P. 1
ST. Lawrence Wind DEIS I

ST. Lawrence Wind DEIS I

|Views: 134|Likes:
Published by pandorasboxofrocks
St. lawrence Wind ~ DEIS I
St. lawrence Wind ~ DEIS I

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: pandorasboxofrocks on Dec 27, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/27/2010

pdf

text

original

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST.

LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

1.0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) assesses the environmental effects of constructing and operating the proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project (the Project). Provided below are brief descriptions of the Project, the Project Applicant, the Project's purpose, need, and benefit; the Project’s potential environmental impacts and related proposed mitigation measures; the alternatives analyzed in this DEIS; and the regulatory approvals necessary for the Project to be constructed and operated.
1.1 Project Description

The Applicant, St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC (SLW) is proposing to develop a wind-powered electrical-generating facility with up to 96 turbine locations, with a total capacity of approximately 136 megawatts (MW). The proposed Project would be located in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme in Jefferson County, New York. All 96 turbines, temporary construction laydown area(s), access roads, underground interconnect lines, operations and maintenance building, meteorological towers, an electrical substation and other components would be located in the Town of Cape Vincent; most of the overhead electrical transmission line would be located in the Town of Lyme where the existing transmission grid substation is located. The final wind turbine size for the Project will be dependent on availability of units at the time of construction. The size of likely units ranges between 1.5 MW to 3.0 MWs. Larger sized units of 3.0 MWs could reduce the total number of turbines and the associated environmental impact in the Project area. Since the actual turbine model and type will not be finalized until later in the development process, conservative impact assumptions are used for this DEIS. For example, this analysis assumes that a maximum of 96 turbines will be installed, which is the maximum number if smaller units, such as 1.5 MW turbines, are used. If the larger 3.0 MW units are used, fewer turbines would likely be installed. Based on the size range of potential units, the maximum blade-tip height is estimated to be 425 feet and the rotor width (diameter) estimated to be 300 feet (per the 3.0 MW turbine blades). Each turbine would ultimately consist of a tall steel tower; a rotor consisting of three composite blades; and a nacelle, which houses the generator, gearbox, and power train. A transformer may be located in the rear of each nacelle, or adjacent to the base of the tower, to raise the voltage of the electricity produced by the turbine generator to the voltage level of the underground collection system. The steel towers used for this Project would be manufactured in multiple sections. The towers would have a base diameter of approximately 15 to 20 feet depending on the turbine selected. This assessment was completed using the dimensions for a 20-foot tower base. Each tower would have a locked access door and an internal safety ladder to access the nacelle, and would be painted (off-white) to make the structure less visually obtrusive.

1-1

000100

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Assuming a maximum of 96 turbine foundations, the Project also would result in the construction of approximately 29 miles of gravel access roads, 44 miles of underground interconnect cables, an electrical substation, and an operations and maintenance building. An approximately 9 mile long (34.5 kV to 115 kV) overhead transmission line would be constructed to connect the Project with the existing transmission grid and electrical substation in the Town of Lyme. The Project facilities would be developed on leased private land. SLW plans to begin construction in the spring/summer of 2008 and to complete construction by the end of 2008. SLW would begin site work as early as possible after all required permits and approvals are received. This would enable SLW to commence construction as early as possible after the 2008 spring thaw. The geotechnical investigation and other engineering studies to support the civil design would be conducted prior to construction. Once the Project is in operation, the wind turbines and associated components operate in an almost completely automated fashion. SLW intends to employ approximately three (3) workers for operation and maintenance of the wind energy facility.
1.2 Project Applicant

SLW is the Applicant for the Project. The Project name is the St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project. The Project's mailing address is: St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC 122 South Point Street Cape Vincent, New York 13618
1.3 Summary of Project Purpose and Need

The purpose of the proposed Project is to develop a wind powered electrical-generating facility at the proposed Project location. This Project would be a significant source of renewable energy to the New York power grid. The Project would facilitate compliance with the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) Order 03-E-0188, issued on September 24, 2004, which created the New York State Retail Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). The purpose of the RPS is to increase, the proportion of electricity from renewable energy sources in New York State to 25 percent by the end of 2013. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) is responsible for implementing the RPS as an agent for the New York State Department of Public Service. The Project also supports several objectives identified in the 2002 State Energy Plan (New York State Energy Planning Board, 2002). These objectives include stimulating economic growth, increasing energy diversity, and promoting a cleaner and

1-2

000101

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

healthier environment. The benefits of the proposed Project also include significant positive impacts on socioeconomics and air quality. By eliminating pollutants and greenhouse gases during the production of electricity, the Project would benefit ecological and water resources, as well as human health.
1.4 Summary of Environmental Effects and Proposed Mitigation

In accordance with the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), potential impacts arising from the proposed Project were evaluated with respect to a comprehensive list of environmental and cultural resources. The Project would result in positive, long-term impacts on agriculture, socioeconomics, ecology, and air quality within the Project area and surrounding region. The Project may result in minor, generally short-term impacts to soils, vegetation, surface waterbodies, wildlife habitat, and transportation facilities. The Project could have operational effects on avian and bat resources and visual resources. Mitigation is proposed for potential impacts associated with the Project. A discussion of mitigation measures is included by resource type in Section 3.0. Table 1-1 is a summary of potential impacts and related proposed mitigation.
1.5 Summary of Alternatives Analysis

The following alternatives to the proposed action are described and evaluated in this DEIS: no action, alternative turbine selection, alternative Project siting, and alternative Project design. Analysis of these alternatives indicated that the Preferred Alternative (the Project) as currently proposed is necessary to produce a commercially feasible Project that reduces environmental impacts to the greatest extent practicable. A detailed discussion of alternatives is included in Section 7.0.
1.6 List of Required Permits and Approvals

Development of the proposed Project would require certain permits and/or approvals from local, state, and federal agencies. The permits and approvals that are expected to be required are listed in Table 1-2.

1-3

000102

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 1-1 (Sheet 1 of 7) Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Aspect of Affected Environment Physiography, Geology, and Soils Potential Impact Erosion and sedimentation construction. Proposed Mitigation A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be developed and implemented for the construction period. A Dust Control Plan would be developed and implemented. A SWPPP would be developed and implemented for the operational period. SLW would follow NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets Guidelines for Siting and Constructing Wind Farms. Geotechnical studies would be conducted prior to final engineering design. A Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCCP) would be developed and implemented. A SWPPP would be developed and implemented for the construction period. Clearing near surface waters would be kept to a minimum to prevent significant disturbance to the habitats associated with surface waters; A SWPPP would be developed and implemented for the construction period. Crossings of the Chaumont River and other streams and tributaries would be accomplished by overhead spanning. It is likely that poles can be located greater than 50 feet from both sides of the Chaumont River and other streams and tributaries. It is possible to string cable between these utility poles in a manner that would not require construction equipment to drive through shallow surface waterbodies. To minimize the impacts to wetlands, no Project infrastructure would be placed in wetlands, unless absolutely necessary. Qualified wetland biologists would field verify the absence of wetlands in the Project footprint, using delineation methods prescribed by the Army Corps of Engineers. Where impacts could occur, if practicable, Project components would be moved to avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands. SLW would obtain Army Corps of Engineers permit authorization for any unavoidable disturbances to wetlands and mitigate as required by any permit conditions.

during

Construction traffic could also create airborne dust. The proposed Project, once built, could potentially cause a minor alteration to existing drainage patterns. Impacts to agricultural soils during construction and operation Shallow bedrock and other geologic challenges (e.g., karst and problematic soils) could be encountered during construction. Release of hazardous substances associated with construction or operation. Water Resources Streams, Rivers, and Lakes Soil erosion during construction could impact ground water. Potential temporary impacts during construction could result from clearing and grading near stream banks. Overhead transmission line would cross surface waterbodies.

Wetlands

Desktop data indicates that there could be minor temporary impact associated with the construction of the overhead transmission line.

1-4

000103

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 1-1 (Sheet 2 of 7) Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Aspect of Affected Environment Vegetation Potential Impact Clearing for construction may temporarily impact abundant vegetation communities. Minor temporary impacts to wildlife habitat associated with construction of the Project would be limited to clearing of forested habitat along the overhead transmission line right-of-way and within small portions of the laydown area for 16 turbines. Bat collision with wind turbines is a potential impact. Proposed Mitigation Clearing of vegetation would be minimized in areas that are ecologically sensitive, such as forested uplands, forested wetlands and the banks of creeks crossed by the overhead transmission line. The Project was designed to avoid significant impact to wildlife. Project infrastructure is sited away from critical habitat and forested clearing would be minimized or avoided to the extent possible. Although impacts to bats are not anticipated to be greater than at other similar wind projects, SLW may develop a bat fatality monitoring program for post-construction implementation if pre-construction studies suggest a possibility of bat collisions. SLW has selected the proposed Project layout to minimize impacts to migrating birds. Should location of particular Project facilities present a potential high risk for collision impacts, SLW will explore alternative configurations to minimize risk at these locations. The proposed Project will encourage continued farming activities in the area by supplementing area farmers’ income. This will also result in the maintenance of open grassland habitats since the regional climate favors traditional late season harvest which is beneficial for grassland birds. Mitigation is not necessary because conversion of forest habitat in the Project area will benefit birds that nest and forage in open habitats which are relatively more important in the region. SLW is studying potential avian impact at the Project site. The Project site is anticipated to pose a low risk to breeding birds. SLW is studying potential bat impact at the Project site. SLW has chosen to move forward with site development, in part because the Project site is anticipated to pose a low risk to threatened or endangered species. Although impacts to bats are not anticipated, SLW may develop a bat fatality monitoring program for implementation once construction is complete if pre-construction studies suggest possible impact.

Non-bat Mammals

Bats

Migrating Birds

During operation of the Project, there is the potential that migratory birds could collide with wind turbines.

Breeding Birds

Threatened and Endangered Species

There may be a minor, temporary impact during construction due to the clearing and construction work in open nesting and foraging habitat. A much smaller footprint of such habitat, which is abundant in the Project area, may be displaced by Project infrastructure. Approximately 82 acres of second growth deciduous forest would be cleared for Project components, which could result in temporary and permanent minor habitat loss for some forest-nesting avian species. There is a low potential risk that local breeding birds could collide with the wind turbines. Individual bats or bat colonies for the Indiana bat and the small-footed myotis have been documented in Jefferson County, within approximately 15 to 40 miles of the proposed Project. No impacts are anticipated.

1-5

000104

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 1-1 (Sheet 3 of 7) Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Aspect of Affected Environment Potential Impact There is a slight risk of collision for migrating raptors. There is a slight risk of collision for breeding birds. Proposed Mitigation SLW is studying potential avian impact at the Project site. The Project site is anticipated to pose a low risk to threatened or endangered species. To mitigate temporary impacts to breeding listed species, pre-construction surveys would be conducted in Project work areas to avoid impacts to nesting individuals. In areas where nesting individuals are encountered construction will be rescheduled to minimize disturbance to the extent possible. In addition clearing activities would occur prior to the breeding season where appropriate.. SLW will develop a management plan to address the handling of these plants during construction if impacts are unavoidable. SLW would obtain all necessary permits from NYSDOT and local highway department(s) in order to make necessary road improvements and to operate oversized vehicles on the roads. Construction related wear and tear to County and local roads would be discussed with the entities that manage the transportation system and an appropriate strategy for road restoration would be developed. A Transportation and Traffic Plan would be created for the Project and would address this issue. SLW would assess work areas two weeks ahead of construction and would provide schools (during the school-year), police, fire, and emergency service agencies with advance notice of lane or road closures.

Transportation

Suitable habitat for Michigan lily and autumnal water-starwort species may temporarily be disturbed during construction activities. The potential need for the Project to improve transportation infrastructure to accommodate construction needs or repair damage to roads caused by construction traffic.

The need for the Project to temporarily relocate overhead lines and other facilities to accommodate oversize vehicles. Traffic delays and road closures due to transportation improvements or construction traffic.

1-6

000105

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 1-1 (Sheet 4 of 7) Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Aspect of Affected Environment Potential Impact Increased traffic generally over local roads during construction. Proposed Mitigation A Transportation and Traffic Plan would be created for the Project and would address this issue. The proposed Project transportation routes have been selected to minimize impacts to roads and surrounding communities. The number of roads used for material and equipment transportation has been limited to the minimum needed for construction. Aside from the oversized vehicles delivering turbine and tower components, construction vehicles would be similar in nature to vehicles currently traveling over the road network and therefore would likely not require special mitigation measures. Construction equipment and the personal vehicles of construction workers would not be parked along public roadways, but rather in designated parking areas, so as to preserve safety along local roadways (unless exceptions are requested and granted by the appropriate authorities). In consultation with appropriate local officials, a Project speed limit would be established. A Dust Control Plan would be developed and implemented for the construction period. If construction is concurrent, coordination between the projects may be required, to make sure that responsibilities for road impacts and remediation are properly recognized and assigned. To the extent there is any overlap in project construction schedules, SLW would coordinate transportation activity with the other projects and would seek to modify its traffic management plan, if necessary, in an effort to mitigate cumulative effects on local transportation and coordinate road construction or improvements. The proposed Project is compliant with local zoning and land use regulations.

Transportation Cumulative

Project construction traffic may create fugitive dust. If the SLW Project and BP projects are built during the same construction season, it is possible that similar construction transportation routes may be chosen.

Land Use and Zoning

The Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme have no specific requirements for development of wind projects in their jurisdictions, but have general zoning and land use regulations established for development. Construction of the Project would result in the temporary disturbance of approximately 191 acres of agricultural land and permanent conversion of 98 acres of agricultural land to wind turbine structures, a substation and pervious access roads.

SLW would follow NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets Guidelines for Agricultural Mitigation for Wind Power Projects.

1-7

000106

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 1-1 (Sheet 5 of 7) Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Aspect of Affected Environment Utilities and Community Services Potential Impact The Project would result in minor shortand long-term increases in energy usage associated with construction and operation of the Project. Long-term energy use would increase slightly as a result of facility maintenance. Proposed Mitigation Mitigation is not necessary as neither of these represents significant impacts on energy resources. Mitigation is not necessary as this impact would be minor because the amount of required electricity and fuel is small, and local fuel suppliers and utilities have sufficient capacity available to serve the Project’s needs, and the Project will augment the local electricity supply. SLW would collaborate with the utility owners to reduce impacts to their facilities to the maximum extent practicable. SLW would assess work areas two weeks ahead of construction and would provide schools (during the school-year), police, fire, and emergency service agencies with advance notice of lane or road closures. SLW would issue press releases to local newspapers and radio stations regarding lane or road closures. The proposed Project layout would be modified, if necessary, to avoid impact to historic properties to the greatest extent practicable. If NRHP-eligible sites are identified, and if the Project design cannot be adjusted so that the sites may be avoided, it may be necessary to develop an MOA which would outline steps to be taken to mitigate adverse Project effects. Project construction would begin only following successful implementation of all agreed-upon mitigation measures. If it is determined that the Project would result in adverse effects, SLW would consider whether minor redesign is feasible to avoid adverse effects. If avoidance of effects is not possible, SLW would work with the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme, SHPO, the US Army Corps of Engineers, and interested parties to develop an MOA that would stipulate appropriate activities that would be performed to mitigate effects.

There is a remote possibility that some overhead electrical distribution lines would have to be temporarily relocated to accommodate crane routes. During construction, large vehicles and temporary roads closures could block emergency vehicle access to area farms and homes.

Cultural Resources

Construction and operation of the Project could affect archeological resources that are potentially eligible to the NRHP.

Studies are being performed to determine whether the Project might be visible from historic structures listed in, eligible for, or recommended as potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Assessments would be made to determine if the Project may result in adverse effects to potentially significant structures located within the architecture APE. Visual effects that may result in a change to the setting and/or character of a historic property may be assessed as adverse.

1-8

000107

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 1-1 (Sheet 5 of 7) Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Aspect of Affected Environment Visual Resources Potential Impact The Project would be visible from a variety of locations within 5 miles of the proposed Project area. Proposed Mitigation Although the visual mitigation options are limited given the nature of the Project and its siting criteria, the following mitigation measures are proposed for the Project: Turbines would be painted white or light grey with non-specular material and not be used for commercial advertising. Turbines would not be allowed to rust. To the extent practicable, the electrical interconnect between turbines would be installed underground. Overhead electrical transmission from the turbines to the 115 kV transmission line, to the greatest extent practicable, would be sited away from where such infrastructure can be viewed from roads. The developer would also minimize clearing necessary for the installation of the electrical interconnect. The proposed turbines would maintain appropriate buffers from property lines nearby residences, roads and other nearby visually sensitive areas. Perimeter plantings around the substation may be planned to reduce visual impact. Appropriate plantings will be assessed after construction. The proposed turbines would maintain appropriate buffers to minimize visual impact and extended shadow flicker. Settlement agreements could be used to purchase landscape screening (trees, shrubs), or exclusionary treatments such as curtains or blinds. Aviation warning lighting would be limited to the minimum required by the FAA. The Project would purchase aviation warning lights that are shielded or otherwise directed so that they are the least visible from the ground. Due to the height of the proposed turbines, the FAA requires red flashing aviation obstruction lighting to be placed atop the nacelle on a to be determined number of turbines to assure safe flight navigation in the vicinity of the Project.

