical and vegetative screening. Only one of the NYSDEC defined aesthetic resources of statewide significance, Resource 54 Finger Lakes Trail at Connecticut Hill Road, is expected to have a view of the turbines based on the VIA results and field verification. Cayuga Lake was not included in the inventoried resources since it is located beyond the five mile study area. However, an extension of the VIA analysis showed that the turbines would not be visible from the southern side of the lake. Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 23 Table 3 Inventory of Aesthetic Resources Resource Resource Name Inventory Type Potential Visibility 40 Newfield Covered Bridge Statewide Significance No, field verified 41 Enfield Falls Mill & Miller’s House Statewide Significance No, field verified 42 Robert H. Treman State Park Statewide Significance No, field verified 44 Connecticut Hill Wildlife Management Area Statewide Significance No 45 Texas Hollow State Forest Statewide Significance No 46 Finger Lakes Trail Statewide Significance No 28 Cayuta Lake Campground Local Interest No 25 Lake Grove Park Local Interest No 21 Cool Lea Camp Local Interest No 16 Pike Creek Campground Local Interest No 7 First Baptist Church Local Interest No, field verified 11 Agape Bible Church Local Interest No, field verified 2 Mecklenburg United Methodist Local Interest Probable partial views, field verified 18 McIntyre Road Local Interest Yes, field verified 20 Trumballs Corner Community Church Local Interest No 23 Newfield United Methodist Local Interest No, field verified 27 Peoples Baptist Church Local Interest No, field verified 10 Csiko Sawyer Local Interest No 4 Enfield Elementary Local Interest No, field verified 8 Enfield Community Christian School Local Interest No, field verified 24 Newfield Central School Local Interest No, field verified 5 Alpine Children House Local Interest No/Unlikely, field verified 12 Bostwick House Bed and Breakfast-East Local Interest No, field verified 6 A Touch of Country Bed and Breakfast Local Interest No, field verified 17 The Noble House Local Interest Yes, field verified 13 Stevenson Forest Preserve Local Interest No/Unlikely 14 Riemen Woods Bivouac Local Interest No/Unlikely 1 Hillendale Golf Course Local Interest No, field verified 9 McMillan Arts Center Local Interest No, field verified 26 Woodlawn Cemetery Local Interest No, field verified 15 Budd Cemetery Local Interest No 19 Woodward Cemetery Local Interest No 22 Sebring Cemetery Local Interest No 29 Laurel Hill Cemetery Local Interest No, field verified 3 Finger Lakes Farmstand Cheese Local Interest No 30 New Residential Development Local Interest Yes, field verified Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 24 Resource Resource Name Inventory Type Potential Visibility 75 Newfield Hamlet Center Local Interest No, field verified 32 Cayuta Lake Boat Launch Local Interest No, field verified 33 Carley Road Local Interest Yes, field verified 34 Farm Hill Local Interest Yes, field verified 35 Williamee Road Local Interest Yes, field verified 36 Route 79 Local Interest Yes, field verified 37 Christian Hill Local Interest Yes, field verified 38 Black Oak Road (near Meteorological Tower)Local Interest Yes, field verified 39 Stevenson Trail Local Interest No, field verified 47 Swamp Road Local Interest Yes, field verified 48 Rolfe Cemetery Local Interest Yes, field verified 49 Cox Road Local Interest Yes, field verified 50 Tower Road Trail Crossing Local Interest Possible, field verified 51 Black Oak Road and Weatherby Road Local Interest Yes, field verified 52 Black Oak Corners Local Interest Yes, field verified 53 Black Oak Corners North Local Interest Yes, field verified 54 Finger Lakes and Connecticut Hill Road Trail Statewide Significance Yes, field verified 55 Robert Treman State Park Local Interest No, field verified 56 Bostwick and Applegate Rad Local Interest No, field verified 57 Harvey Hill and Rothermich Road 1 Local Interest Yes, field verified 58 Harvey Hill and Rothermich Road 2 Local Interest Yes, field verified 59 Fish and Rothermich Road Local Interest Yes, field verified 60 Fish and Black Oak Road Local Interest Yes, field verified 61 Fish and County Line Road Local Interest Possible, field verified 62 Enfield Center and County Line Road Local Interest Yes, field verified 63 Chapman and County Line Road Local Interest Yes, field verified 64 Chapman Road Farm Local Interest Yes, field verified 65 Connecticut Hill Road Local Interest No, field verified 66 Hulford Road Local Interest No, field verified 67 McIntyre Road West Local Interest Yes, field verified 68 Kelsey Road Local Interest Yes, field verified 69 Dean and Newton Road Local Interest No, field verified 70 Texas Hollow State Park North Local Interest No, field verified 71 Texas Hollow State Park South Local Interest No, field verified 72 County Route 6 Local Interest No, field verified 73 Cox Road Local Interest Yes, field verified 74 Peoples Baptist Church Local Interest No. field verified Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 25 Resource Resource Name Inventory Type Potential Visibility 76 Bostwick House-West Local Interest No, field verified 77 Enfield Center Road West Local Interest Possible, field verified 78 Enfield Center Local Interest No, field verified ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÆc Æc Æc Æc nn nnn n !!( !!( !!( !!( " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( 5 M ile B u fferNewfieldCovered Bridge Enfield Falls Mill and Miller's House Lattin-Crandall Octagon Barn Finger Lakes TrailFinger Lakes Trail Finger Lak es Trail Finger Lakes TrailT o m p k i n sTompkinsCountyCounty S c h u y l e rSchuylerCountyCounty UV79 UV228 UV227 UV327 UV224 UV96 UV13 UV228 Robert TremanState Park Finger Lakes National Forest NewfieldHamlet Odessa NorthwestIthaca Connecticut HillWildlife Management Area NewfieldState Forest Texas HollowState Forest 3 9 1 65 8 4 2 7 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 5857 56 5554 5352 51 5047 48 46 45 44 4241 34 33 32 40 30 49 38 39 35 36 37 29 22 26 1413 17 12 24 10 27 23 20 18 11 16 21 25 28 19 15 78 77 76 74 7372 71 69 68 67 75 70 Enfield ES Odessa-Montour JSHS Alpine Enfield Perry City Mecklenburg Cayutaville Krum Corner Smith Valley Reynoldsville Butternut Park Christian Hill Whipple Corner Duboise Corner Kennedy Corner Kellogg CornersCloverland Park Van Dorn Corner Meadowbrook ParkTrumbull Corners Spaulding Corner Bostwick Corners Applegate Corner Black Oak Wind Farm, LLCEnfield, New YorkPath: H:\GIS\USA\NY\304750_Enfield\304750_Enfield_Figure8_Receptor_Locations.mxdFigure 8Inventoried Resource Locations Number of Visible Turbines 7654321 Wildlife Management Area National/State Park or Forest Village/Hamlet TrailRoads ©0 1 2 3 Miles !!(National Register of Historic Places Æc Library n School Proposed Wind Turbines Â!(Local Sensitive Areas aaPhoto Inventory Location !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ5 M ile B u fferNewfieldCovered Bridge Enfield Falls Mill and Miller's House Lattin-Crandall Octagon Barn Finger Lakes TrailFinger Lakes Trail Finger Lak es Trail Finger Lakes TrailT o m p k i n sTompkinsCountyCounty S c h u y l e rSchuylerCountyCounty UV79 UV228 UV227 UV327 UV224 UV96 UV13 UV228 Robert TremanState Park Finger Lakes National Forest NewfieldHamlet Odessa NorthwestIthaca Connecticut HillWildlife Management Area NewfieldState Forest Texas HollowState Forest 3 9 1 65 8 4 2 7 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 5857 56 5554 5352 51 5047 48 46 45 44 4241 34 33 32 40 30 49 38 39 35 36 37 29 22 26 1413 17 12 24 10 27 23 20 18 11 16 21 25 28 19 15 78 77 76 74 7372 71 69 68 67 75 70 Enfield ES Odessa-Montour JSHS Alpine Enfield Perry City Mecklenburg Cayutaville Krum Corner Smith Valley Reynoldsville Butternut Park Christian Hill Whipple Corner Duboise Corner Kennedy Corner Kellogg CornersCloverland Park Van Dorn Corner Meadowbrook ParkTrumbull Corners Spaulding Corner Bostwick Corners Applegate Corner Black Oak Wind Farm, LLCEnfield, New YorkPath: H:\GIS\USA\NY\304750_Enfield\304750_Enfield_Figure9_Receptor_LOS.mxdFigure 9Inventoried Resource Line-of-SightWildlife Management Area National/State Park or Forest Village/Hamlet TrailRoads ©0 1 2 3 Miles !!(National Register of Historic Places Æc Library n School Proposed Wind Turbines Â!(Local Sensitive Areas Line of Sight - Visible Line of Sight - Not Visible Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 28 5.7 Photosimulations Photosimulations of the proposed Project were conducted using the WindPro “Photomontage” module developed by EMD International. The photosimulation consists of superimposing the turbines onto a photograph at the proper scale which allows for the visual assessment of what the turbines would look like at specified viewing location. The photographs were taken with a digital camera equipped with a camera lens (ranging from 27-110 mm), where the latitude and longitude of each location were obtained using a portable GPS system. Specifically, for the first field visit in December 2012, an Olympus C-7070 digital camera was used with a lens setting of 32mm while the second field visit in March of 2013 utilized a Panasonic DMC-FZ28 with a lens setting of 27mm. The photographs were input into the WindPro Photomontage module for proper scaling at each site. The Photomontage module incorporates the latitude, longitude, and elevation of both the turbine locations and the viewer location along with the camera focal length and weather conditions. The software implants a three dimensional model of the turbine into the image using control points, or reference point locations to make adjustments for the proper height and dimensions of the turbine. Control points used for the photosimulation renderings consisted of several sources. When possible, during the photo acquisition process GPS coordinates were obtained for small physical features within the photo (e.g. mailboxes, fence posts and sign posts). Larger objects (e.g., utility poles, met tower and building structures) visible within the photos were geospatially located using aerial photography. The WindPro software used for the photo simulations utilizes the terrain data to develop a horizon line visible from the photo location point to assist in proper scaling and location. For rendering purposes, the turbine orientation was directed toward the predominant wind direction to the Southwest or Northwest. This allowed for a greater visual impact in the rendering than to allow the wind turbines to be viewed in profile. If the angle of the wind turbine appeared less than 45°, a manual adjustment was made for individual renderings The photosimulation analysis was conducted consistent with the Town of Enfield Local Law. 5.7.1 Resource Inventory Based on the viewshed analysis and the field verification, 46 of the 76 