CAPE WIND VIA REVIEW

1. CAPE WIND VIA REVIEW • R. C. SMARDON, Ph.D. SUNY/ESF Syracuse, NY • 20 years VIA experience/ 12 years of VIA consulting • Co-author of 3 books • Coastal zone VIA chapter in wetlands book (1983) • Foundations for Visual Project Analysis (1986) • The Legal Landscape (1992) • COE Visual Resources Assessment Procedure (1988)

2. CAPE WIND VIA REVIEWOutline of presentation • Visual perception in the Coastal Zone landscape • Existing VIA methods/criteria • 8 step VIA process • The coastal landscape • Viewer sensitivity • Visibility assessment • Key viewpoint determination • Impacting activity character • Simulation production • Visual Assessment • Mitigation measures

3. CAPE WIND VIA REVIEWPrinciples of visual perception Visual perception Due to : Directional Radiation (sun)> Atmospheric Scattering > Diffuse Illumination> Scatter reflection On earth’s surface Source: Foundations for Visual Project Analysis (1986)

4. CAPE WIND VIA REVIEWPrinciples of visual perception Foveal vision set: 50 degrees above the horizon line 70 degrees below the horizon 30 degrees of easy eye movement Source: Foundations for Visual Project Review (1986) Smardon et al. Both bright and dark objects have the same distance recognition function at the horizon line. Source: USEPA, Protecting Visibility (1979)

5. CAPE WIND VIA REVIEWVisual Impact Assessment Methods/Criteria • BLM contrasting rating system • Source: USDI, BLM 1980 • US Forest Service visual absorption capability • Wagstaff & Brady 1982 • US Corps of Engineers VRAP- composition & dominance • Smardon et al. 1988 • Scenic beauty - • Daniel & Boster 1976 • Like/dislike, novelty, tidiness, complexity, dominance, reliability - Thayer & Freeman 1987 General Source: Foundations for Visual Project Analysis. 1986 Smardon et al.

6. CAPE WIND VIA REVIEW1. Coastal Landscape Characterization • Type of view: • open water • panoramic edge • filtered • Atmospheric effects • clear, fog or haze • Water edge land use • developed or undeveloped • Water & wave affects • Sources:Mann 1979, Nausauer & Benner 1984, Smardon & Hunter 1983, Smardon and Felleman 1982

7. CAPE WIND VIA REVIEW2. Landscape Viewer Sensitivity • Catalog and map landscape users, activity patterns and critical periods of use: • Beach/shoreline activities • Traffic and highway views • Recreational boating activity • Commercial ferry boat routes • Source: Smardon & Hunter 1983

8. CAPE WIND VIA REVIEW3. Visibility Assessment • Determine distance zones appropriate to coastal area • Key threshold is middle ground to back ground at 3.5 miles • Mediating atmospheric effects such as fog or haze blur contrast over distance • Also account for front lighting, back lighting or seasonal affects • Sources: Foundations for Visual Project Analysis 1986 and USEPA Protecting Visibility 1979

9. CAPE WIND VIA REVIEW3. Visibility Analysis Normal visual range is between 15 -25 miles on the Cape except summer when it is less than 15 miles. Source: USEPA Protecting Visibility 1979

10. CAPE WIND VIA REVIEW3. Visibility Assessment • Open water tends to cause potential reduction of apparent height of objects at distance • Due to wave height • Curvature of the earth • Sources: • Mann 1979 • Smardon & Hunter 1983

11. CAPE WIND VIA REVIEW3. Visibility Assessment Map visibility and distance zones reflecting user activity and line-of-sight views. Source: Smardon & Hunter 1983

12. CAPE WIND VIA REVIEW4. Key Viewpoint Determination Using visibility and use activity patterns/density - locate key viewpoints for simulations. Source: Smardon & Hunter 1983

13. CAPE WIND VIA REVIEW5. Impacting Activity Characterization • Individual wind turbines • Tower/blade dimensions • Color/texture • Group arrangement • Night lighting • Alternatives for all of above • Sources: • Engstom and Pershagon 1980 • Ferber 1977 • Thayer & Freeman 1987 • Wagstaff & Brady 1982

14. CAPE WIND VIA REVIEW6. Simulation Production • Document angle of lens used • Distance to object • Aspect or angle of viewer • Lighting & weather conditions including haze, fog, etc. • Location of viewpoint where picture was taken including reference points or GPS • Assumptions regarding all of above • Key references:Sheppard 1989, Baird et al. 1979, Gillespie and Clark 1979

15. CAPE WIND VIA REVIEW6. Simulation Production Take into account all previous physical factors in production of Visual simulations. From Smardon & Hunter 1983

16. CAPE WIND VIA REVIEW7. Assessing Visual Impacts • Utilizing key points, simulations & alternatives - use established criteria consistently: • Visual/scenic quality • Visual contrast • Visual complexity, etc. • Sources: • Foundations for Visual Project Analysis. 1986. Smardon et al. • The Legal Landscape. 1992. Smardon and Karp Cross Lake case study: next 2 slides

17. CAPE WIND VIA REVIEW7. Simulating & Assessing Visual Impacts Cross Lake: Simulation. Note light/shadow + water texture Cross Lake: Before image

18. CAPE WIND VIA REVIEW7. Simulating & Assessing Visual Impact existing Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Side by side comparison yields different impacts: Source; Smardon & Karp 1992

19. CAPE WIND VIA REVIEW7.Night lighting issues/simulation/assessment • Determine FAA standards: • Medium intensity flashing white • High intensity flashing white • Dual lighting; red and white • Calculate foot candles emitted • Determine atmospheric conditions,e.g. clear or foggy • Do night lighting simulations • Assess impact/glare > amount of new light emitted • Sources: USDOT,FAA 2000, Blair et al. 1980 & 1982

20. CAPE WIND VIA REVIEW8. Mitigation measures • Contrast reduction • Height/size reduction • Turbine density/group configuration • Distance from shore • Turbine structure color/value • Night lighting impact reduction • Interpretive sites • Key Sources:Engstom & Pershagon 1980, Ferber 1977, Thayer & Freeman 1987, Wagstaff & Brady et al 1982, Therkelson et al 1980