Some residences located within 10 turbine diameters would experience some degree of shadow flicker in the Town of Cape Vincent.

The United States Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires aviation warning lights on the turbines, which could present a potential adverse visual impact from some viewing locations.

1-9

000108

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 1-1 (Sheet 6 of 7) Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Aspect of Affected Environment Visual - Cumulative Potential Impact Construction of the SLW Project and the BP projects in relatively close proximity to one another may have the potential to create cumulative visual impacts. There may be locations where turbines from projects would be visible, either at the same time or in rapid succession while traveling on area road-ways. In most locations within the study area, only small portions of either project would be visible. However, in some open elevated settings, it is possible that large portions of projects would be visible. Temporary minor adverse impacts to air quality may result from the operation of construction equipment and vehicles. The proposed Project would generate noise during construction. Proposed Mitigation The proposed mitigation described above would be employed.

Air Quality Noise

A Dust Control Plan would be developed and implemented for the construction period. Adhering to regular construction work hours Mondays through Saturdays, and typically not working on Sundays or after hours. Implementing best management procedures during construction, such as using appropriate mufflers. Notifying adjacent landowners of noise impacts in advance. Noise impacts will be avoided by buffers from property lines, residences, roads and other sensitive areas, and by obtaining vendor sound levels produced by the proposed turbines. No mitigation necessary because the Sound Level Study demonstrated that the Project would produce sound levels that are below the significant impacts level and are allowable under applicable regulations. If Project operation results in any impacts to existing off-air television coverage, SLW would address and resolve each individual problem as necessary. Mitigation actions could include adjusting existing receiving antennas, upgrading the antenna, or providing cable or satellite systems to the affected households. Should the NTIA identify any Project-related concerns related to signal blockage following their 30-day review of the Project, SLW would mitigate impacts as required.

The Project would not have significant noise impacts during operation.

Telecommunications

It is unlikely that there would be a significant impact to television signal coverage during Project operation.

It is unlikely that the Project would impact government communications.

1-10

000109

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 1-1 (Sheet 7 of 7) Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Aspect of Affected Environment Potential Impact There is a remote possibility that ice shed from turbines could cause personal or property injury. Proposed Mitigation The use of buffers from roads and property lines and public control measures would minimize the already low public safety risk of ice shed. All turbines would have automatic braking and shutdown. Ice detectors would be installed at previously determined locations to notify maintenance personnel of icing conditions, which would allow the operator to take the appropriate actions. The use of buffers from roads and property lines and public control measures would minimize the already low public safety risk associated with tower collapse or blade failure. The standard engineering design and protection systems incorporated into modern wind turbines would prevent and minimize problems that could lead to tower collapse or blade failure. Stray voltage concerns would be addressed through proper electrical engineering design and installation of all Project electrical components. A Fire Prevention and Control Plan would be developed for the Project to ensure the safety of company employees and local residents, visitors, and their property. Prior to the commencement of construction SLW would present, review and finalize the Fire Prevention and Control Plan in cooperation with local fire departments. The standard lightning protection system installed within the rotor blades would be used to prevent and minimize problems associated with lightning strikes. SLW would design all facilities in accordance with guidance and regulations of the Department of Homeland Security.

Safety and Security

There is a remote possibility that tower collapse or turbine failure could cause personal or property injury.

Wind power facilities have the potential to create stray voltage only if the electrical system is both poorly grounded and located near underground or poorly grounded metal objects. Due to their height, physical dimensions, and complexity, wind turbines may present response difficulties to local emergency responders should a fire occur within or near the structures. Storage and use of diesel fuels, lubricating oils, and hydraulic fluids within the Project boundary also create the potential for fire or medical emergencies. Due the height and materials used to construct, the wind turbines are susceptible to lightning strikes. It is not anticipated that the proposed Project would be a target for any homeland security concerns.

1-11

000110

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 1-2 (Sheet 1 of 2) Permits and Approvals for the St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Agency Towns Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board Town of Cape Vincent Code Enforcement Officer Town of Cape Vincent Code Enforcement Officer Town of Cape Vincent Departments Town of Lyme Planning Board Town of Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Lyme Departments Jefferson County Planning Department Highway Department Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency (JIDA) New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Department of State Division of Coastal Resources Department of Transportation Department of Agriculture & Markets Public Service Commission New York State Energy Research and Development (NYSERDA) New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP) Completion of a NYS General Municipal Law Section 239-m review and issuance of recommendations. County road work permits. Potentially involved with PILOT approval. If so, issuance of SEQRA Findings. Potentially, Article 24 Permit for disturbance of state jurisdictional wetlands. SPDES General Permit for stormwater discharges (creation of SWPPP and SPCCP). Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Issuance of SEQRA Findings as an involved agency. Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination Special Use Permit for oversize/overweight vehicles. Highway work permits. Submit Notice of Intent for work in an Agricultural District. PSL §68 Certificate. Issuance of SEQRA Findings. Administration of Renewable Portfolio Standard procurement. Description of Permit or Approval Required Administration of SEQRA Process, and issuance of findings (as Lead Agency under SEQRA). Site Plan Approval and other land use considerations Zoning Permit for erection of structures (Zoning Law Section 705). Issuance of building permits/certificates of compliance. Review and approval of highway work permits/road agreements. Participation in SEQRA Process as an involved agency; issuance of SEQRA findings Special Permit (Zoning Board of Appeals) and other land use considerations Issuance of building permits/certificates of compliance. Review and approval of highway work permits/road agreements.

Cultural Resources Consultation.

1-12

000111

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 1-2 (Sheet 2 of 2) Permits and Approvals for the St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Agency Federal Agencies Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Description of Permit or Approval Required

Notice of Construction and Aviation Lighting Plan. USACE Nationwide Section 10 Permit for aerial crossing of the Chaumont River. Potential for USACE Section 404 Nationwide Permit for placement of fill in federal jurisdictional wetlands/waters of the U.S. Remote Potential for USACE Section 404 Individual Permit for placement of fill in federal jurisdictional wetlands/water of the U.S. NEPA compliance if Individual Permit. Federal consistency and applicable permits for the Coastal Zone Management per USACE. Consultation regarding special status species. 29 CFR 1910 regulations (standard conditions for safe work practices during construction).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

1-13

000112

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

2.0

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION

The following discussion describes the proposed Project in terms of purpose, need and benefit, Project location, and layout. This Project description also describes construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning. In addition, a list of regulatory approvals is provided.
2.1 Introduction

This DEIS assesses the environmental effects of constructing and operating the proposed Project. Provided below are descriptions of the Project, the Project Applicant, the Project's purpose, need, and benefit; the Project’s potential environmental impacts and related proposed mitigation measures; the alternatives analyzed in this DEIS; and the regulatory approvals necessary for the Project to be constructed and operated. The Applicant, SLW, is proposing to develop a wind-powered electrical-generating facility of up to 96 turbine locations with a total capacity of approximately 136 MW. The proposed Project would be located in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme in Jefferson County, New York. All 96 turbines, temporary construction laydown areas, access roads, underground interconnect lines, operations and maintenance building, meteorological towers, an electrical substation and other components would be located in the Town of Cape Vincent; most of the overhead electrical transmission line and the existing transmission grid substation would be located in the Town of Lyme. The final wind turbine size for the Project will be dependent on availability of units at the time of construction. The size of likely units ranges between 1.5 MW to 3.0 MWs. Larger sized units of 3.0 MWs could reduce the total number of turbines and the associated environmental impact in the Project area. Since the actual turbine model and type will not be finalized until later in the development process, conservative impact assumptions are used for this DEIS. For example, this analysis assumes that a maximum of 96 turbines will be installed, which is the maximum number if smaller units, such as 1.5 MW turbines, are used. If the larger 3.0 MW units are used, fewer turbines would likely be installed. Based on the size range of potential units, the maximum blade-tip height is estimated to be 425 feet and the rotor width (diameter) estimated to be 300 feet (per the 3.0 MW turbine blades). Each turbine would ultimately consist of a tall steel tower; a rotor consisting of three composite blades; and a nacelle, which houses the generator, gearbox, and power train. A transformer may be located in the rear of each nacelle, or adjacent to the base of the tower, to raise the voltage of the electricity produced by the turbine generator to the voltage level of the underground collection system. The steel towers used for this Project would be manufactured in multiple sections. The towers would have a base diameter of approximately 15 to 20 feet depending on the turbine selected. This assessment was completed using the

2-1

000113

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

dimensions for a 20-foot tower base. Each tower would have a locked access door and an internal safety ladder to access the nacelle, and would be painted (off-white) to make the structure less visually obtrusive. For a maximum of 96 turbine foundations, the Project also would result in the construction of approximately 29 miles of gravel access roads, 44 miles of underground interconnect cables, an electrical substation, and an operations and maintenance building. An approximately 9 mile long (34.5 kV to 115 kV) overhead transmission line would be constructed to connect the Project with the existing transmission grid and electrical substation in the Town of Lyme. The Project facilities would be developed on leased private land. SLW plans to begin construction in the spring/summer of 2008 and to complete construction by the end of 2008. SLW would begin site work as early as possible after all required permits and approvals are received. This would enable SLW to commence construction as early as possible after the 2008 spring thaw. The geotechnical investigation and other engineering studies to support the civil design would be conducted prior to construction. Once the Project is in operation, the wind turbines and associated components operate in an almost completely automated fashion. SLW intends to employ approximately three (3) workers for operation and maintenance of the wind energy facility.
2.2 Purpose and Scope of Environmental Impact Statement

The proposed Project is subject to review under New York’s SEQRA because it requires the issuance of discretionary permits by state and local agencies (see Section 2.9, Regulatory Approvals). SLW submitted a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to the Town of Cape Vincent on November 8, 2006, addressing the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The submittal of the EAF initiated the SEQRA process for the proposed action. SLW voluntarily agreed to prepare this DEIS. SLW retained a team of experienced environmental consultants to study the proposed Project and develop this SEQRA DEIS. The level of the analysis and information in this DEIS is consistent with other such documents prepared and deemed complete for a number of wind power projects in New York, and is compliant with the requirements of SEQRA (6 New York Code of Rules and Regulations [NYCRR] Part 617). The purpose of the DEIS is to systematically assess the environmental impacts associated with construction of the Project. Each area of the affected environment will be concisely described,

2-2

000114

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

potential Project impacts will be outlined, and mitigation for potential adverse impacts will be proposed. The next steps in the SEQRA process for this Project include the following: DEIS accepted as complete by Lead Agency (i.e. Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board); Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board files notice of completion of the DEIS and notice of public hearing and comment period (if the Board chooses to hold a public hearing); Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board may hold a discretionary public hearing on the DEIS (the hearing must be held at least 14 days after public notice is published); and Minimum 30-day public comment period. After the public comment period on the DEIS, three alternative procedural pathways would be available to the Lead Agency. The Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board could require preparation of a Final EIS (FEIS). If that alternative pathway is chosen, the following steps would be taken: The Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board directs SLW to revise the DEIS as necessary to address relevant public and agency comments; SLW completes the Final EIS (FEIS); Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board accepts the FEIS as complete; Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board files notice of completion of the FEIS; 10-day public consideration period; The Planning Board as Lead agency issues its SEQRA Findings Statement; and Involved agencies consider the FEIS and issue their SEQRA Findings Statements as necessary to implement their permitting jurisdiction. In the alternative, the lead agency could determine, based upon the DEIS and consideration of the public comments received, that the Project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment (see 6 NYCRR § 617.9(a)(5)). In that event, the lead agency would prepare, file and publish a negative declaration, and the SEQRA process would be completed.
2.3 Project Purpose, Public Need and Benefits

The purpose of the proposed Project is to develop a wind-powered electrical-generating facility at the proposed Project location. This Project would be a significant source of renewable energy to the New York electrical power grid.
2-3

000115

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

The proposed Project would assist New York State in complying with the objectives of New York State PSC Order 03-E-0188, which was issued on September 24, 2004. This order established the New York State RPS to increase the proportion of electricity from renewable energy sources used in New York State to 25 percent by the end of 2013. The RPS helps to ensure that New York State's growing need for electricity would be satisfied in an efficient and environmentally sound manner. Wind generated electricity provides increased stability to the price volatility of fossil-fuel electricity generation in New York. In addition, the proposed Project also assists in fulfilling objectives identified in the 2002 State Energy Plan (New York State Energy Planning Board, 2002), such as stimulating economic growth, increasing energy diversity, and promoting a cleaner and healthier environment. The proposed Project would generate a number of other benefits to the host communities and to New York State in general. The proposed Project would result in increased tax revenues to local governments, annual income to participating landowners, and direct job creation during the development and construction of the wind energy project, as well as indirect job creation during operation of the wind energy project. For a lengthier discussion of potential socioeconomic benefits, see Section 3.11 (Socioeconomics). Development of wind-powered electrical generation (such as the proposed Project), would result in an improvement to air quality by offsetting emissions created by fossil-fuel-burning power plants. The proposed Project would result in estimated annual reductions of approximately 236 tons of nitrogen oxides, 669 tons of sulfur dioxide, and substantial quantities of other pollutants including particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). This not only leads to healthier air, but also helps to reduce the climate change impacts associated with fossil-fuel-burning power plants. Carbon dioxide emissions contribute to global warming. The proposed Project would offset approximately 158,576 tons of carbon dioxide annually that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere. By offsetting air pollutants and greenhouse gases, the Project provides a benefit to environmental resources and human health. The proposed Project would also support the long-term economic viability of agricultural areas in the host communities, enabling the primarily agricultural landowners to augment their farm incomes by realizing the full potential of the wind asset on their lands.
2.4 Project Description and Location

The proposed Project would be located in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme in Jefferson County, New York. Figure 2-1 illustrates the conceptual location of the Project. All Project

2-4

000116

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

facilities would be located on individual leased land parcels located within a larger Project area of approximately 9,000 acres. The Project area would be located southeast of the St. Lawrence River and New York State Route 12E, which follows the riverbank. As proposed, the Project and associated turbines would be located within the Agricultural Residential District of Cape Vincent and part of the electric overhead transmission line would be located within the Agricultural and Rural Residence District in Lyme. The Project area extends from approximately one-half mile from the river bank to about two and one-half miles inland and extends from one mile south of the Village of Cape Vincent northeasterly about 10 miles southeast of Route 12E. Most of the Project area would be located in the Town of Cape Vincent. The overhead transmission line will extend several miles in an easterly direction from the Project area to an existing transmission grid substation within the Town of Lyme. Land use in the Project area is mostly agricultural, with farms and single family rural residences occurring along road frontage. The general Project area would be served by a network of state, county and local highways and roads that vary from two-lane highways to gravel roads. The New York State (NYS) Highway system in and adjacent to the Project area includes Interstate Route 81, NYS Route 12E, State Route 12, NYS Route 180, and several County roads. The extensive road network provides excellent site access for construction vehicles and delivery of Project equipment.
2.5 Proposed Facility Layout and Design

The following section describes the Project conceptual layout as shown on Figure 2-1 and provides a description of the major components of the proposed Project. The St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project would consist of up to 96 wind turbine locations and construction of approximately 29 miles of gravel access roads, 44 miles of underground interconnect, an electrical substation, and an operations and maintenance building. An approximately 9 mile long (34.5 kV to 115 kV) overhead transmission line would be constructed to connect the Project with the existing transmission grid and electrical substation in the Town of Lyme. The turbines would have a maximum height of approximately 425 feet from the tip of the rotor blade at the uppermost position to ground level, and the rotor diameter would be a maximum of 300 feet. There is one temporary meteorological tower with guy wires currently on the site that would be removed when Project construction is complete. There would be one or more permanent meteorological towers located on site, the location of which would be determined after a final construction layout is completed. Existing roads would be used to the extent feasible to bring equipment and material to the site (see Section 3.4).