resource locations are expected to have no turbines visible from the Project due to topographical and vegetative screening and field verification. For the remaining 30 locations, the analysis indicates that the turbines could be visible based on the viewshed results and field verification. From these 30 resource locations, a total of 12 viewer locations were considered for the photosimulations analysis based on landscape zones, distance from the turbines (e.g., foreground, middleground, and background), viewer user groups, and viewer duration. Additional criteria were also considered based on geographical distribution of representative locations. Table 4 lists the 12 viewer locations chosen for photosimulations which are also presented in Figure 10. It should be noted these simulations are representative of what the proposed Project will appear under daylight conditions at a certain location during “leaf off” conditions. Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 29 Table 4 Viewer Locations Selected for Photosimulation Viewer Location Viewer Location Name Resource Type View Direction from Turbines Viewer User Groups Landscape Type Distance Zone Distance (miles) 38 Black Oak Road (Meteorological Tower) Local Interest South Local Residents Rural Agricultural Foreground 0.72 17 The Noble House Local Interest East Local Residents/Tourists & Recreation Rural Agricultural Foreground 0.71 48 Rolfe Cemetery Local Interest Northeast Local Residents Rural Agriculture Background 4.67 54 Finger Lakes Trail at Connecticut Hill Road Statewide Significance East Local Residents/Tourists & Recreation Forested Foreground 0.41 56 Bostwick and Applegate Road Local Interest Northeast Local Residents Rural Agriculture Middleground 2.53 18 McIntyre Road Local Interest West Local Residents Rural Agricultural Foreground 1.43 34 Farm Hill Local Interest West Local Residents Rural Agricultural Middleground 2.95 35 Williamee Road Local Interest Northwest Local Residents/Through Travelers Rural Agricultural Background 4.49 57 Harvey Hill and Rothermich Road Local Interest Northeast Local Residents Rural Agriculture Foreground 0.92 62 County Line Road and Enfield Center Road Local Interest Northwest Local Residents Rural Agriculture Middleground 1.98 63 Chapman and County Line Road Local Interest West- Northwest Local Residents Rural Agriculture Foreground 0.96 64 Chapman Road Farm Local Interest West Local Residents Rural Agriculture Foreground 1.12 5.7.2 Characterizing Project Visibility As discussed above, a total of twelve viewer locations were chosen for photosimulations based on a variety of criteria (e.g., location, distance, viewing zones, land use, etc.). The simulations include both an existing view (without the Project) and a proposed view (with the Project). The visual impacts of the wind turbines will vary based on landscape setting, the extent of the natural screening, presence of other features in view (natural or man-made), sensitivity of the viewer, and the distance of the viewer from the Project. When characterizing the Project visibility, there are a number of factors involved when analyzing the impact and compatibility of the Project with the existing environment. Some of the factors include: Existing Landscape – The existing landscape mainly consists of rolling hills, forested land (including vegetation), and agriculture indicative of the typical rural nature of the area. In areas where there are unobstructed views of the horizon looking toward the Project site, the turbines will be visible within the five-mile study area. The viewer’s location will determine the scale and spatial dominance of the turbines. ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " Æc Æc Æc Æc nn nnn n !!( !!( !!( !!(aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa5 M ile B u fferNewfieldCovered Bridge Enfield Falls Mill and Miller's House Lattin-Crandall Octagon Barn Finger Lakes TrailFinger Lakes Trail Finger Lak es Trail Finger Lakes TrailT o m p k i n sTompkinsCountyCounty S c h u y l e rSchuylerCountyCounty UV79 UV228 UV227 UV327 UV224 UV96 UV13 UV228 Robert TremanState Park Finger Lakes National Forest NewfieldHamlet Odessa NorthwestIthaca Connecticut HillWildlife Management Area NewfieldState Forest Texas HollowState Forest 64 63 62 57 56 54 35 34 47 49 18 17 48 33 38 Newfield Public Library Enfield ES Newfield MSNewfield ES Odessa-Montour JSHS Alpine Enfield Perry City Mecklenburg Cayutaville Krum Corner Smith Valley Reynoldsville Butternut Park Christian Hill Whipple Corner Duboise Corner Kennedy Corner Kellogg Corners Millers Corners Cloverland Park Van Dorn Corner Meadowbrook ParkTrumbull Corners Spaulding Corner Bostwick Corners Applegate Corner Black Oaks Corners Black Oak Wind Farm, LLCEnfield, New YorkPath: H:\GIS\USA\NY\304750_Enfield\304750_Enfield_Figure10_Photo_Simulation_Locations.mxdFigure 10Viewer Locations Chosen for Photosimulation AnalysisNumber of Visible Turbines 7654321 Wildlife Management Area National/State Park or Forest Village/Hamlet TrailRoads ©0 1 2 3 Miles !!