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)gt Atmospheric Scattering gt Diffuse
Illuminationgt Scatter reflection On earths
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
• SourcesMann 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 referencesSheppard 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 gt 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 SourcesEngstom Pershagon 1980, Ferber
  1977, Thayer Freeman 1987, Wagstaff Brady et
  al 1982, Therkelson et al 1980