2-5

000117

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

2.5.1

Wind Turbines

The possible turbine size for the Project varies from a 1.5 MW through 3.0 MW turbine. Since the turbine model and type has not been finalized at this time, and a larger 3.0 MW machine might possibly be used to reduce the number of turbines (and ultimately impact) in the Project area, conservative impact specifications were used for this DEIS. For example, the maximum blade-tip height was estimated at 425 feet and the rotor width (diameter) was estimated at 300 feet (per the larger 3.0 MW turbine blades). Each turbine will ultimately consist of a tall steel tower; a rotor consisting of three composite blades; and a nacelle, which houses the generator, gearbox, and power train. A transformer may be located in the rear of each nacelle, or on the ground near the tower base, to raise the voltage of the electricity produced by the turbine generator to the voltage level of the collection system. The steel towers used for this Project will be manufactured in multiple sections. The towers will have a base diameter of approximately 15 to 20 feet. Each tower will have a locked access door and an internal safety ladder to access the nacelle, and will be painted (off-white) to make the structure less visually obtrusive.
2.5.2 Turbine Spacing

The first step in siting wind turbines for this Project was to assess the wind resource and place conceptual turbine locations where wind would appear to be the strongest and steadiest. Appropriate buffers (see Figures 2-2 and 2-3) from roads, property lines, and residences, are taken into account in developing the first conceptual layout. Once the conceptual layout was set, a team consisting of a land rights specialist, an environmental consultant, and an engineer reviewed the possible turbine locations in the field. Slight adjustments were made to the proposed turbine locations based upon land use, environmental, and engineering considerations. The suggested changes in turbine locations were then sent to a meteorologist, who ensured the adjustments in turbine positioning would not unreasonably impact the efficiency of the layout. Factors considered when siting the turbines included: Wind resource assessment: In order to find the most efficient turbine sites for generating electricity, SLW uses computer models that combined wind resource data from meteorological towers in the Project area, long-term weather data, topography, and environmental factors. Sufficient spacing: Wind turbines create turbulence, or wake, immediately downstream of the rotor. Wake can interfere with the operation of neighboring wind turbines, creating extra wear and tear, and decreasing their efficiency for producing electricity. Using computer models, SLW ensured that turbines were spaced correctly so as to avoid wake losses and turbulence.

2-6

000118

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Distance from residences: The turbine locations were selected to maintain a buffer of 1,200 feet from the nearest outer wall of an existing occupied residence to the center of the tower foundation. The turbine buffer minimizes the visual and sound effects of the turbines on local residences. Distance from roads: The turbine locations were also selected to maintain a buffer from existing road rights-of-way of 615 feet or 1.5 times the turbine tip height, whichever is greater. Distance from adjacent property lines: The turbine locations were also selected to maintain a buffer of 75 feet from adjacent property lines.
2.5.3 Access Roads

As described in Section 3.4, most of the transportation infrastructure needed for the Project is already in place. However, since turbine sites must be located a distance from existing roads, it will be necessary to create access roads from the existing roadways to the turbines. Turbine sites have been selected to optimize efficiency and avoid environmental impacts. Similarly, the locations of access roads have been selected to minimize impacts to agricultural land uses and environmental resources, and considered engineering and constructability concerns. SLW is currently developing the Project construction plan, which would include transportation considerations. Existing roads may need to be improved in order to accommodate construction traffic, as described in Section 3.4. The proposed access road system is shown on Figure 2-1. SLW would be responsible for the maintenance of new private roads.
2.5.4 Underground Interconnect Line

Electricity from the wind turbines would be generated at a specific voltage and transported through underground cables that would connect groups of turbines together electrically. The interconnect lines would feed to the Project substation within the Project area. At the Project substation, the electrical power from the entire wind energy project runs through a station transformer and is converted to a higher voltage for interconnection with the substation in Lyme and the existing system transmission grid.
2.5.5 Substation and Interconnection Facilities

The Project substation would step up the voltage of the electricity so that it can be reliably interconnected with the 115 kV transmission line at the existing substation in Lyme, owned by National Grid. At this location electricity delivered would be metered and a protection system put into place to ensure reliability and integrity of the infrastructure. SLW anticipates that the

2-7

000119

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

substation structural elements would be installed on concrete foundations. In addition, SLW anticipates that the substation would consist of a graveled footprint area, a chain link perimeter fence, and an outdoor lighting system. The design of the substation and attachment facilities to the 115 kV line would be finalized based on a facility study conducted by the transmission line owner and the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) in accordance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Transmission Tariff.
2.6 Construction

The following section describes the various activities that would occur as part of Project construction. Project construction would be performed in several stages and would include the following main elements and activities: Clearing and grading of the temporary field construction office, substation, access roads, crane pads, turnaround areas and turbine locations; Construction of access roads; Construction of turbine tower foundations and, if necessary, transformer pads; Installation of the underground interconnect line; Construction of the approximately 9 miles of overhead transmission line; Assembly and erection of the wind turbines; Construction and installation of the substation; Plant commissioning and energizing; Final grading and drainage; and Restoration. Project construction would occur over one construction season (likely mid-April through midNovember 2008) and would require the involvement of 50 to 150 construction-related personnel depending on the stage of construction.
2.6.1 Geotechnical Investigation

Prior to construction a geotechnical investigation would be performed to identify subsurface conditions necessary for engineering final design of the Project. The geotechnical investigation would include drilling test borings at designated locations to evaluate subsurface geology and groundwater conditions, and perform field tests and geotechnical laboratory tests on recovered samples to evaluate the physical and engineering properties of the strata encountered. SLW would also perform engineering analyses to develop design and construction specifications for foundations, site subgrade, and fill preparation. Soil borings, or test pits as necessary, are required at each wind turbine location, the substation, and at certain intervals along access roads.
2-8

000120

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Borings would be performed in accordance with local requirements, such as filling boreholes with grout after testing is complete.
2.6.2 Design and Construction Specifications

SLW would establish a set of site-specific construction specifications for the various portions of the Project using all of the data gathered for the Project. The design specifications would be based on well proven and established sets of construction standards set forth by standard industry practice. Qualified engineers would tailor the design and construction specifications for sitespecific conditions.
2.6.3 Access Road Installation

The Project would include approximately 44 miles of gravel access road construction. To the greatest extent possible, SLW would upgrade existing roads and farm drives for use as Project access roads in order to minimize agricultural and environmental impacts. New gravel access roads would also be constructed. Road construction would typically involve clearing and grubbing of the right-of-way and topsoil stripping in active agricultural areas, as necessary. Stripped topsoil would be stockpiled along the road corridor for use in site restoration. Agricultural protection measures would be followed so that topsoil is not mixed with subsoils or gravel. The topsoil, when replaced, would retain its unique characteristics. These agricultural protection measures were developed during the construction of past wind energy projects in New York and are strongly suggested for use by the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets. For evaluation purposes, it is assumed that access road construction would disturb, at most, a temporary 44-foot wide area. In certain locations, vegetation clearing activities might extend slightly beyond the footprint of anticipated ground disturbance. Cleared vegetation would be chipped and properly spread on-site or hauled to an off-site location for disposal or reuse. Topsoil would then be stripped and segregated. Subsoil would then be graded, compacted, and surfaced with gravel or crushed stone in accordance with the requirements of the wind turbine supplier and recommendations from the geotechnical engineer. Geotextile fabric or grid may be installed beneath the road surface to provide additional support, if engineering studies indicate it is necessary. Permanent access roads would generally be 30 feet wide, including side slopes. Cross-sections at turning radii and pull-offs to accommodate passing vehicles would be slightly wider, as necessary for safety. No jurisdictional stream or wetland crossings are anticipated. However, if needed, culverts would be placed in wetland/stream crossings in accordance with state and federal permit requirements and where needed to facilitate cross drainage. Appropriate sediment and erosion control measures would be installed when access road construction is near sensitive environmental resources.

2-9

000121

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

2.6.4

Foundation Construction

Turbine foundation construction would begin only after access roads to turbine locations are constructed. Foundation construction usually includes drilling, hole excavation, outer form setting, rebar and bolt cage assembly, casting and finishing of the concrete, removal of the forms, backfilling and compacting, if required, and foundation site area restoration. A construction work area consisting of a temporary 200-foot radius around each turbine foundation is necessary for wind turbine assembly and erection. This would typically involve clearing and stripping/stockpiling topsoil. Backhoes would then excavate a foundation hole. In agricultural areas excavated subsoil and rock would be segregated from stockpiled topsoil. If bedrock is encountered it is anticipated it would be excavated with a backhoe. If this is not possible, pneumatic jacking, hydraulic fracturing or blasting, as a last resort, would excavate the bedrock. The Project geotechnical/civil engineer would specify the foundation type. Typical wind turbine foundations are approximately 7 to 10 feet deep and approximately 50 to 60 feet across. Foundations typically require approximately 320 cubic yards (cy) of concrete. After the concrete is cured, it is backfilled with the excavated on-site material. Permanent loss of usable land would be restricted to the tower diameter which for the Project is between 15 and 20 feet. To provide adequate foundation for the erection cranes, a gravel crane pad (approximately 100 feet by 60 feet) would be constructed at the base of each tower. Excess subsoil or other excavated material generated from foundation work would be used to backfill or fine grade roads and wind turbine erection areas.
2.6.5 Underground Interconnect Line Installation

A width of approximately 25 feet, centered on the interconnection route, will be cleared prior to installation. The project is designed to minimize the cutting of trees and other vegetation. This 25-foot wide corridor would be accessed by cable installation machinery, which is not anticipated to involve excavation of soil. Electrical interconnects would follow Project access roads whenever practicable (approximately 3.4 of the approximate 44 miles of interconnect would be co-located with access roads). In areas where co-location with access roads is not practical, interconnect design would follow field edges as much as possible and avoid cutting directly across fields. Where the interconnect must cross active agricultural fields, the location of any subsurface drainage (tile) lines would be determined (through consultation with the landowner[s]) to ensure that these lines are not damaged during cable installation, or, if damage is unavoidable, that the tiles are subsequently restored. Direct burial methods, via cable plow, rock saw and/or trencher, would be used during the installation of underground interconnect lines where possible. Interconnect installation would disturb an area approximately 12 to 36 inches

2-10

000122

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

wide in which bundled cable would be placed at a minimum depth of 36 inches. Generally, no restoration of the interconnection line is required, as the opening closes in on itself following installation. Similarly, surface disturbance associated with the passage of machinery in the 25foot wide cleared corridor would be minimal, and should not require restoration. However, should disturbance require surface restoration, it would occur shortly after installation, and would be accomplished by a small bulldozer, or equivalent. Direct burial, via a trencher or rock saw, would be similar to cable plow installation. The trencher or rock saw would use a large circular blade to excavate a 14-inch wide, 36-inch deep trench. Excavated material would be sidecast immediately adjacent to the trench, in accordance with NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets guidance, in active agricultural land. Up to two parallel cables can be installed by trenching without the need to strip and segregate topsoil. Sidecast material would be replaced after the interconnect is installed. All areas would be returned to pre-construction grades, and restoration efforts would be as described above for cable plow installation. In the unlikely event that three or more cables must be installed, agricultural protection measures requiring the stripping and segregating of topsoil and restoration would occur. Any tiles that are cut or damaged during construction of the interconnect would be repaired during restoration. Installation of interconnect via an open trench would be avoided, if possible. Areas where open trench installation may be required include unstable slopes, excessive unconsolidated rock, and standing or flowing water. Open trench installation would be performed with a backhoe and would result in a disturbed trench approximately 36 inches wide and a minimum cover of 36 inches deep. In active agricultural areas, agricultural protection measures would be followed; including possible minimum burial depths of 48 inches for the interconnection lines in agricultural fields. Replacement of excavated material would occur immediately after installation of the underground interconnect. Any damaged tiles would be repaired, and all areas adjacent to the open trench would be restored to original grades and surface condition. Although not currently anticipated, portions of the interconnect could be installed aboveground. Aboveground installation would be indicated when burial would not be economically feasible or could result in significant environmental impacts. If that occurs, the interconnect would be installed aboveground on treated wood utility poles.
2.6.6 Wind Turbine Assembly and Erection

Wind turbines consist of three main components: the tower, the nacelle, and the rotor blades. Turbine components would be delivered to the Project site on uncovered transport trucks. Turbine erection is typically performed in six stages: (1) setting of the electrical components in the foundation, (2) erection of the tower, (3) erection of the nacelle, (4) assembly and erection of

2-11

000123

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

the rotor, (5) connection and termination of the internal cables, and (6) inspection and testing of the electrical system. Turbine assembly and erection is performed with large track mounted cranes, smaller rough terrain cranes, boom trucks and rough terrain fork-lifts for loading and off-loading materials. The erection crane(s) would move from one tower to another along a designated crane path. This path would generally follow existing public roads and Project access roads, but in a few places may traverse open fields. If this approach is not feasible, topsoil would be stripped and stockpiled in accordance with agricultural protection measures and 44-foot-wide temporary roads would be installed in these areas. In addition, the use of construction mats would be considered during constructability review of the Project. The crane may also be partially disassembled and carried by a flatbed tractor-trailer, but this is inefficient and expensive. After a turbine is erected, site restoration activities would begin. Restoration of crane paths would include removal of temporary fill and gravel materials. In agricultural fields, restoration would also include subsoil de-compaction (as necessary) and rock removal, spreading of stockpiled topsoil, and re-establishing pre-construction contours. Exposed soils at restored tower sites and along roads and crane paths would be stabilized by seeding and/or mulching.
2.6.7 Substation

The proposed Project substation would be located on approximately four acres in the Town of Cape Vincent. The substation would be accessed by Swamp (Wilson) Road. The substation construction area would be cleared, grubbed, and graded. Concrete foundations and gravel surfacing would occur prior to the installation of the electrical infrastructure. The substation would include a gravel parking area and be enclosed by a chain link fence.
2.6.8 Overhead Transmission Line

The construction right-of-way would serve as access for construction vehicles. The temporary construction right-of-way for the overhead transmission line may be up to 120 feet, as necessary for construction equipment. The construction right-of-way would be cleared and grubbed. Additional access to the work area would include use of existing farm roads and drives. To the extent new access roads are necessary; the siting criteria described in Section 2.6.3 would be employed. Construction vehicles and equipment would then set the treated wood utility poles and associated transmission infrastructure. Later, stringing crews would install electrical cable on the utility poles. Testing of the system prior to energizing the wind generating facility would occur. Restoration of the construction right-of-way would occur as required by use of agricultural protection measures. The final overhead transmission line right-of-way would be identified post-

2-12

000124

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

construction on as-built drawings and would be presented to the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme.
2.6.9 Operations and Maintenance Facility

The proposed Operations and Maintenance Facility would be located on approximately 0.3 acres in the Town of Cape Vincent. The facility would be accessed from Hell Street. The facility construction area would be cleared, grubbed, and graded. Concrete foundations and gravel surfacing would be completed prior to the installation of the infrastructure. The facility would include a gravel parking area.
2.7 Operations and Maintenance Plan

The Project would be operated and maintained by SLW. A Post-Construction Monitoring, Operation and Maintenance Plan would be prepared prior to commencement of continuous operations. Once operational, the Project would be almost completely automated. SLW would employ a staff of approximately three (3) administrative/operations and maintenance personnel. In the event of turbine or plant facility outages, the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system would send alarm messages to the on-call technician via pager or cell phone to notify him of the outage. The Project would always have an on-call local technician who can respond quickly in the event of emergency notification or critical outage. Wind turbines would receive scheduled preventative maintenance inspections. In certain circumstances, heavy maintenance equipment such as a lifting crane might be required to effectively repair any exposed turbine problems (such as, in rare instances, nacelle component replacement).
2.8 Decommissioning

Project life is planned for at least 20 years. In fact, it is expected that the proposed turbine technology would continue to perform well beyond a 30-year horizon. In the wind industry, it is common to replace or “re-power” older wind energy projects by upgrading older equipment with more efficient turbines over time. Except for the underground collection system, which is provided for under a perpetual easement, SLW’s lease agreements with the landowners provide that all wind Project facilities would be removed following the end of the Project’s useful life.