(National Register of Historic Places Æc Library n School Proposed Wind Turbines ÂaaReceptor Photograph Location Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 31 Horizon – The visible horizon is defined as the horizontal line formed by the extended vistas over an open area. With the inclusion of the seven turbines that may be visible across an open area, this will introduce a noticeable intrusion of vertical structures to the landscape horizon. Where the turbines are visible, multiple turbines will be visible depending on location, distance and any impeding structures (e.g., hills or buildings). Contrast and Color - The color of the turbines (including the nacelle, tower, and blades) will generally consist of a non-reflective neutral off-white color. The turbines will generally be viewed against the background sky and the off-white color is conducive to minimizing the visual contrast with the background sky. When viewed against the background sky, the color contrasts will vary depending on the distance and weather conditions. For example, turbines located in the background could be visible on a clear sunny day; however, during a cloudy day or periods of precipitation or increase haze, the color contrast will be less. Contrast with vegetation and terrain are also an important element. Typical visible colors related to vegetation and terrain in the study area consists of softer shades of green, brown and gray. Similar to the contrast with the background sky, the color contrast will vary depending on distance and weather conditions and will generally be more pronounced the closer the viewer is to the turbines. Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 32 Scale – As discussed above, the turbines will be the tallest structures on the horizon especially compared to existing commonly visible structures such as trees and buildings. From the foreground and middleground viewing points, the turbines will be the dominant structures. However, from the background viewing points, the turbines dominance will lessen as one moves further away from the turbines. 5.7.3 Photosimulation Results Appendix A contains the existing and proposed conditions photosimulations for each of the 12 viewer locations. Photosimulations demonstrate that visual impact will be highly variable based on the distance between the viewer and the Project, landscape setting, the extent of screening (e.g., buildings, trees, forest, terrain), weather conditions and the presence of other features in the view. It is also expected that the sensitivity of the viewer to the change would be a factor. The visual impact of the Project will be greatest within 1 mile (e.g., foreground) where the turbines will be the largest structure and appear out of context compared to other structures within the landscape view. This is shown in viewpoints 17, 18, 38, 54, 57, 63 and 64 which are the closest viewpoint locations to the turbines selected for the photosimulation analysis. At these locations, the turbines appear as the tallest structure on the horizon and disproportionate to other objects within view such as trees or buildings. From viewpoint 38 at the Black Oak Road (e.g. meteorological tower), two turbines are clearly visible, however the impact is mitigated by the presence of other tall structures which are also visible such as the meteorological tower and the transmission lines. In addition, views at this location are further mitigated due to the location of the viewer, who is elevated relative to the turbine base, a perspective which tends to diminish the dominance of the turbines. Similarly, at viewpoint 17 from the Noble House, there are two turbines clearly visible and the relative short distance to the turbines makes them appear large. However, this viewpoint is also above the base of the turbines, which limits their dominance making them more proportional compared to the existing tree line. At viewpoint 18 from McIntyre Road, most of the turbines are not visible and are screened by the existing tree line; however, there is one turbine clearly visible along the hill top horizon. There are numerous trees in the foreground at this viewer location which tends to mitigate the highly dominant views one would expect for objects within 1-2 miles of the viewer. From viewpoint 54 at Finger Lakes Trail along Connecticut Hill Road, there is one turbine visible from this location. The Finger Lakes Trail is a long winding trail which traverses the five mile study area and runs from the southwest of the Connecticut Hill Wildlife Management Area northeast into the Robert H. Treman State Park and beyond. Most of the trail is wooded and therefore the trees will block views of the turbines. However, there are some open areas along Connecticut Hill Road where one of the turbines will be visible (e.g., Resource 54). The turbine visible from this location is the dominant structure and will contrast with the background sky and vegetation in the foreground. However, the scale and dominance of the structure is mitigated when compared to some of the taller trees in the foreground where the height of the turbine appears to be similar to the height of the trees. Also, user groups at this location will generally be hikers or joggers, therefore, due to the short duration, there is likely to be less impact to viewers from this location. From viewpoint 57 at Harvey Hill and Rothermich Road, three turbines are clearly visible and one turbine is partially visible through the trees in the foreground. During foliage season this turbine will most likely not be visible from this location. The three turbines contrast with the sky and the vegetation, however, the dominance of the turbines are mitigated by the slightly rising terrain from foreground to background which partially blocks the full view of two