2-13

000125

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

2.9

Regulatory Approvals

Development of the Project would require permits, approvals, and consultations with local, state, and federal agencies. The permits and approvals that are expected to be required are listed in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1 (Sheet 1 of 2) Permits and Approvals for the St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Agency Towns Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board Town of Cape Vincent Code Enforcement Officer Town of Cape Vincent Code Enforcement Officer Town of Cape Vincent Departments Town of Lyme Planning Board Town of Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Lyme Departments Jefferson County Planning Department Highway Department Jefferson County IDA New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Department of State Division of Coastal Resources Department of Transportation New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets Submit Notice of Intent for work in an Agricultural District. Description of Permit or Approval Required Administration of SEQRA Process, and issuance of findings (as Lead Agency under SEQRA). Site Plan Approval (Planning Board) and other land use considerations for construction of turbine foundations and transmission line to Town boundary Zoning Permit Issuance of building permits/certificates of compliance. Review and approval of highway work permits/road agreements. Participation in SEQRA Process as an involved agency; issuance of SEQRA findings. Special Permit (Zoning Board of Appeals) and other land use considerations for construction of transmission line to substation Issuance of building permits. Review and approval of highway work permits/road agreements. Completion of a NYS General Municipal Law Section 239-m review and issuance of recommendations. County road work permits. Potentially involved with PILOT approval. If so, issuance of SEQRA Findings. Potentially, Article 24 Permit for disturbance of state jurisdictional freshwater wetlands. SPDES General Permit for stormwater discharges (creation of SWPPP and SPCCP). Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Issuance of SEQRA Findings as an involved agency. Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination Special Use Permit for oversize/overweight vehicles. Highway work permits.

2-14

000126

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 2-1 (Sheet 2 of 2) Permits and Approvals for the St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Agency Public Service Commission NYSERDA NYSOPRHP (SHPO) Federal Agencies FAA Description of Permit or Approval Required PSL §68 Certificate. Issuance of SEQRA Findings. Administration of Renewable Portfolio Standard procurement. Cultural Resources Consultation. Notice of Construction and Aviation Lighting Plan. USACE Nationwide Section 10 Permit for aerial crossing of the Chaumont River. Potential for USACE Section 404 Nationwide Permit for placement of fill in federal jurisdictional wetlands/waters of the U.S. Remote Potential for USACE Section 404 Individual Permit for placement of fill in federal jurisdictional wetlands/water of the U.S. NEPA compliance if Individual Permit. Federal consistency and applicable permits for the Coastal Zone Management per USACE. Consultation regarding special status species. 29 CFR 1910 regulations (standard conditions for safe work practices during construction).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service OSHA

2.10

Public and Agency Involvement

SLW has conducted outreach with local governments prior to the submittal of this DEIS. SLW has had numerous informational sessions, meetings, and discussions with the involved Towns regarding the Project over the past several years. SLW has conducted numerous individual meetings with participating landowners and Project neighbors. SLW has also initiated consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). SLW intends to hold community open houses, as necessary, to inform the public of the Project. SLW would also create a Project website, as required by Chapter 641 of the NYS Laws of 2005 (“Ch. 641”) where the public can review the DEIS, obtain other Project information, and submit comments to SLW. During the SEQR process, the public and agencies would have a 30-day review and comment period for this DEIS. The lead agency would hold a public hearing during that period. In addition, several of the permits required for the Project would have public review and comment periods.

2-15

000127

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

3.0 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.1.1

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Soils, Topography and Geological Resources Existing Conditions Surficial Geology

The surficial geology of the Project area was mapped by the New York State Geological Survey (Cadwell et al., 1991). Based upon an evaluation of the maps (including Figure 3-1), the surficial geology of the Project area consists primarily of glaciolacustrine lake, silts, and clays. As glaciers from the last Ice Age melted from south to north, they filled low-lying areas with water, which became inundated with silts and clays. A small portion of the Project area consists of peat muck (swamp deposits) which are poorly drained areas and consist of organic silts and sands. The proposed wind turbine locations within the peat muck areas would include Nos. 14, 15, 18 and 85. Local areas may also consist of mixed glacial and residual soils weathered from the underlying limestone bedrock. The thickness of glacial soils is expected to vary widely across the site from very shallow to very deep (McDowell, 1989).
3.1.1.2 Bedrock Geology

The proposed Project area is located in the Ontario Lowlands Physiographic Province which includes sedimentary rocks (Cambrian and Ordovician) of the Lower Paleozoic age. The underlying bedrock (Figure 3-2) is comprised of rocks of the Trenton group (Trenton Limestone) and Black River Group (Lowville Limestone and Watertown Limestone) (Ruedemann, 1908). The New York State Geological Survey indicates the primary mineral resources of Jefferson County include crushed stone, construction gravel, and topsoil. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Mined Land Database (NYSDEC, 2006b) indicates records of commercial mining around the proposed Project area. The mineral resource mined in the vicinity of the Project area is carbonate rock (limestone), which can be used in the construction industry for concrete or highway paving materials. The Project is not anticipated to impact these resources. A review of United States Geological Survey and New York State Geological publications did not identify any specific geological hazards within the Project area. Since the Project area is located mainly on lowlands and consists predominantly of glacial till there is no possibility of landslides. Review of topographic maps (Figure 2-1) and aerial photographs of the site (Figure 33) revealed no evidence of landslides. While no limestone (karst) hazards are mapped, the Trenton and Black River Groups are comprised of carbonate rocks that are susceptible to dissolution and sinkhole formation. Caverns have been mapped in the Project area and mapping has indicated numerous closed depressions. Due to its particular characteristics, including an
3-1

000128

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

irregular bedrock surface, the presence of large voids and rapid underground drainage, karst limestone presents special problems for civil engineering projects such as roads, bridges, tunnels, sewerage pipelines, and mining. Careful preparatory investigations are therefore required with special design measures and provisions for unforeseen problems. As a result, bedrock in the Project area should be investigated for karst and other dissolution features as part of the geotechnical investigation(s) prior to construction. The proposed Project area lies in a zone of relatively low seismic risk. The maximum earthquake ground motion is expected to be 0.20 times the acceleration due to gravity (0.20g) for 0.20 second response acceleration and 0.08g to 0.11g for one second response acceleration (Building Code of New York State, 2002). Based upon the soils information and geologic setting, it appears that the Project area conditions could vary considerably from shallow hard rock to deeper organic soils; as a result the Project area may include site classes A through F. Based on the prevalence of shallow rock across the site it appears likely that most of the Project area would include Site Classes A, B or C. Nonetheless, detailed geotechnical investigations would be required to assess the specific site class for each proposed wind turbine location.
3.1.1.3 Soils and Floodplain Designations

The Soil Survey of Jefferson County, New York (McDowell, 1989) indicated that the proposed Project area is underlain by nine soil series, comprised of several soil types of similar developmental origin. These soil series consist predominantly of silt loams and loams of glacial origin. The soil survey indicates that the soils in and around the Project area vary from shallow to very deep and have been formed from glacial till derived from the underlying limestone. The soils identified within the Project area are presented in Figure 3-4. The soil series listed in the legend of Figure 3-4 are designated by a two letter code, followed by a third letter indicating the degree of slope, and, when data are available, by a number that indicates the degree of erosion. The primary soil types underlying the Project area include the following: Benson (Bg) The Benson series consist of nearly level to gently sloping, shallow and very shallow, somewhat excessively drained soils. These soils are mainly in broad, undulating areas interspersed with rock outcrops on ridges. Typically, the surface layer is dark brown channery silt loam about 3 inches thick. The subsoil is reddish brown and dark reddish brown, very channery silt loam about 9 inches thick. Bedrock is commonly at a depth of 10 to 20 inches. Most of these soils are used as permanent pasture or cedar woodland, or are reverting to brush. This soil is generally not

3-2

000129

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

suited for cultivated crops. The rate of runoff on the Benson soils is medium, and the capacity of these soils to store water available for plant growth is very low. The primary soils mapped within the areas of the proposed Project are BgB (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes of 0% to 8% in the vicinity of proposed turbine Nos. 20, 38, and 39. Chaumont (Cl) The Chaumont series consist of level to gently sloping, moderately deep and somewhat poorly drained soils in concave, sloping areas of lowland plains. Typically, the surface layer is dark grayish brown silty clay about 5 inches thick. The subsoil is mottled and about 22 inches thick. It is grayish brown to dark grayish brown clay in the upper part and dark grayish brown silty clay in the lower part. Bedrock is commonly at a depth of 20 to 40 inches. Most areas of this soil type have been cleared and are used for cultivated crops. Some areas are used as pasture and woodland; as a result drainage is needed in extensively cropped areas. The rate of water movement through the soil is slow or very slow, and runoff is slow. The capacity of the soil to store water available for plant growth is moderate to high. The surface layer is moderately acidic to neutral. The soils mapped within the Project area include ClA and ClB (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes of 0% to 3% and 3% to 8%, respectively. Covington (Cp) The Covington series consist of nearly level, very deep, poorly drained soils in smooth, broad, mostly level areas and depressions of the lowland plains. Slopes range from 0 to 3 percent, but are predominantly less than 1 percent. Typically, the surface layer is very dark silty clay about 6 inches thick. The subsoil is mottled, about 26 inches thick, and consists of dark gray to grayish brown clay. The substratum is mottled, gray firm, sticky and plastic silty clay to a depth of 60 inches or more. Most areas of this soil type have been cleared and are used for cultivated crops. The rate of water movement through the soil is slow or very slow in the surface layer and very slow in the subsoil and the substratum; in addition runoff is slow. The capacity of the soil to store water available for plant growth is moderate to high. The surface layer is moderately acidic to neutral. Bedrock is commonly at a depth of 20 to 40 inches. The prolonged seasonal high water table, the clayey texture, slow rate of water movement through the soil, poor stability, and potential frost action are limitations of this soil for urban uses. Galoo (Gb) The Galoo series consist of very shallow excessively drained and somewhat excessively drained soils. The areas are mainly on undulating ridges and knolls. The Galoo soil is 2 to 10 inches deep over limestone of calcareous sandstone bedrock. Typically, the surface layer consists of dark brown silt loam about 4 inches thick. The subsoil is reddish brown channery silt loam to a depth

3-3

000130

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

of 7 inches. Most of the areas used as pasture are reverting to brush, or are poor quality woodlands. This soil is not suited to cultivated crops because of the very shallow depth to bedrock, droughtness and rock outcroppings. The rate of water movement through the soil is moderate, and the runoff rate is slow or medium. The capacity of the soil to store water available for plant growth is very low. The surface layer is moderately acidic to mildly alkaline. Soils mapped within the Project area include GbB, and GcB (see Figure 3 4) and have slopes of 0% to 8%. Hudson (Hu) The Hudson series consist of gently sloping to steep, very deep, moderately well drained soils mainly in smooth, irregularly shaped areas and on convex slopes. Typically, the surface layer consists of brown silt loam about 8 inches thick. The subsurface is mottled brown silt loam about 4 inches thick, and the subsoil is mottled and approximately 47 inches thick. It is brown to dark brown silty clay in the middle part and yellowish brown silt loam in the lower part. Most areas of this soil have been cleared and used for cultivated crops for dairy farming. The rate of water movement through the soil is moderately slow or moderate in the surface layer, and slow or very slow in the subsoil and the substratum; in addition the runoff is medium. The capacity of the soil to store water available for plant growth is moderate to high. The surface layer is moderately acidic to neutral. Erosion is a serious hazard if the slopes are bare of vegetation. Mapped soils in the Project area include HuB, HuC and HyE3, (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes of 3% to 8%, 8% to 15% and 15% to 35%, respectively. Kingsbury (Kg) The Kingsbury series consist of nearly level, very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils mainly in smooth, broad, irregularly shaped areas on plains. Typically, the surface layer consists of dark grayish brown silty clay about 7 inches thick. The subsurface is mottled, grayish brown silty clay about 5 inches thick, and the subsoil is mottled and about 16 inches thick. It is firm, grayish brown clay in the upper part and olive gray clay in the lower part. Most areas of this soil have been cleared and used for cultivated crops and dairy farming. If properly drained this soil is moderately suited for cultivated crops. The rate of water movement through the soil is moderately slow in the surface layer and very slow in the subsoil and the substratum. The clayey subsoil somewhat restricts rooting depth, and runoff is slow. The capacity of the soil to store water available for plant growth is high. The surface layer is moderately acidic to mildly alkaline. Soils mapped within the Project area include KgA and KgB (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes in the range of 0% to 3%.

3-4

000131

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Livingston (Lc) The Livingston series consist of nearly level, very deep and poorly drained soils mainly in smooth, broad, flat or depressional areas on plains. Typically, the surface layer is black mucky silty clay about 6 inches thick. The subsoil is mottled and about 24 inches thick. It is dark greenish gray to dark gray, very firm, very plastic and very sticky clay. Most areas of this soil are used as pasture or woodland. The rate of water movement through the soil is slow or very slow in the subsoil and the substratum. The runoff is very slow or ponded. The capacity of the soil to store water available for plant growth is high. The surface layer is moderately acidic to neutral. Soils mapped within the Project area include Lc and Ld (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes in the range of 0% to 3%. Reinbeck (Rh) The Reinbeck series is barely level to gently sloping very deep, somewhat poorly drained soil mainly in smooth, broad, irregularly shaped areas on lake plains and at the margins of uplands. Typically the surface layer is dark grayish brown silty loam about 8 inches thick. The subsurface layer is mottled, grayish brown silt loam about 4 inches thick. The subsoil is mottled and about 14 inches thick. Most areas of this soil have been cleared and are used for cultivated crops in dairy farming. The rate of water movement through the soil is moderately slow in the surface layer and slow in the subsoil and the substratum; in addition the runoff is very slow. The capacity of the soil to store water available for plant growth is high. The surface layer is moderately acidic to neutral. Soils mapped within the Project area include RhA and RhB (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes in the range of 0% to 3% and 3% to 8%, respectively. Wilpoint (Wn) The Wilpoint series consist of gently sloping, moderately deep, moderately well drained soil mainly on convex slopes. Typically, the surface layer is dark grayish brown silty clay loam about 6 inches thick. The subsoil is mottled and about 16 inches thick. It is dark brown silty clay in the upper part and dark brown to dark grayish brown clay in the lower part. Bedrock is at a depth of 20 to 40 inches. Most areas of this soil have been cleared and are used for cultivated crops. The rate of water movement through the soil is slow or very slow, and the runoff is medium. The capacity of the soil to store water available for plant growth is moderate. The surface layer is moderately acidic to neutral. Soils mapped within the Project area include WnB and WnC (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes in the range of 3% to 8% and 8% to 15%, respectively. The Soil Survey of Jefferson County indicates that ground water is seasonally perched within the upper 0.0 to 6.0 feet during the months of December to May and/or March to May depending on

3-5

000132

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

the underlying soils (McDowell, 1989). The soils mapped within the proposed Project area are described as poorly drained, and groundwater is expected to be shallow in most areas. A summary of soil properties for the various soil series are presented in McDowell (1989), and a summary of the properties listed for the soils mapped within the Project area is included as Table 3-1.
3.1.1.4 Unusual Landforms or Geologic Formations

The Project area contains landforms that are unique to the local geologic environment. The landforms are typical of a glacial lacustrine plain and include relatively flat terrain with small lakes and wetland areas. The area also includes surficial peat deposits. Other landforms include a cave near the northern limit of the Project area, just south of Millen Bay, and numerous closed depressions. The closed depressions are likely remnant glacial features, but may also reflect karst (sinkhole) activity in the underlying limestone. The Project area is mapped as part of four United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 Minute Topographic maps: Cape Vincent North, Cape Vincent South, Chaumont and St Lawrence Quadrangles. Based upon the USGS Topographic maps (USGS, 1958a, b, c, d), the proposed Project area is located in the St. Lawrence River Valley (or the Thousand Island Region). The St. Lawrence Valley and the Erie-Ontario plain together are referred to as the “lowlands.” The elevations across the Project area vary from about 249 feet above mean sea level (msl) to about 370 feet above msl. The proposed Project area is encompassed by rivers and lakes, which include the St Lawrence River, the Black River, and Lake Ontario. A majority of the Project area consists of nearly level agricultural land (row crops). Approximately 80% of the Project area has slopes within the range of 0 to 10%, approximately 16% of the area is between 10 to 15% and approximately 4% of the Project area includes slopes greater than 15%. A majority of the area is level and the drainage pattern is generally in the direction of small streams and creeks (e.g., Kents Creek, Fox Creek, Shower Creek, Super Creek, Three Mile Creek), which discharge directly into the St Lawrence River.
3.1.2 3.1.2.1 Potential Impacts Potential Short-Term Impacts

Based on the information reviewed and described above, the soils and geologic conditions should be properly evaluated prior to construction of the proposed wind energy project. The subsoils are expected to consist predominantly of silt loams and loams of glacial origin. The soil survey indicates that the soils in and around the Project area vary from shallow to very deep and have

3-6

000133

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 3-1 General Description of Soil Series (Taken from Soil Survey of Jefferson County, New York [McDowell, 1989]) Risk of Corrosion Water Bedrock Table Depth Permeability Hydrologic Group¹ Depth (ft) ( in ) ( in/ hr ) C/D >6 10-20 0.6-2.0 D 1.5-1.5 20-40 <0.2 D 0.5-1.0 >60 <0.2 C/D >6 2-10 0.6-2.0 C 1.5-2.0 >60 0.2-2.0 D 0.5-1.5 >60 0.06-0.2 D 0-1.0 >60 0.2-0.6 D 0.5-1.5 >60 0.2-0.6 D 1.5-2.0 20-40 <0.2 pH 5.6-7.3 5.6-7.3 5.6-7.3 5.6-7.8 5.1-7.3 5.1-7.8 5.1-7.3 5.1-7.3 5.6-7.3 Concrete Low Low Moderate Low Low Moderate Low Low Low Uncoated Steel Low High High Low High High High High High Erosion Factors K 0.02 0.49 0.49 0.32 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 Unified Soil Classification² SM/GM MH,CH CH,MH CL,ML ML,CL-ML ML,MH CH,MH ML,MH MH,CH Plasticity Index NP-10 15-50 10-40 3-15 5-19 11-20 10-40 10-25 15-50

Soil Name Benson Chaumont Covington Galoo Hudson Kingsbury Livingston Reinbeck Wilpoint

¹a) Definition Hydrologic group is a group of soils having similar runoff potential under similar storm and cover conditions. Soil properties that influence runoff potential are those that influence the minimum rate of infiltration for a bare soil after prolonged wetting and when not frozen. These properties are depth to a seasonally high water table, intake rate and permeability after prolonged wetting, and depth to a very slowly permeable layer. The influence of ground cover is treated independently. (b) Classes The soils in the United States are placed into four groups, A, B, C, and D, and three dual classes, A/D, B/D, and C/D. In the definitions of the classes, infiltration rate is the rate at which water enters the soil at the surface and is controlled by the surface conditions. Transmission rate is the rate at which water moves in the soil and is controlled by soil properties. Definitions of the classes are as follows: A. (Low runoff potential). The soils have a high infiltration rate even when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly consist of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravels. They have a high rate of water transmission. B. The soils have a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly are moderately deep to deep, moderately well drained to well drained soils that have moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. They have a moderate rate of water transmission. C. The soils have a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly have a layer that impedes downward movement of water or have moderately fine to fine texture. They have a slow rate of water transmission. D. (High runoff potential). The soils have a very slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly consist of clay soils that have a high swelling potential, soils that have a permanent high water table, soils that have a clay pan or clay layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nearly impervious material. They have a very slow rate of water transmission. (1) Dual hydrologic groups, A/D, B/D, and C/D, are given for certain wet soils that can be adequately drained. The first letter applies to the drained condition, the second to the undrained. Only soils that are rated D in their natural condition are assigned to dual classes. Soils may be assigned to dual groups if drainage is feasible and practical. ² Unified Soil Classification, see ASTM D2487.

3-7

000134

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

been formed from glacial till derived from the underlying limestone. The water table is expected to be shallow in the Project area. In addition, bedrock depths across the area would vary greatly in areas underlain by karst limestone. The finer grained soils may have a tendency to soften on exposure to weather and would likely require protection from weather and vehicle traffic to prevent rutting. Slopes are generally slight to moderate in the area of the proposed wind turbines and slope stability is not expected to be an issue for design. The seismic risk is low. Based upon the topographic features (see Figure 2-1) and drainage characteristics of the proposed Project area, grading and other construction activities could cause the disruption of soils and the increased potential for erosion during construction without appropriate erosion and sediment controls. In addition, the short-term removal of vegetation, including the root system from portions of the site, would expose soils to erosive factors such as wind, rain and surface runoff. Without appropriate erosion controls, soil transported by surface runoff could potentially migrate to nearby surface waters where it may settle out as sediment. The Project is required to obtain a soil Stormwater Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit, which entails creation of a SWPPP for construction. Construction traffic could also create airborne dust. Dust control measures are addressed in Section 3.9.
3.1.2.2 Potential Long-Term Impacts

The proposed Project, once built, could potentially cause a minor alteration to existing drainage patterns. A SWPPP would be created to address any potential sediment and erosion impacts associated with Project operation.
3.1.3 3.1.3.1 Proposed Mitigation Soil Erosion and Siltation

To avoid and mitigate the short-term potential impacts associated with soil erosion and siltation, and ensure that downstream waterways are not adversely impacted, a sediment and erosion control plan would be developed as part of the Project Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, which is required by the SPDES permit for construction and the SPDES permit for operation.
3.1.3.2 Soils in Agricultural Areas

In order to prevent the loss or compaction of topsoil, SLW commits to following the NYS agricultural protection measures during construction, as set forth in Appendix A of the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets Guidelines for Agricultural Mitigation for Wind Power Projects.

3-8

000135

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Soils impacted during construction would also be minimized by inclusion of applicable soil protection erosion control and soil restoration measures in the final construction documentation and plans for the contractor(s) and subcontractor(s). One or more pre-construction meetings would be held between the construction contractor(s) and a representative of the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. During construction the environmental inspector would monitor compliance with the soil protection measures (including potential access restrictions) described above and included in Appendix A.
3.1.3.3 Shallow Bedrock, Blasting and Geotechnical Investigation

A geotechnical investigation would be conducted to assess conditions (including potential karst features) at locations where construction is proposed to determine soil properties for design, specific groundwater depths, and to verify suitability of the native materials for support of the proposed roadways and wind turbine foundations. The investigation would also assess areas where shallow groundwater or bedrock might impact proposed underground construction for buried electric lines and foundations. A limited number of deep borings are necessary to evaluate the geotechnical considerations discussed above. The investigation would include at least one boring at each proposed wind turbine location. Additional borings may be added where karst features are identified or suspected. The borings would be drilled to bedrock. Bedrock would be cored if encountered within 20 feet of the ground surface. Where rock is not encountered, borings would extend to depths equal to 1 to 2 times the foundation width below the foundation elevation, depending on the quality of the subsoils encountered. If compressible strata are encountered, the borings would extend through the compressible soil into a competent bearing stratum. Cone Penetration Testing (CPT) would be considered as a low cost method to evaluate subgrade conditions for proposed roadways. Additional borings would be made at the proposed substation location and where directional borings might be needed. Borings would obtain undisturbed samples of cohesive materials. Geotechnical borings and slope stability analyses may also be necessary. Geophysical investigation, coupled with a limited number of geotechnical borings, would be provided to determine the depth to rock along proposed underground interconnect lines. The geotechnical data would be presented in a geotechnical report that includes boring logs, laboratory test results, recommended foundation types, depths and allowable pressures, seismic site classification, and recommended soil and rock parameters to be used for the design of foundations and roadways. This report would be prepared prior to the final engineering design.

3-9

000136

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

3.1.3.4

Management of Oil and Hazardous Materials

Wind turbines, and their associated equipment, use lubricating and insulating oils in a closed system. A SPCC Plan would be developed as part of the SWPPP for the construction and operation of the Project as required by the SPDES permits.
3.2 3.2.1 3.2.1.1 Water Resources Groundwater and Groundwater Quality Affected Environment

Glaciolacustrine lake silts and clays overlie consolidated rocks of sedimentary origin in the area of the Project (Cadwell et al., 1991). Small portions of the Project consist of peat muck (swamp deposits) which are poorly drained areas and include of organic silts and sands. The glacial till deposits form surficial aquifers, while bedrock consisting of carbonate rocks (primarily limestone) form deep aquifers. These consolidated rocks yield water primarily from bedding planes, fractures, joints, and faults, rather than from intergranular pores. Carbonate rocks generally yield more water than other types of consolidated rocks because carbonate rocks are subject to dissolution by slightly acidic groundwater. Dissolution along bedding planes, fractures, and joints enlarges these openings and increases the permeability of these carbonate rocks (Isachsen et al., 2000). No known sole-source aquifers occur within the Project area or its vicinity (United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2006a). In 2000, total freshwater use was 17.21 million gallons per day (Mgal/d), of which 13.25 Mgal/d (27 percent) was from surface-water sources and 3.96 Mgal/d (73 percent) was from groundwater (USGS, 2006). However, domestic users acquired 100 percent of their water supply from groundwater sources (USGS, 2006). Table 3-2 lists an excerpt from the USGS report of water usage statistics in Jefferson County, New York. Current data (October 2006) from the EPA indicates that drinking water is obtained from groundwater, surface water and purchased groundwater/surface water resources in Jefferson County (EPA, 2006b).
Table 3-2 Year 2000 Water Usage Statistics in Jefferson County 1 Water Withdrawals2 Groundwater Surface Public supply3 2.17 8.20 Domestic, self-supplied withdrawals 0.45 0.00 1 Source: http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2000/index.html 2 6.39 Mgal/d was industrial use 3 Population (Year 2000) in Jefferson County was approximately 111,740 Type of Usages Unit Mgal/d Mgal/d

3-10

000137

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

3.0 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.1.1

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Soils, Topography and Geological Resources Existing Conditions Surficial Geology

The surficial geology of the Project area was mapped by the New York State Geological Survey (Cadwell et al., 1991). Based upon an evaluation of the maps (including Figure 3-1), the surficial geology of the Project area consists primarily of glaciolacustrine lake, silts, and clays. As glaciers from the last Ice Age melted from south to north, they filled low-lying areas with water, which became inundated with silts and clays. A small portion of the Project area consists of peat muck (swamp deposits) which are poorly drained areas and consist of organic silts and sands. The proposed wind turbine locations within the peat muck areas would include Nos. 14, 15, 18 and 85. Local areas may also consist of mixed glacial and residual soils weathered from the underlying limestone bedrock. The thickness of glacial soils is expected to vary widely across the site from very shallow to very deep (McDowell, 1989).
3.1.1.2 Bedrock Geology

The proposed Project area is located in the Ontario Lowlands Physiographic Province which includes sedimentary rocks (Cambrian and Ordovician) of the Lower Paleozoic age. The underlying bedrock (Figure 3-2) is comprised of rocks of the Trenton group (Trenton Limestone) and Black River Group (Lowville Limestone and Watertown Limestone) (Ruedemann, 1908). The New York State Geological Survey indicates the primary mineral resources of Jefferson County include crushed stone, construction gravel, and topsoil. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Mined Land Database (NYSDEC, 2006b) indicates records of commercial mining around the proposed Project area. The mineral resource mined in the vicinity of the Project area is carbonate rock (limestone), which can be used in the construction industry for concrete or highway paving materials. The Project is not anticipated to impact these resources. A review of United States Geological Survey and New York State Geological publications did not identify any specific geological hazards within the Project area. Since the Project area is located mainly on lowlands and consists predominantly of glacial till there is no possibility of landslides. Review of topographic maps (Figure 2-1) and aerial photographs of the site (Figure 33) revealed no evidence of landslides. While no limestone (karst) hazards are mapped, the Trenton and Black River Groups are comprised of carbonate rocks that are susceptible to dissolution and sinkhole formation. Caverns have been mapped in the Project area and mapping has indicated numerous closed depressions. Due to its particular characteristics, including an
3-1

000138

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

irregular bedrock surface, the presence of large voids and rapid underground drainage, karst limestone presents special problems for civil engineering projects such as roads, bridges, tunnels, sewerage pipelines, and mining. Careful preparatory investigations are therefore required with special design measures and provisions for unforeseen problems. As a result, bedrock in the Project area should be investigated for karst and other dissolution features as part of the geotechnical investigation(s) prior to construction. The proposed Project area lies in a zone of relatively low seismic risk. The maximum earthquake ground motion is expected to be 0.20 times the acceleration due to gravity (0.20g) for 0.20 second response acceleration and 0.08g to 0.11g for one second response acceleration (Building Code of New York State, 2002). Based upon the soils information and geologic setting, it appears that the Project area conditions could vary considerably from shallow hard rock to deeper organic soils; as a result the Project area may include site classes A through F. Based on the prevalence of shallow rock across the site it appears likely that most of the Project area would include Site Classes A, B or C. Nonetheless, detailed geotechnical investigations would be required to assess the specific site class for each proposed wind turbine location.
3.1.1.3 Soils and Floodplain Designations

The Soil Survey of Jefferson County, New York (McDowell, 1989) indicated that the proposed Project area is underlain by nine soil series, comprised of several soil types of similar developmental origin. These soil series consist predominantly of silt loams and loams of glacial origin. The soil survey indicates that the soils in and around the Project area vary from shallow to very deep and have been formed from glacial till derived from the underlying limestone. The soils identified within the Project area are presented in Figure 3-4. The soil series listed in the legend of Figure 3-4 are designated by a two letter code, followed by a third letter indicating the degree of slope, and, when data are available, by a number that indicates the degree of erosion. The primary soil types underlying the Project area include the following: Benson (Bg) The Benson series consist of nearly level to gently sloping, shallow and very shallow, somewhat excessively drained soils. These soils are mainly in broad, undulating areas interspersed with rock outcrops on ridges. Typically, the surface layer is dark brown channery silt loam about 3 inches thick. The subsoil is reddish brown and dark reddish brown, very channery silt loam about 9 inches thick. Bedrock is commonly at a depth of 10 to 20 inches. Most of these soils are used as permanent pasture or cedar woodland, or are reverting to brush. This soil is generally not

3-2

000139

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

suited for cultivated crops. The rate of runoff on the Benson soils is medium, and the capacity of these soils to store water available for plant growth is very low. The primary soils mapped within the areas of the proposed Project are BgB (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes of 0% to 8% in the vicinity of proposed turbine Nos. 20, 38, and 39. Chaumont (Cl) The Chaumont series consist of level to gently sloping, moderately deep and somewhat poorly drained soils in concave, sloping areas of lowland plains. Typically, the surface layer is dark grayish brown silty clay about 5 inches thick. The subsoil is mottled and about 22 inches thick. It is grayish brown to dark grayish brown clay in the upper part and dark grayish brown silty clay in the lower part. Bedrock is commonly at a depth of 20 to 40 inches. Most areas of this soil type have been cleared and are used for cultivated crops. Some areas are used as pasture and woodland; as a result drainage is needed in extensively cropped areas. The rate of water movement through the soil is slow or very slow, and runoff is slow. The capacity of the soil to store water available for plant growth is moderate to high. The surface layer is moderately acidic to neutral. The soils mapped within the Project area include ClA and ClB (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes of 0% to 3% and 3% to 8%, respectively. Covington (Cp) The Covington series consist of nearly level, very deep, poorly drained soils in smooth, broad, mostly level areas and depressions of the lowland plains. Slopes range from 0 to 3 percent, but are predominantly less than 1 percent. Typically, the surface layer is very dark silty clay about 6 inches thick. The subsoil is mottled, about 26 inches thick, and consists of dark gray to grayish brown clay. The substratum is mottled, gray firm, sticky and plastic silty clay to a depth of 60 inches or more. Most areas of this soil type have been cleared and are used for cultivated crops. The rate of water movement through the soil is slow or very slow in the surface layer and very slow in the subsoil and the substratum; in addition runoff is slow. The capacity of the soil to store water available for plant growth is moderate to high. The surface layer is moderately acidic to neutral. Bedrock is commonly at a depth of 20 to 40 inches. The prolonged seasonal high water table, the clayey texture, slow rate of water movement through the soil, poor stability, and potential frost action are limitations of this soil for urban uses. Galoo (Gb) The Galoo series consist of very shallow excessively drained and somewhat excessively drained soils. The areas are mainly on undulating ridges and knolls. The Galoo soil is 2 to 10 inches deep over limestone of calcareous sandstone bedrock. Typically, the surface layer consists of dark brown silt loam about 4 inches thick. The subsoil is reddish brown channery silt loam to a depth

3-3

000140

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

of 7 inches. Most of the areas used as pasture are reverting to brush, or are poor quality woodlands. This soil is not suited to cultivated crops because of the very shallow depth to bedrock, droughtness and rock outcroppings. The rate of water movement through the soil is moderate, and the runoff rate is slow or medium. The capacity of the soil to store water available for plant growth is very low. The surface layer is moderately acidic to mildly alkaline. Soils mapped within the Project area include GbB, and GcB (see Figure 3 4) and have slopes of 0% to 8%. Hudson (Hu) The Hudson series consist of gently sloping to steep, very deep, moderately well drained soils mainly in smooth, irregularly shaped areas and on convex slopes. Typically, the surface layer consists of brown silt loam about 8 inches thick. The subsurface is mottled brown silt loam about 4 inches thick, and the subsoil is mottled and approximately 47 inches thick. It is brown to dark brown silty clay in the middle part and yellowish brown silt loam in the lower part. Most areas of this soil have been cleared and used for cultivated crops for dairy farming. The rate of water movement through the soil is moderately slow or moderate in the surface layer, and slow or very slow in the subsoil and the substratum; in addition the runoff is medium. The capacity of the soil to store water available for plant growth is moderate to high. The surface layer is moderately acidic to neutral. Erosion is a serious hazard if the slopes are bare of vegetation. Mapped soils in the Project area include HuB, HuC and HyE3, (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes of 3% to 8%, 8% to 15% and 15% to 35%, respectively. Kingsbury (Kg) The Kingsbury series consist of nearly level, very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils mainly in smooth, broad, irregularly shaped areas on plains. Typically, the surface layer consists of dark grayish brown silty clay about 7 inches thick. The subsurface is mottled, grayish brown silty clay about 5 inches thick, and the subsoil is mottled and about 16 inches thick. It is firm, grayish brown clay in the upper part and olive gray clay in the lower part. Most areas of this soil have been cleared and used for cultivated crops and dairy farming. If properly drained this soil is moderately suited for cultivated crops. The rate of water movement through the soil is moderately slow in the surface layer and very slow in the subsoil and the substratum. The clayey subsoil somewhat restricts rooting depth, and runoff is slow. The capacity of the soil to store water available for plant growth is high. The surface layer is moderately acidic to mildly alkaline. Soils mapped within the Project area include KgA and KgB (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes in the range of 0% to 3%.