of the turbines. In addition, the trees in the foreground and in the background horizon tend to mitigate the dominance of the turbines where the turbines appear to be similar size and height. From viewpoint 63 at Chapman and County Line Road six turbines are clearly visible from this location. The turbines are the dominant structure and the off-white color contrasts with the background sky and the nearby brown and green Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 33 vegetation. One turbine is clearly visible in the foreground and another turbine is visible on the top of the hillside on the right. For the remaining four turbines, the lower portions of the tower are screened by vegetation and terrain leaving mostly the blade rotors visible. From viewpoint 64 at Chapman Road Farm two turbines are clearly visible and the top blade of a third turbine is also visible. The remaining four turbines are completely screened due to vegetation and topography. The two turbines which are visible contrast with the background sky and the brown vegetation. The viewer elevation at this location is well below the turbine base elevation; therefore the turbines appear larger as the viewer is looking up the hill. The visual impact of the Project from the middleground distances shows the turbines will still be perceived as the dominant structure, however, the scale and dominance begin to lessen as one moves further away from the turbines and topography and vegetation play a greater role in screening potential impacts. This is shown in viewpoints 34, 56 and 62. At viewpoint 34 at Farm Hill, there are four turbines which could be visible from this location while the other three turbines will be screened by the existing tree line and topography. The topography and tree line also screen parts of two of the turbines which minimize their appearance on the horizon. Viewpoint 34 also shows other structures visible in the foreground such as the farm and tree stand which tends to mitigate the dominant visual element of the turbines. At viewpoint 56 at Bostwick and Applegate Road, there are six turbines which are partially visible from this location through the trees. During foliage season, these turbines will most likely not be visible from this location. One turbine is clearly visible and contrasts with the background sky, however the tall trees in the foreground tend to mitigate the dominant visual element of the turbine clearly visible on the hilltop horizon. In addition, the viewer is elevated above the turbine base which further mitigates the impact of the structure height on the horizon. At viewpoint 62 at County Line Road and Enfield Center Road, there are four turbines visible from this location; however, two of the turbines are screened by the trees in the near horizon. There are telephone poles and medium size trees in the foreground along with some structures in the background which tends to mitigate the dominant visual element of three turbines which contrast with the sky and terrain. From the background distances, the perceived visual impact becomes less due to increasing distance and screening by topography, tree lines and structures. As shown in the VIA, the number of locations with potential turbine views is much less compared to the middleground and foreground viewing areas. In addition, weather conditions such as haze and cloud cover will tend to mitigate impacts of the turbines at these distances. This is shown in viewpoints 35 and 48. As shown in viewpoint 35 at Williamee Road and viewpoint 48 at Rolfe Cemetery, multi-turbine views are possible at these locations. However, there are numerous tree stands and topography which tends to screen some or part of the turbines and mitigate the impact of the Project. In addition, views from these roadway locations are mostly from travelers and potential turbine views will be brief in duration, thereby mitigating the extent of the exposure. 5.7.4 Photosimulation Conclusion Consistent with the NYSDEC Visual Policy, simple visibility of the Project from any of the viewing locations does not imply detrimental effect to the beauty or structure. Specifically the policy states: “Aesthetic impact occurs when there is a detrimental effect on the perceived beauty of a place or structure. Significant aesthetic impacts are those that may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and appreciation of an inventoried resource, or one that impairs the character or quality of such a place. Proposed large facilities by themselves should not be a trigger for declaration of significance. Instead, a project by virtue of its siting in a visual proximity to an inventoried resource may lead staff to conclude that there may be a significant impact.” The viewing locations chosen for the photosimulations show the views of potential wind turbine sites before and after construction; however, these impacts do not meet the NYSDEC significance criteria, Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 34 therefore, the Projects visual impact on these viewing locations are not significant. In addition, the turbines will not have a detrimental effect on the perceived beauty of a place and will not cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment of a statewide significant resource including the Finger Lakes trail. 