3-4

000141

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Livingston (Lc) The Livingston series consist of nearly level, very deep and poorly drained soils mainly in smooth, broad, flat or depressional areas on plains. Typically, the surface layer is black mucky silty clay about 6 inches thick. The subsoil is mottled and about 24 inches thick. It is dark greenish gray to dark gray, very firm, very plastic and very sticky clay. Most areas of this soil are used as pasture or woodland. The rate of water movement through the soil is slow or very slow in the subsoil and the substratum. The runoff is very slow or ponded. The capacity of the soil to store water available for plant growth is high. The surface layer is moderately acidic to neutral. Soils mapped within the Project area include Lc and Ld (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes in the range of 0% to 3%. Reinbeck (Rh) The Reinbeck series is barely level to gently sloping very deep, somewhat poorly drained soil mainly in smooth, broad, irregularly shaped areas on lake plains and at the margins of uplands. Typically the surface layer is dark grayish brown silty loam about 8 inches thick. The subsurface layer is mottled, grayish brown silt loam about 4 inches thick. The subsoil is mottled and about 14 inches thick. Most areas of this soil have been cleared and are used for cultivated crops in dairy farming. The rate of water movement through the soil is moderately slow in the surface layer and slow in the subsoil and the substratum; in addition the runoff is very slow. The capacity of the soil to store water available for plant growth is high. The surface layer is moderately acidic to neutral. Soils mapped within the Project area include RhA and RhB (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes in the range of 0% to 3% and 3% to 8%, respectively. Wilpoint (Wn) The Wilpoint series consist of gently sloping, moderately deep, moderately well drained soil mainly on convex slopes. Typically, the surface layer is dark grayish brown silty clay loam about 6 inches thick. The subsoil is mottled and about 16 inches thick. It is dark brown silty clay in the upper part and dark brown to dark grayish brown clay in the lower part. Bedrock is at a depth of 20 to 40 inches. Most areas of this soil have been cleared and are used for cultivated crops. The rate of water movement through the soil is slow or very slow, and the runoff is medium. The capacity of the soil to store water available for plant growth is moderate. The surface layer is moderately acidic to neutral. Soils mapped within the Project area include WnB and WnC (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes in the range of 3% to 8% and 8% to 15%, respectively. The Soil Survey of Jefferson County indicates that ground water is seasonally perched within the upper 0.0 to 6.0 feet during the months of December to May and/or March to May depending on

3-5

000142

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

the underlying soils (McDowell, 1989). The soils mapped within the proposed Project area are described as poorly drained, and groundwater is expected to be shallow in most areas. A summary of soil properties for the various soil series are presented in McDowell (1989), and a summary of the properties listed for the soils mapped within the Project area is included as Table 3-1.
3.1.1.4 Unusual Landforms or Geologic Formations

The Project area contains landforms that are unique to the local geologic environment. The landforms are typical of a glacial lacustrine plain and include relatively flat terrain with small lakes and wetland areas. The area also includes surficial peat deposits. Other landforms include a cave near the northern limit of the Project area, just south of Millen Bay, and numerous closed depressions. The closed depressions are likely remnant glacial features, but may also reflect karst (sinkhole) activity in the underlying limestone. The Project area is mapped as part of four United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 Minute Topographic maps: Cape Vincent North, Cape Vincent South, Chaumont and St Lawrence Quadrangles. Based upon the USGS Topographic maps (USGS, 1958a, b, c, d), the proposed Project area is located in the St. Lawrence River Valley (or the Thousand Island Region). The St. Lawrence Valley and the Erie-Ontario plain together are referred to as the “lowlands.” The elevations across the Project area vary from about 249 feet above mean sea level (msl) to about 370 feet above msl. The proposed Project area is encompassed by rivers and lakes, which include the St Lawrence River, the Black River, and Lake Ontario. A majority of the Project area consists of nearly level agricultural land (row crops). Approximately 80% of the Project area has slopes within the range of 0 to 10%, approximately 16% of the area is between 10 to 15% and approximately 4% of the Project area includes slopes greater than 15%. A majority of the area is level and the drainage pattern is generally in the direction of small streams and creeks (e.g., Kents Creek, Fox Creek, Shower Creek, Super Creek, Three Mile Creek), which discharge directly into the St Lawrence River.
3.1.2 3.1.2.1 Potential Impacts Potential Short-Term Impacts

Based on the information reviewed and described above, the soils and geologic conditions should be properly evaluated prior to construction of the proposed wind energy project. The subsoils are expected to consist predominantly of silt loams and loams of glacial origin. The soil survey indicates that the soils in and around the Project area vary from shallow to very deep and have

3-6

000143

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 3-1 General Description of Soil Series (Taken from Soil Survey of Jefferson County, New York [McDowell, 1989]) Risk of Corrosion Water Bedrock Table Depth Permeability Hydrologic Group¹ Depth (ft) ( in ) ( in/ hr ) C/D >6 10-20 0.6-2.0 D 1.5-1.5 20-40 <0.2 D 0.5-1.0 >60 <0.2 C/D >6 2-10 0.6-2.0 C 1.5-2.0 >60 0.2-2.0 D 0.5-1.5 >60 0.06-0.2 D 0-1.0 >60 0.2-0.6 D 0.5-1.5 >60 0.2-0.6 D 1.5-2.0 20-40 <0.2 pH 5.6-7.3 5.6-7.3 5.6-7.3 5.6-7.8 5.1-7.3 5.1-7.8 5.1-7.3 5.1-7.3 5.6-7.3 Concrete Low Low Moderate Low Low Moderate Low Low Low Uncoated Steel Low High High Low High High High High High Erosion Factors K 0.02 0.49 0.49 0.32 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 Unified Soil Classification² SM/GM MH,CH CH,MH CL,ML ML,CL-ML ML,MH CH,MH ML,MH MH,CH Plasticity Index NP-10 15-50 10-40 3-15 5-19 11-20 10-40 10-25 15-50

Soil Name Benson Chaumont Covington Galoo Hudson Kingsbury Livingston Reinbeck Wilpoint

¹a) Definition Hydrologic group is a group of soils having similar runoff potential under similar storm and cover conditions. Soil properties that influence runoff potential are those that influence the minimum rate of infiltration for a bare soil after prolonged wetting and when not frozen. These properties are depth to a seasonally high water table, intake rate and permeability after prolonged wetting, and depth to a very slowly permeable layer. The influence of ground cover is treated independently. (b) Classes The soils in the United States are placed into four groups, A, B, C, and D, and three dual classes, A/D, B/D, and C/D. In the definitions of the classes, infiltration rate is the rate at which water enters the soil at the surface and is controlled by the surface conditions. Transmission rate is the rate at which water moves in the soil and is controlled by soil properties. Definitions of the classes are as follows: A. (Low runoff potential). The soils have a high infiltration rate even when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly consist of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravels. They have a high rate of water transmission. B. The soils have a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly are moderately deep to deep, moderately well drained to well drained soils that have moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. They have a moderate rate of water transmission. C. The soils have a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly have a layer that impedes downward movement of water or have moderately fine to fine texture. They have a slow rate of water transmission. D. (High runoff potential). The soils have a very slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly consist of clay soils that have a high swelling potential, soils that have a permanent high water table, soils that have a clay pan or clay layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nearly impervious material. They have a very slow rate of water transmission. (1) Dual hydrologic groups, A/D, B/D, and C/D, are given for certain wet soils that can be adequately drained. The first letter applies to the drained condition, the second to the undrained. Only soils that are rated D in their natural condition are assigned to dual classes. Soils may be assigned to dual groups if drainage is feasible and practical. ² Unified Soil Classification, see ASTM D2487.

3-7

000144

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

been formed from glacial till derived from the underlying limestone. The water table is expected to be shallow in the Project area. In addition, bedrock depths across the area would vary greatly in areas underlain by karst limestone. The finer grained soils may have a tendency to soften on exposure to weather and would likely require protection from weather and vehicle traffic to prevent rutting. Slopes are generally slight to moderate in the area of the proposed wind turbines and slope stability is not expected to be an issue for design. The seismic risk is low. Based upon the topographic features (see Figure 2-1) and drainage characteristics of the proposed Project area, grading and other construction activities could cause the disruption of soils and the increased potential for erosion during construction without appropriate erosion and sediment controls. In addition, the short-term removal of vegetation, including the root system from portions of the site, would expose soils to erosive factors such as wind, rain and surface runoff. Without appropriate erosion controls, soil transported by surface runoff could potentially migrate to nearby surface waters where it may settle out as sediment. The Project is required to obtain a soil Stormwater Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit, which entails creation of a SWPPP for construction. Construction traffic could also create airborne dust. Dust control measures are addressed in Section 3.9.
3.1.2.2 Potential Long-Term Impacts

The proposed Project, once built, could potentially cause a minor alteration to existing drainage patterns. A SWPPP would be created to address any potential sediment and erosion impacts associated with Project operation.
3.1.3 3.1.3.1 Proposed Mitigation Soil Erosion and Siltation

To avoid and mitigate the short-term potential impacts associated with soil erosion and siltation, and ensure that downstream waterways are not adversely impacted, a sediment and erosion control plan would be developed as part of the Project Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, which is required by the SPDES permit for construction and the SPDES permit for operation.
3.1.3.2 Soils in Agricultural Areas

In order to prevent the loss or compaction of topsoil, SLW commits to following the NYS agricultural protection measures during construction, as set forth in Appendix A of the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets Guidelines for Agricultural Mitigation for Wind Power Projects.

3-8

000145

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Soils impacted during construction would also be minimized by inclusion of applicable soil protection erosion control and soil restoration measures in the final construction documentation and plans for the contractor(s) and subcontractor(s). One or more pre-construction meetings would be held between the construction contractor(s) and a representative of the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. During construction the environmental inspector would monitor compliance with the soil protection measures (including potential access restrictions) described above and included in Appendix A.
3.1.3.3 Shallow Bedrock, Blasting and Geotechnical Investigation

A geotechnical investigation would be conducted to assess conditions (including potential karst features) at locations where construction is proposed to determine soil properties for design, specific groundwater depths, and to verify suitability of the native materials for support of the proposed roadways and wind turbine foundations. The investigation would also assess areas where shallow groundwater or bedrock might impact proposed underground construction for buried electric lines and foundations. A limited number of deep borings are necessary to evaluate the geotechnical considerations discussed above. The investigation would include at least one boring at each proposed wind turbine location. Additional borings may be added where karst features are identified or suspected. The borings would be drilled to bedrock. Bedrock would be cored if encountered within 20 feet of the ground surface. Where rock is not encountered, borings would extend to depths equal to 1 to 2 times the foundation width below the foundation elevation, depending on the quality of the subsoils encountered. If compressible strata are encountered, the borings would extend through the compressible soil into a competent bearing stratum. Cone Penetration Testing (CPT) would be considered as a low cost method to evaluate subgrade conditions for proposed roadways. Additional borings would be made at the proposed substation location and where directional borings might be needed. Borings would obtain undisturbed samples of cohesive materials. Geotechnical borings and slope stability analyses may also be necessary. Geophysical investigation, coupled with a limited number of geotechnical borings, would be provided to determine the depth to rock along proposed underground interconnect lines. The geotechnical data would be presented in a geotechnical report that includes boring logs, laboratory test results, recommended foundation types, depths and allowable pressures, seismic site classification, and recommended soil and rock parameters to be used for the design of foundations and roadways. This report would be prepared prior to the final engineering design.

3-9

000146

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

3.1.3.4

Management of Oil and Hazardous Materials

Wind turbines, and their associated equipment, use lubricating and insulating oils in a closed system. A SPCC Plan would be developed as part of the SWPPP for the construction and operation of the Project as required by the SPDES permits.
3.2 3.2.1 3.2.1.1 Water Resources Groundwater and Groundwater Quality Affected Environment

Glaciolacustrine lake silts and clays overlie consolidated rocks of sedimentary origin in the area of the Project (Cadwell et al., 1991). Small portions of the Project consist of peat muck (swamp deposits) which are poorly drained areas and include of organic silts and sands. The glacial till deposits form surficial aquifers, while bedrock consisting of carbonate rocks (primarily limestone) form deep aquifers. These consolidated rocks yield water primarily from bedding planes, fractures, joints, and faults, rather than from intergranular pores. Carbonate rocks generally yield more water than other types of consolidated rocks because carbonate rocks are subject to dissolution by slightly acidic groundwater. Dissolution along bedding planes, fractures, and joints enlarges these openings and increases the permeability of these carbonate rocks (Isachsen et al., 2000). No known sole-source aquifers occur within the Project area or its vicinity (United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2006a). In 2000, total freshwater use was 17.21 million gallons per day (Mgal/d), of which 13.25 Mgal/d (27 percent) was from surface-water sources and 3.96 Mgal/d (73 percent) was from groundwater (USGS, 2006). However, domestic users acquired 100 percent of their water supply from groundwater sources (USGS, 2006). Table 3-2 lists an excerpt from the USGS report of water usage statistics in Jefferson County, New York. Current data (October 2006) from the EPA indicates that drinking water is obtained from groundwater, surface water and purchased groundwater/surface water resources in Jefferson County (EPA, 2006b).
Table 3-2 Year 2000 Water Usage Statistics in Jefferson County 1 Water Withdrawals2 Groundwater Surface Public supply3 2.17 8.20 Domestic, self-supplied withdrawals 0.45 0.00 1 Source: http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2000/index.html 2 6.39 Mgal/d was industrial use 3 Population (Year 2000) in Jefferson County was approximately 111,740 Type of Usages Unit Mgal/d Mgal/d

3-10

000147

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

3.2.1.2

Potential Impact

Construction of the proposed wind energy project would have minimal to no impact to groundwater quality in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme in Jefferson County. Potential impact would result from soil erosion during construction.
3.2.1.3 Mitigation Measures

Potential soil erosion generated during construction would be avoided or mitigated with sediment and erosion control measures described in the Project SWPPP.
3.2.2 3.2.2.1 Streams, Rivers, Lakes Affected Environment

Surface water bodies within the Project area include Wheeler Creek, Scotch Brook, Chaumont River, Kents Creek, Shaver Creek, Three Mile Creek, and 25 unnamed tributaries. These surface waters are perennial and located within the Saint Lawrence River Basin. The Saint Lawrence River drains a total area of nearly 300,000 square miles. Within New York State, approximately 5,600 square miles are drained by tributaries that enter the Saint Lawrence River between Lake Ontario and Montreal. Land use in the Saint Lawrence River Basin consists of densely forested woodlands and agriculture. The region is economically supported by agriculture, logging, mining, and recreational and tourism activities. In 1996, the Saint Lawrence River Basin population was approximately 192,000 (NYSDEC, 2004). Water bodies within the Project area are classified by NYSDEC as Class C and D waters. Class C waters are best used for fishing, but are also suitable for fish propagation and survival, and primary and secondary contact recreation. Class D waters are best used for fishing and are also suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation. Federal Emergency Management Agency maps (FEMA, 1992, 1993) were reviewed to evaluate the presence of floodplains within the Project area. A 100-year floodplain is associated with the following streams and rivers in the Town of Cape Vincent: Unnamed tributary to and wetlands associated with Wilson Bay; Unnamed tributary to St. Lawrence River North of Route 12E; Unnamed tributary to Millen Bay; Kents Creek west of abandoned railroad right-of-way; Kents Creek east of Route 8; Central area bounded by Route 12E, Favret Road, Rosiere/Swamp Roads, and the abandoned railroad right-of-way; and