6 Construction Impacts Construction of the wind turbine project will require large construction vehicles for delivering equipment and preparing the site and the foundation, including large cranes for hoisting the nacelle and turbine blades. The turbines will be transported to the site in small sections via large tractor trailers. The construction aspect of the project was not included in the VIA since these activities are expected to be short in duration and any associated visual impacts are expected to be temporary and should not adversely affect the impact to residents or the traveling public. 7 Mitigation Consistent with the NYSDEC and Town of Enfield Wind Energy Local Law, the following describes proposed mitigation measures that are incorporated into the project design to minimize potential visual impacts. The turbines will not be used for corporate advertising, and lettering on the turbines will be minimized and will not include the Project owner but may include the turbine manufacturer; The wind turbines will be simple in design and consist of a tubular structure and not lattice framework. The color of the turbines will be non-intrusive and consist of a non-reflective neutral off-white color. This color is also conducive to minimizing the visual contrast with the background sky. The turbines appearance with respect to one another is similar within and throughout the project so as to provide reasonable uniformity in overall size, geometry, and rotational speeds. No new structures (e.g., maintenance building) are anticipated for the Project, however, if any new structures are required, they will be designed to blend into the character of the local natural setting and existing environment to minimize visibility of these structures. Consistent with the Local Law, the wind turbines are adequately sited to minimize impact to the surrounding community while also located in an area of favorable winds in order to make the project commercially feasible. The need to locate wind turbines in areas of higher elevation cannot be avoided due to the access these locations have to the higher prevailing wind speeds which provide the project the most efficient and optimal operations for a commercially viable wind project of this size. The Project is located in a rural low population area and has been scaled down to seven turbines which was far fewer than the original design. Furthermore, most of the turbines have been sited to maintain a minimum setback of 100 feet from the property lines or 1.1 times the blade radius sweep, whichever is larger. There is one turbine (Turbine 4) located closer than the setback requirements, however, the owner of this property has consented to an easement with the developer. In addition, the turbines will be located at least 100 feet from State identified wetlands and at least 450 feet or 1.1 times the total height, whichever is greater, from occupied structures. By adhering to these setbacks, the Project is designed to minimize adverse visual and shadow flicker impacts from neighboring residential areas to the greatest extent possible. Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 35 The turbines will not significantly impair a scenic vista or scenic corridor as identified under the Resources of Statewide Significance. Furthermore, the turbines will not substantially detract from or block the view of the major portion of a recognized scenic vista, as viewed from any public road right-of-way or publicly accessible parkland or open space within the Town or surrounding towns. The Project, to the extent feasible, will utilize existing roadways to minimize removal of trees and vegetation during construction and maintenance activities. Any additional roadways will be designed to follow topographic contours and minimize cutting and filling. The Project has proposed underground electrical connections used to transmit power between turbines and to the substation. Above ground transmission will be limited to the substation and the interconnect to the main transmission line located approximately 170 feet south of the substation. The wind turbines are the most visible feature of the Project in terms of size and height, therefore, the VIA did not evaluate the electrical transmission line or the substation since these are much smaller in size and height compared to the turbines. Vegetation clearing around the turbines will be kept to minimum to ensure the natural landscape is maintained as much as possible. The Project will produce 14 MW of clean energy and will displace air emissions such as carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate emissions generated by a fossil fuel electrical generating facility. Since the proposed turbines are greater than 200 feet above ground level, obstruction lighting will be required per FAA regulations. The Project will synch the obstruction lights to flash simultaneously and for minimum allowed exposure time to limit strobing effect. Medium or low intensity aviation red-colored flashing lights rather than white strobes or steady burning red lights will be utilized. An alternative lighting plan may be submitted to FAA which would reduce the visibility of the FAA turbine lights. Black Oak Wind will adhere to the Decommissioning Plan to ensure adequate funds are available to dismantle and remove the turbines at the end of the Project life span. 8 Summary and Conclusions The summary and conclusions of the VIA analysis for the Black Oak Wind Project are as follows: 1.The daytime VIA results show that the turbines will