3-11

000148

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Wetland area along southern Township limits between Route 12E and just east of abandoned railroad right-of-way.
3.2.2.2 Potential Impact

Fifty-one crossings of 21 surface waterbodies (several waterbodies are crossed more than once) were identified through desktop evaluations. Ten of these waterbody crossings are located within the interconnect rights-of-way and 11 are located within the overhead transmission line right-of-way. Only one waterbody crossing is located within a 200-foot turbine laydown. This is a 30 foot crossing located on the periphery of a 200-foot turbine laydown. This will be avoided during construction. Table 3-3 lists each watercourse crossed by the Project, Project component associated with crossing, crossing length, percent of crossing, and the NYSDEC Classification. The total length of stream crossings within the Project’s interconnect rights-of-way, overhead transmission line right-of-way, and turbine laydown areas are 1147.3, 2696.3, and 32.0 feet, respectively. SLW proposes to use an overhead crossing of the Chaumont River and floodway for the overhead transmission line. Most of the Project area will be located in FEMA designated Zone C (identified as an area outside the 500-year floodplain). Most of the construction work will also be located in Zone C. The Chaumont River will be crossed by the proposed overhead transmission line. All permanent structures, except for certain utility poles, associated with the proposed wind farm will be located outside of the floodplain. Potential impacts to surface waters will be minimal and would only occur during the construction of the Project. Potential impacts during construction would result from clearing and grading near stream banks. Vegetation near the Chaumont River will not be removed to construct the transmission line, as the Chaumont River will be spanned by overhead lines. Clearing near surface water will be kept to a minimum to prevent significant disturbance to the habitats associated with the creek and its tributaries.
3.2.2.3 Mitigation Measures

Potential soil erosion generated during construction will be avoided or mitigated with sediment and erosion control measures described in the Project SWPPP.
3.2.3 3.2.3.1 Wetlands Affected Environment

Wetlands provide many valuable functions to the biological environment. They supply valuable nesting and feeding grounds for many mammals and birds. To assess Project impacts to wetlands, the NYSDEC Freshwater Wetland Maps and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps were reviewed. In addition, a site 3-12

000149

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 3-3 NYSDEC Streams Crossed by the Project
Stream Name Chaumont River Kents Creek Kents Creek Scotch Brook Shaver Creek Three Mile Creek Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Component Overhead Transmission Interconnect Overhead Transmission Interconnect Overhead Transmission Overhead Transmission Interconnect Interconnect Interconnect Interconnect Interconnect Interconnect Interconnect Interconnect Overhead Transmission Overhead Transmission Overhead Transmission Overhead Transmission Overhead Transmission Overhead Transmission Overhead Transmission Turbine Stream Classification C C C C D D D D D D C C C C C C C C C D Total Linear Feet 120 173 122 66 120 124 25 63 103 70 83 148 366 50 128 235 724 147 123 164 689 32 Percent of Total Area 3 4 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 2 2 4 9 1 3 6 19 4 3 4 18 1

reconnaissance was conducted to determine if mapped wetlands accurately represent field conditions. The NYSDEC Freshwater Wetland Maps indicated 11 state jurisdictional wetlands within the proposed Project area boundaries (Figure 3-5). The USFWS NWI maps for the Project area indicated 184 wetlands within the vicinity of the Project area (Figure 3-6), ranging from 0.03 to 272.5 acres and averaging 6.5 acres. NWI wetlands that occur in the vicinity of the proposed Project area approximately total 1,192 acres. These include palustrine emergent (PEM), palustrine forested (PFO), palustrine scrub– shrub (PSS), palustrine unconsolidated bottom (PUB), and palustrine unconsolidated shore (PUS) cover classes. Forested-scrub/shrub complexes (35 percent) are the most abundant in the Project areas, based on acreage, followed by forested wetlands (32 percent), scrub/shrubemergent complexes (26 percent), and scrub/shrub wetlands (7 percent) and emergent wetlands (<1 percent). NYSDEC wetlands total 3,000 and include Class II (90 percent) (5 percent) and IV (5 percent) wetlands.

3-13

000150

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Shallow Emergent Marsh (PEM) - Shallow emergent marshes are permanently saturated and seasonally flooded wetlands that can be dominated by a variety of herbaceous vegetation. Common dominant herbaceous plants within this community include woolgrass (Juncus effusus), cattails (Typha latifolia), reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), sedges (Carex spp.), and meadow-rues (Thalictrum spp.). Other plants characteristic of shallow emergent marshes include, blue flag iris (Iris versicolor), sensitive fern, cinnamon fern, and rushes (Juncus spp.). Shallow emergent marshes commonly have scattered shrub species including speckled alder, dogwoods (Cornus spp.), willows (Salix spp.), and meadow sweet (Spiraea alba). Shrub Swamp (PSS) - Shrub swamps are a broadly defined, highly variable covertype that includes several distinct communities and many intermediates. Shrub swamps may have a single dominant shrub species or be co-dominated by a mixture of species. Speckled alder (Alnus incana sp. rugosa) is a common shrub of this community. Red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), and Spirea spp. also occur either as a dominant species or codominant with speckled alder. Various other shrub species with occasional occurrence include highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), smooth alder (Alnus serrulata), willows (Salix spp.), and viburnums. These wetland communities are frequently associated with stream complexes and may also contain patches of emergent wetland sedges and grasses. Hemlock-hardwood swamp (PFO) - The tree canopy in this wetland is typically dominated by hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), and co-dominated by yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), and red maple (Acer rubrum). Other less frequently occurring trees include white pine (Pinus strobus), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Characteristic shrubs include saplings of canopy trees and highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum). Other less frequently occurring shrubs include various viburnums (Viburnum cassinoides, V. lentago, and V. lanatanoides), winterberry (Ilex verticillata), and mountain holly (Nemopanthus mucronatus). Characteristic herbs are cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea) and sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis). Groundcover may also be fairly sparse. Other less frequently occurring herbs include sedges (Carex trisperma, C. folliculata, and C. bromoides), goldthread (Coptis trifolia), Canada mayflower (Maianthemum canadense), mountain sorrel (Oxalis montana), foamflower (Tiarella cordifolia), and sarsparilla (Aralia nudicaulis). In addition, two rare wetland community types are located near the Project area:

3-14

000151

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Silver maple-ash swamp – Four discrete fragments of this rare community type occur within 1.5 miles of the Project. Canopy cover includes silver maple, swamp white oak, and green ash. Sinkhole wetlands – Sinkhole wetlands in and around the Project are a series of small wetlands that lie in the limestone bedrock. They occur in linear groups and are surrounded by either cow pasture or old fields.
3.2.3.2 Potential Impact

Project facilities would cross nine wetlands, two NYSDEC and nine NWI wetlands, as identified through desktop evaluations and site reconnaissance. The two NYSDEC wetlands coincide with NWI wetlands. Table 3-4 summarizes the wetlands crossing by covertype. All crossings occur within the proposed overhead transmission line right-of-way. SLW is committed to avoiding temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands during the construction of the Project. Desktop data indicates there could be minor temporary impacts associated with nine NWI wetlands and two NYSDEC wetlands along the overhead transmission line right-of-way. Desktop data will be field verified by qualified wetland biologists during the growing season. If, upon field verification, wetlands are present in the area to be impacted by construction of the overhead transmission line, SLW will review alternatives to relocate those areas, if at all practicable, completely avoiding wetland impact.
Table 3-4 Summary of Wetlands Crossed by the Project
Wetland Class NWI PEM PFO PFO/SS PSS PSS/EM NYSDEC II Total Acres 0.3 126 139 29 103 337 Percent Total <1 32 35 7 26 100

Construction of the overhead transmission line will avoid wetland impacts to the extent practicable. Crossings of the Chaumont River will be accomplished by overhead spanning, and it is very likely that utility poles can be located 50 feet from both sides of the river banks. It is possible to string cable between these utility poles in a manner that will not require construction equipment to drive through the streams. There is the possibility that wetland vegetation in the

3-15

000152

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

overhead transmission line corridor crossing the Chaumont River may need to be cleared. If practicable, SLW will avoid such clearing. Although wetland impacts will be avoided if practicable, any clearing through forested wetlands could result in a change from tree species to shrub and herbaceous vegetation. Non-forested wetlands within the proposed overhead transmission line right-of-way consist of emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands. Impacts to non-forested wetlands are expected to be short term and the vegetation should return to pre-construction conditions in one to two growing seasons.
3.2.3.3 Mitigation Measures

To minimize the impacts to wetlands no Project infrastructure will be placed in wetlands, unless absolutely necessary. SLW will have qualified wetland biologists field verify the absence of wetlands in the Project footprint, using field delineation methods prescribed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Where impacts could occur, if practicable, Project components will be moved to avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands. Any unavoidable wetland impacts will be permitted according to USACE Sections 10 and 404 regulations, and NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands, as well as Water Quality Certification requirements.
3.3 Ecological Resources

The St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project is located in the St. Lawrence River Valley, the physiographic area associated with the floodplain of the St. Lawrence River. In New York, elevations in this vast flat plain are generally below 900 feet. The valley is characterized by abundant diverse wetland resources, interspersed with dairy-based agricultural grasslands that support large populations of waterfowl and grassland-nesting birds. It represents the best farmland in much of the northeastern United States and functions as an expansive "agricultural grassland" that supports some of the largest populations of grassland and early successional bird species found in eastern North America. In this region, unlike other agricultural regions, climate and poor drainage conditions favor establishment of freshwater wetlands and promote late season harvesting, which enhance the value of the region to breeding birds (Pashley, et al., 2000). Forest habitat occurs as isolated fragments displaying reduced tree species diversity due to repeated selective harvesting. The river valley is also an important part of the Atlantic Flyway providing stopover habitat for migratory birds. The valley lies in the Lower Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Conservation Region (Region 13), as designated by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative and is considered one of the three most important focal regions in that four state, two province region. It is also listed as a priority area for migratory birds in several management plans, including the North

3-16

000153

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

American Waterfowl Management Plan (USFWS 1986), Partners in Flight (Rosenberg, 2001), U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (USFWS 2001) and the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (Kushlan et al. 2002). In addition, the USFWS is proposing to use easements and Waterfowl Protection Areas to provide long term habitat protection for important areas that are relied upon by waterfowl as part of a multi-faceted effort to restore and conserve wetlands and grassland habitat in the St. Lawrence Wetland and Grassland Management District, located in Jefferson, St. Lawrence and Franklin Counties (USFWS, 2006). The USFWS is seeking the authority to use the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program to provide permanent federal protection for 8,000 acres of priority wetlands and grassland habitat in an initial focus area within the district. The focus area is bounded by the St. Lawrence River on the northwest, the Jefferson/St. Lawrence County line on the northeast, Lake Ontario on the southwest to Dexter and State Route 11 on the southeast. The proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project is located within the district and the initial area of focus. If authorized, this program will enable the USFWS to purchase wetland and grassland easements totaling 6,400 acres and acquire 1,600 acres through fee-title purchases.
3.3.1 3.3.1.1 Vegetation Affected Environment

Vegetative cover in the Project area consists primarily of agriculture (82 percent), forest stands (16 percent), and wetlands (2 percent) (Figures 3-3 and 3-7) (USGS, 1992). Agriculture land includes pastureland (69 percent) and row crops (13 percent). Forest stands include deciduous forests (13 percent), mixed forests (3 percent), and evergreen forests (<1 percent). Dominant species in deciduous forests include American Beech (Fagus americana), White Birch (Betula papyrifera), and White Oak (Quercus alba), while mixed forests can include Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum), and Oak (Quercus sp.) interspersed with eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and spruce (Picea sp.). Forested cover within the Project area is fragmented and represented by isolated stands, typical of the region. Some edge habitats with shrubby growth occupy the transition between agriculture fields and forested areas; however, an abrupt transition between covertypes is common. Forested, scrub/shrub, and emergent wetlands constitute less than two percent of the Project area. A unique grassland type, alvars, is found in the St. Lawrence River Basin. Alvars consist of grasslands and shrublands that develop on shallow soils with limestone geology. They typically support rare plant communities. Alvars are unique not only to this Basin, but are unique on a state and global level as well. Most alvars are concentrated in Jefferson County. Examples in the Project area are Chaumont Barrens and Three-Mile Creek Barrens.

3-17

000154

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

3.3.1.2

Potential Impact

No significant impact to vegetation will occur. Impact to plant communities associated with the construction of the Project will include the development of approximately 98 acres of agricultural land (78 acres of pasture/hay and 20 acres of cropland) and 14 acres of forest for the construction of the turbines, access roads, and substation. In addition, approximately 68 acres of forested land within the proposed 120-foot overhead transmission line right-of-way will be converted to herbaceous and open shrub cover. Following the completion of construction activities, natural regeneration of vegetative species will occur; therefore the resulting plant community will likely consist of local early successional low shrubs and young trees. The overhead transmission line right-of-way will be selectively managed periodically so that trees or their branches do not compromise the security of the infrastructure.
3.3.1.3 Mitigation Measures

Clearing of vegetation will be minimized in areas that are ecologically sensitive, such as the banks of creeks crossed by the overhead transmission line. All temporary disturbances will be restored. To facilitate restoration, the subsoil used to create access roads will be pervious, native material. Most access roads will be restored to a permanent width of up to 30 feet, including side slopes. In agricultural fields, access roads will be located along existing farm roads or placed along the edge of fields, to the greatest extent practicable to preserve farmland.
3.3.2 3.3.2.1 Mammals Excluding Bats Affected Environment

Jefferson County supports a large population of white-tailed deer, a sparse localized population of ruffed grouse, and a moderate population of eastern cottontail. Agricultural fields and vegetation cover types within the Project provide habitat for these species of wildlife. Agriculture land such as hayfields and row crops provide nesting and feeding habitats for eastern cottontail, shrews, mice, and birds. Predatory mammals such as coyote and fox use open areas for hunting. Forested areas provide habitat for other wildlife such as grey squirrel, chipmunk, and white-tailed deer. No threatened or endangered mammals, or their critical habitat, are located within the Project area.
3.3.2.2 Potential Impact

No significant impact to mammals (other than bats which are discussed separately in Section 3.3) is anticipated during construction or operation of the Project. Minor, temporary impacts to wildlife habitat associated with construction of the Project will be limited to forested habitat within the 120-foot construction right-of-way for the overhead transmission line. Forested habitat

3-18

000155

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

will also be cleared within portions of the laydown areas for 16 of the 96 turbines. Most wildlife that use this habitat will actively avoid the immediate construction area because of construction related activity and human presence. Displaced individuals will most likely move to adjacent undisturbed areas. However, more sedentary species, such as small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians that lack the mobility needed to avoid construction equipment could be more directly impacted during construction and a few individuals could possibly be lost.
3.3.2.3 Mitigation Measures

The Project was designed to avoid significant impact to wildlife. Project infrastructure is sited away from high quality wildlife habitat and forested clearing has been minimized.
3.3.3 3.3.3.1 Bats Affected Environment

The Project area is within the geographic range of nine species of bats: big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), small-footed bat (Myotis leibii), little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), northern bat (Myotis septentrionalis), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), and eastern bat (Pipistrellus subflavus). The Indiana bat, an endangered species, has not been recorded in the Project area but has been documented at several locations within a 15 to 40-mile range of the Project area. A documented hibernaculum containing Indiana bats is located in Glen Park approximately 24 miles southeast of the Project area. In addition, the eastern small-footed myotis has been documented within 25 and 40 miles of the Project area. SLW has contracted West Ecosystems Technology Inc. (West, Inc.) to conduct surveys for bats within the Project area (see Appendix B). West, Inc. has completed the 2006 bat surveys and is currently analyzing data and preparing a report. These surveys included: spring and fall radar surveys for nocturnal bat migrants, spring and fall AnaBat surveys for migrant bats, summer AnaBat surveys for resident bats, and habitat focused surveys for the Indiana bat and the smallfooted myotis.
3.3.3.2 Potential Impact

No significant impacts to bat species are likely during construction of the Project. During Project operation, bat collision with wind turbines is a potential impact. Several bat mortality trends have emerged based on post construction mortality studies at wind projects in the United States and Canada. Most bat fatalities at North American wind projects have involved species of the genus Lasiurus, typically hoary bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), red bat (L. borealis) and silver-haired bat (L. noctivagans). These are long distance migrants that commonly forage in forest canopy

3-19

000156

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

(Johnson, 2005). Eastern pipistrelles (Pipistrellus subflavus) fatalities are also often reported (Johnson 2005). Highest mortality to bats at wind turbines generally occurs during the period from late-July to mid-September, which is believed to be the fall migration period for bats. In addition, results of mortality studies suggest that bat mortality is not related to site-specific features or habitats. Predicting bat fatality impact is difficult based on available knowledge of bat interactions with wind facilities but it is expected that impacts to bats at the Saint Lawrence Wind Energy Project would be similar to other regional wind projects. Potential impacts to the Indiana Bat are discussed in Section 3.3.7.
3.3.3.3 Mitigation Measures

Although impacts to bats are not anticipated to be greater than at other wind site throughout the region, SLW may develop a bat fatality monitoring program for implementation once construction is complete. Data collected could provide a better understanding of the relationship between wind power projects and collision mortality. The design would follow scientifically established protocols and procedures. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) would review the results and determine the length of the study.
3.3.4 3.3.4.1 Migrating Birds Affected Environment

Based on available data, the annual number of migrating hawks in the region varies from approximately 5,000 to 31,000 birds (Table 3-5). Six species were observed at nearly all three watch sites. The most common species observed were turkey vultures, broad-winged hawks, redtailed hawks and sharp-shinned hawks. This data is compiled from three hawk watch sites: Derby Hill located approximately 70 miles south of the Project area; Braddock Bay located approximately 190 miles southwest; and Franklin Mountain located approximately 195 miles southeast (Hawk Migration Association of North America, 2006). In addition, large open waters associated with the Saint Lawrence River and Lake Ontario, north and west of the Project area, and sheetwater wetlands in the region are used by migratory waterfowl. Mallards, wood ducks, blue-winged teals, American black ducks, Canada geese and to a lesser extent, ring ducks, green-winged teals, gadwalls, American widgeons, and hooded mergansers use these areas as migratory stopovers (Northern Ecological Associates, 1994; Losito, 1993). Other migratory waterfowl documented in the region, include snow goose, northern pintails, northern shoveler, American coot, bufflehead, common merganser, lesser scaup, canvasback and goldeneye.