likely not be visible from approximately 85% of the area due to existing topography, vegetation and/or structures. The remaining 15% of the area could theoretically see a combination of the seven turbines, with one turbine visible for approximately 2% of the area, two to six turbines potentially visible from approximately 7.5% of the area and seven turbines potentially visible from approximately 5.6 % of the area. 2.The nighttime FAA lighting VIA results show that the turbine lights will likely not be visible from approximately 87% of the area due to existing topography, vegetation and/or structures. The remaining 13% of the area could theoretically see a combination of the seven turbines FAA lights, with one turbine light visible for approximately 2.5% of the area, two to six turbines potentially visible from 7.6% of the area and seven turbines potentially visible from approximately 2.5 % of the area. This assumes all the turbines are equipped with FAA lighting. It should be noted that the Project may request FAA for a revised lighting plan that lights fewer turbines and utilizes low intensity lighting (L-864). If FAA agrees with the revised lighting plan, Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 36 then the results of the nighttime FAA lighting VIA are conservative, therefore, fewer turbine lights would be visible within the five mile study area. 3.The turbines will most likely be visible in areas north of the Project site where there is higher terrain and less forest cover corresponding to more open land and unimpeded views of the turbines. The turbines will most likely not be visible over a large area south of the Project site due to lower terrain and greater forest cover which will tend to screen the turbines from the viewer. This is consistent with the general topography of the area which tends to have lower terrain and more vegetation in the southern part of the study area and higher terrain and less vegetation to the north. 4.The results show the highest concentration for multiple turbine views within the immediate vicinity of the Project site are likely around the Black Oak Road, Wheatherby Road, Rumsey Hill Road and Harvey Hill Road. The next closest area with potential multiple turbine view locations is west and north of the turbines in an area from Cayutaville to the south up to Mecklenburg to the north. The area north of Route 79 also shows the potential for concentrated areas with potential multiple views of the turbines. There are other scattered less concentrated areas around the study where turbines could be visible mostly at hilltops and fields where there are limited obstructions blocking the view of the distant horizon. 5.The VIA shows that the turbines are not likely visible from the Enfield Town Center or the immediate center of Newfield Hamlet. Field observations confirmed the assessment which indicated numerous large mature trees in these areas along with one and two storied structures which will block views in the direction of the Project site. 6.Research of the existing literature shows that “significant visual effects of wind turbines are only experienced within 5 km; beyond 15 km wind turbines can generally only be seen in very clear visibility and even when visible are likely to be a minor element in the landscape”(British Wind Energy Association (1994). 7.Some viewing locations with local interest will be impacted by the Project, such as the Rolfe Cemetery, Cox Road (just outside the Newfield Hamlet center), the Noble House and various housing developments and roadways within the study area. 8.Photosimulations from 12 aesthetic resources of statewide and local significance demonstrate that visual impact will be highly variable based on the distance to the viewer and the project, viewer sensitivity, duration, landscape setting, the extent of screening (e.g., buildings, trees, forest, terrain), and the presence of other features in the view. 9.The visual impact of the Project will be greatest within one mile where the turbines will appear out of context compared to other structures within the landscape view. Generally, beyond three miles, the Projects’ contrast with the visual character of the area will generally be low and continue to lessen as one moves further away from the Project. 10.Consistent with the NYSDEC Visual Policy, simple visibility of the Project from any of the viewing locations (both statewide and local) does not imply detrimental effect to the beauty or structure. In addition, only one (Finger Lakes Trail at Connecticut Hill Road) of the inventoried of aesthetic resources which fall under the NYSDEC policy are expected to have a view of the turbines based on the VIA analysis and field verification. The viewing locations chosen for the photosimulations show the wind turbines before and after construction, however, these impacts also do not meet the NYSDEC significance criteria and will not have a detrimental effect on the perceived beauty of a place and will not cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and appreciation of an inventoried resource. Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 37 11.Consistent with the Local Law, the turbines will utilize tubular towers finished in non-reflective off-white color. In addition, the turbines’ appearance with respect to one another is similar throughout the project as to provide reasonable uniformity in overall size, geometry, and rotational speeds. 12.Construction of the wind turbine project will require construction vehicles for delivering equipment and preparing the site and the foundation, and large cranes for hoisting the nacelle and turbine blades. The turbines will be transported to the site in small sections via large tractor trailers. The construction aspect of the project is expected to be short in duration and any associated visual impacts are expected to be temporary and should not adversely affect the impact to residents or the traveling public. 9 References New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), July 31, 2000, Program Policy Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts, (DEP 00-2). U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Forest Service. 1974.Forest Service Landscape Management: the Visual Management System, Handbook #462, Vol.2. New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). Local Highway Traffic Count Information. https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/highway-data-services/local-traffic- volumes). British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) (1994).Best Practice Guidelines for Wind Energy Development. BWEA, London. Town of Enfield, Tompkins County, New York Local Law Number 1 of 2009.Wind Energy Facilities Local Law. January 14, 2009. Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 38 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-1 Appendix A. Photosimulations Visual Impact Assessment A-2 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-3 Figure A1 Photosimulation PS#38 at Black Oak Road Original Image Visual Impact Assessment A-4 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-5 Figure A2 Photosimulation PS#38 at Black Oak Road Simulation Visual Impact Assessment A-6 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-7 Figure A3 Photosimulation PS#17 at The Noble House Original Image Visual Impact Assessment A-8 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-9 Figure A4 Photosimulation PS#17 at The Noble House Simulation Visual Impact Assessment A-10 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-11 Figure A5 Photosimulation PS#48 at Rolfe Cemetery Original Image Visual Impact Assessment A-12 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-13 Figure A6 Photosimulation PS#48 at Rolfe Cemetery Simulation Visual Impact Assessment A-14 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-15 Figure A7 Photosimulation PS#54 at Finger Lakes Trail and Connecticut Hill Road Original Image Visual Impact Assessment A-16 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-17 Figure A8 Photosimulation PS#54 at Finger Lakes Trail and Connecticut Hill Road Simulation Visual Impact Assessment A-18 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-19 Figure A9 Photosimulation PS#56 at Bostwick and Applegate Road Original Image Visual Impact Assessment A-20 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-21 Figure A10 Photosimulation PS#56 at Bostwick and Applegate Road Simulation Visual Impact Assessment A-22 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-23 Figure A11 Photosimulation PS#18 at McIntyre Road Original Image Visual Impact Assessment A-24 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-25 Figure A12 Photosimulation PS#18 at McIntyre Road Simulation Visual Impact Assessment A-26 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-27 Figure A13 Photosimulation PS#34 at Farm Hill Original Image Visual Impact Assessment A-28 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-29 Figure A14 Photosimulation PS#34 at Farm Hill Simulation Visual Impact Assessment A-30 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-31 Figure A15 Photosimulation PS#35 at Williamee Road Original Image Visual Impact Assessment A-32 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-33 Figure A16 Photosimulation PS#35 at Williamee Road Simulation Visual Impact Assessment A-34 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-35 Figure A17 Photosimulation PS#57 at Harvey Hill Road and Rothermich Road Original Image Visual Impact Assessment A-36 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-37 Figure A18 Photosimulation PS#57 at Harvey Hill Road and Rothermich Road Simulation Visual Impact Assessment A-38 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-39 Figure A19 Photosimulation PS#62 at County Line and Enfield Center Road Original Image Visual Impact Assessment A-40 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-41 Figure A20 Photosimulation PS#62 at County Line and Enfield Center Road Simulation Visual Impact Assessment A-42 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-43 Figure A21 Photosimulation PS#63 at Chapman and County Line Road Original Image Visual Impact Assessment A-44 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-45 Figure A22 Photosimulation PS#63 at Chapman and County Line Road Simulation Visual Impact Assessment A-46 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-47 Figure A23 Photosimulation PS#64 at Chapman Road Farm Original Image Visual Impact Assessment A-48 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-49 Figure A24 Photosimulation PS#64 at Chapman Road Farm Simulation Visual Impact Assessment A-50 (This page intentionally left blank) Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 B-1 Appendix B. Photo Log and Field Notes (Enclosed on CD)