3-20

000157

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

SLW has contracted West, Inc. to conduct surveys for migrating birds within the Project area which include: spring and fall radar surveys for nocturnal avian migrants, and spring and fall surveys for migrant raptors (see Appendix B). Survey results will identify specific passage rates associated with the site.
Table 3-5 Hawk Observations for the Braddock Bay1, Franklin Mountain2 and Derby Hill3 Bird Observatory: 20064 Braddock Bay Common Name Scientific Name Fall 2006 Franklin Mountain Fall 2006 Derby Hill Spring 2006

Black Vulture Coragyps atratus Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Osprey Pandion haliaeetus Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperi Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos American Kestrel Falco sparverius Merlin Falco columbarius Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Unknown Total Number of Hours Total Number of Individuals Observed
1 2 3 4

0 0 1 4671 393 11375 1 121 503 20 121 363 89 70 474 49 573 2706 43 115 349 4 8 29 187 115 578 0 774 9442 419 2711 4859 37 4 251 5 207 41 44 85 216 0 39 33 1 14 11 3 56 39 157.75 847.25 485.6 5573 5406 31270 Located on the southern shore of Lake Ontario in the town of Greece, just outside of Rochester, NY. Located on the Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society Sanctuary, two miles south of Oneonta, NY, overlooking the Susquehanna River Valley, on the western edge of New York’s Catskill Mountains. Located on the southeastern shore of Lake Ontario in Oswego County. Source: Hawk Migration Association of North America (2006). Hawkcount Results [Online].

3.3.4.2

Potential Impact

It is not anticipated that Project construction will have significant impact on migratory birds. However, during operation of the Project, there is a potential that migratory birds could collide with wind turbines. Studies in the United States indicate that bird fatalities resulting from collision with wind turbines range between zero and 7 birds/turbine/year with a national average of 2.2 birds/turbine/year (Erickson et al., 2001). However, on an annual basis, fatalities resulting from collisions with wind turbines represent a small fraction of all bird fatalities related to

3-21

000158

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

collision with human structures. Since a concentrated migratory pathway, attractive stop over habitat, and unusually high concentrations of birds are associated with the Project area, there is a potential for the risk of collision mortality to be higher than average compared to other wind projects in the northeast.
3.3.4.3 Mitigation Measures

SLW has selected the proposed Project layout to minimize impacts to sensitive receptors including migrating birds. If the location of particular Project facilities should present a potential high risk for collision impacts, SLW will explore alternative configurations to minimize risk at these locations.
3.3.5 3.3.5.1 Breeding Birds Affected Environment

The Saint Lawrence River Valley’s wetlands and grasslands provide habitat to a diverse collection of breeding birds. Waterfowl are one of the most important wildlife resources in Jefferson County and the Saint Lawrence River Valley provides nesting habitat for numerous species including: mallard, American black duck, wood duck, green-winged teal, northern pintail and Canada goose. It supports the highest density of breeding mallards in the Atlantic Flyway with a population of nearly 15,000 pairs (Losito, 1993; Northern Ecological Associates, 1994). The valley is also a priority area for its obligate grassland-breeding bird habitat. It supports 17 percent of the global population of bobolinks (Wells, 2000). Other important grassland species known to nest in the valley include grasshopper sparrow, upland sandpiper, Henslow’s sparrow, savannah sparrow and eastern meadowlark. Wild turkeys also inhabit some the northern part of the county along the St. Lawrence County border. Song birds are common throughout the County and vary with habitat. Based on results of the 2006 USGS Breeding Surveys for three survey routes located within the Project vicinity (Watertown (61071), Ogdensburg (61096), and Philadelphia (61116)), 131 birds are known to breed in the Project area (Table 3-6). Total number of birds varies between 104 and 117 depending upon the route. The most numerous birds encountered included: red-winged blackbirds, ring-billed gulls, European starlings, American robins, song sparrows, American crows, yellow warblers and bobolinks. SLW has also contracted West, Inc. to conduct breeding bird surveys for the Project area (see Appendix B). Survey results will identify specific breeding species, which use the site.

3-22

000159

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 3-6 (Sheet 1 of 4) Number of Birds/Route Documented Along the USGS Breeding Bird Survey2 Watertown (61071), Ogdensburg (61096), and Philadelphia (61113) Routes3 in the Project Vicinity Number of Birds/Route Ogdensburg 0.05 0.16 ----0.21 2.26 1.74 ----0.26 3.63 0.68 ----2.63 0.16 ----0.16 ----0.37 ----0.79 1.89 ----0.16 0.21 0.05 0.16 0.05 0.05 10.89 0.05 0.21 7.26 ----52.95 ----26.16 7.58 0.79 ----1

Common Name Common Loon Double-crested Cormorant Pied-billed Grebe American Bittern Great Blue Heron Green Heron Black-crn. Night Heron Turkey Vulture Canada Goose Wood Duck American Black Duck Mallard Blue-winged Teal Hooded Merganser Northern Goshawk Sharp-shinned Hawk Northern Harrier Broad-winged hawk Red-tailed Hawk American Kestrel Gray Partridge Ring-necked Pheasant Ruffed Grouse Wild Turkey Virginia Rail Sora Common Moorhen Killdeer Spotted Sandpiper Upland Sandpiper Common Snipe American Woodcock Ring-billed Gull Herring Gull Rock Dove Mourning Dove Black-billed Cuckoo Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Scientific Name Gavia immer Phalacrocorax auritus Podilymbus podiceps Botaurus lentiginosus Ardea herodias Butorides virescens Nycticorax nycticorax Cathartes aura Branta canadensis Aix sponsa Anas rubripes Anas platyrhynchos Anas discors Lophodytes cucullatus Accipiter gentilis Accipiter striatus Circus cyaneus Buteo platypterus Buteo jamaicensis Falco sparverius Perdix perdix Phasianus colchicus Bonasa umbellus Meleagris gallopavo Rallus limicola Porzana carolina Gallinula chloropus Charadrius vociferus Actitis macularia Bartramia longicauda Gallinago gallinago Scolopax minor Larus delawarensis Larus argentatus Columba livia Zenaida macroura Coccyzus erythropthalmus Coccyzus americanus

Watertown --------0.05 1.16 9.26 0.79 0.05 0.47 2.53 0.26 0.26 1.37 ----------------0.21 ----0.42 0.63 0.11 0.74 0.11 0.05 0.05 ----0.05 11.63 0.42 0.26 1.05 ----155.74 0.11 43.89 17 1.26 0.16

Philadelphia 0.21 0.11 0.05 0.26 6.00 0.42 2.79 1.05 1.05 0.11 1.74 0.21 0.05 ----0.05 0.26 0.05 0.42 0.74 ----0.05 ----0.53 0.21 0.05 0.11 5.79 0.05 0.26 3.53 0.05 5.05 ----10.37 7.00 1.00 0.05

3-23

000160

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 3-6 (Sheet 2 of 4) Number of Birds/Route Documented Along the USGS Breeding Bird Survey2 Watertown (61071), Ogdensburg (61096), and Philadelphia (61113) Routes3 in the Project Vicinity Common Name Eastern Screech-Owl Great Horned Owl Common Nighthawk Chimney Swift Ruby-thr. Hummingbird Belted Kingfisher Red-headed Woodpecker Red-bellied Woodpecker Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Downy Woodpecker Hairy Woodpecker Northern Flicker Pileated Woodpecker Eastern Wood-Pewee Alder Flycatcher Willow Flycatcher Willow/Alder Flycatcher Least Flycatcher Eastern Phoebe Grt. Crested Flycatcher Eastern Kingbird Loggerhead Shrike Yellow-throated Vireo Blue-headed Vireo Warbling Vireo Red-eyed Vireo Blue Jay American Crow Common Raven Horned Lark Purple Martin Tree Swallow N. Rough-winged Swallow Bank Swallow Cliff Swallow Barn Swallow Black-capped Chickadee White-breasted Nuthatch House Wren Winter Wren Sedge Wren Scientific Name Otus asio Bubo virginianus Chordeiles minor Chaetura pelagica Archilochus colubris Ceryle alcyon Melanerpes erythrocephalus Melanerpes carolinus Sphyrapicus varius Picoides pubescens Picoides villosus Colaptes spp. Dryocopus pileatus Contopus virens Empidonax alnorum Empidonax traillii Empidonax spp. Empidonax minimus Sayornis phoebe Myiarchus crinitus Tyrannus tyrannus Lanius ludovicianus Vireo flavifrons Vireo solitarius Vireo gilvus Vireo olivaceus Cyanocitta cristata Corvus brachyrhynchos Corvus corax Eremophila alpestris Progne subis Tachycineta bicolor Stelgidopteryx serripennis Riparia riparia Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Hirundo rustica Poecile atricapillus Sitta carolinensis Troglodytes aedon Troglodytes troglodytes Cistothorus platensis Number of Birds/Route --------0.11 0.95 0.11 0.47 ------------0.68 0.11 3.16 0.26 4.84 2.32 0.89 3.21 1.32 3.68 1.95 5.32 0.16 0.32 ----8.26 4.58 4.68 38.21 ----0.42 0.84 9.95 0.21 5.58 0.05 16.89 2.32 0.32 11.11 ----0.16
1

0.11 0.11 ----2.63 0.11 0.47 0.11 0.05 ----1.42 0.05 3.47 0.05 6.16 5.00 10.37 15.37 3.63 4.68 2.74 5.89 ----0.21 ----15.37 5.68 3.53 35.68 ----3.68 1.63 8.79 0.21 7.37 ----19.11 5.63 0.16 13.63 0.05 -----

------------1.32 ----0.79 ----0.05 0.11 0.68 0.16 2.21 0.42 3.47 1.26 0.74 2.00 1.37 4.84 1.53 8.16 0.05 1.53 0.05 8.05 9.58 5.26 32.79 0.21 0.11 0.53 7.58 0.21 0.21 1.68 26.89 5.95 1.79 10.89 0.16 0.21

3-24

000161

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 3-6 (Sheet 3 of 4) Number of Birds/Route Documented Along the USGS Breeding Bird Survey2 Watertown (61071), Ogdensburg (61096), and Philadelphia (61113) Routes3 in the Project Vicinity Common Name Marsh Wren Eastern Bluebird Veery Hermit Thrush Wood Thrush American Robin Gray Catbird Northern Mockingbird Brown Thrasher European Starling Cedar Waxwing Blue-winged Warbler Golden-winged Warbler Nashville Warbler Yellow Warbler Chestnut-sided Warbler Yellow-rumped Warbler Black-thr. Green Warbler Pine Warbler Cerulean Warbler Black-and-white Warbler American Redstart Ovenbird Northern Waterthrush Common Yellowthroat Yellow-breasted Chat Canada Warbler Scarlet Tanager Eastern Towhee Chipping Sparrow Field Sparrow Vesper Sparrow Savannah Sparrow Grasshopper Sparrow Henslow's Sparrow Song Sparrow Swamp Sparrow White-throated Sparrow Dark-eyed Junco Northern Cardinal Rose-breasted Grosbeak Scientific Name Cistothorus palustris Sialia sialis Catharus fuscescens Catharus guttatus Hylocichla mustelina Turdus migratorius Dumetella carolinensis Mimis polyglottos Toxostoma rufum Sturnus vulgaris Bombycilla cedrorum Vermivora pinus Vermivora chrysoptera Vermivora ruficapilla Dendroica petechia Dendroica pensylvanica Dendroica coronata Dendroica virens Dendroica pinus Dendrocia cerulean Mniotilta varia Setophaga ruticilla Seiurus aurocapillus Seiurus noveboracensis Geothlypis trichas Icteria virens Wilsonia canadensis Piranga olivacea Pipilo erythrophthalmus Spizella passerina Spizella pusilla Pooecetes gramineus Passerculus sandwichensis Ammodramus savannarum Ammodramus henslowii Melospiza melodia Melospiza georgiana Zonotrichia albicollis Junco hyemalis Cardinalis cardinalis Pheucticus ludovicianus Number of Birds/Route 0.05 0.42 2.16 ----4.21 43.26 4.89 ----2.47 34.89 4.11 ----0.11 0.05 39.11 1.42 0.05 0.05 0.26 ----1.47 2.47 1.11 ----20.05 0.05 ----0.32 2.74 8.84 2.89 0.26 12.42 --------39.63 1.84 1.37 ----1.84 4.26
1

0.11 0.11 3.42 ----8.74 56.26 6.63 ----1.32 111.63 10.37 0.11 0.16 0.05 33.05 5.32 0.05 0.11 0.05 ----1.00 2.47 0.89 0.05 29.89 ----0.11 0.58 3.42 12.32 3.84 1.32 35.11 1.42 0.42 40.89 3.58 0.32 ----2.63 2.11

3.32 0.26 0.95 0.21 5.05 47.89 6.58 0.16 2.37 21.26 4.89 0.05 2.21 ----32.32 2.26 0.11 0.32 0.42 0.16 2.84 4.37 2.89 0.68 30.37 --------2.05 9.79 11.37 7.79 0.05 12.26 ----0.05 31.11 6.84 0.37 0.21 0.74 4.58

3-25

000162

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 3-6 (Sheet 4 of 4) Number of Birds/Route Documented Along the USGS Breeding Bird Survey2 Watertown (61071), Ogdensburg (61096), and Philadelphia (61113) Routes3 in the Project Vicinity Common Name Indigo Bunting Bobolink Red-winged Blackbird Eastern Meadowlark Common Grackle Brown-headed Cowbird Baltimore Oriole Purple Finch House Finch American Goldfinch House Sparrow Total Number of Species
1
2

1

Scientific Name Passerina cyanea Dolichonyx oryzivorus Agelaius phoeniceus Sturnella magna Quiscalus quiscula Molothrus ater Icterus galbula Carpodacus purpureus Carpodacus mexicanus Carduelis tristis Passer domesticus

0.79 36.00 166.05 25.47 35.00 10.84 10.47 0.05 4.00 35.05 27.32 110

Number of Birds/Route 2.11 28.32 74.47 21.84 14.42 5.68 5.47 0.26 0.37 13.58 27.84 104

8.21 27.00 86.63 23.84 16.63 4.84 3.16 0.26 1.05 17.58 15.74 117

Based on 50 stops per route, 3-minute counts per stop, and representing the averages of the total counts along the route for the period 19662005. Source: Sauer et al. (2005), United States Geological Survey. 1966-2005 North American Breeding Bird Survey Database [Online]. 3 The Watertown route is located approximately 10 miles southeast of the Project area; the Ogdensburg route is located approximately 20 miles northeast; and the Philadelphia route is located approximately 30 miles east.

3.3.5.2

Potential Impact

Construction and operation of the proposed Project will likely result in minor, temporary impacts to breeding birds. During construction, clearing and work activities in open habitats will temporarily displace nesting and foraging individuals from the work area and suitable adjacent habitats. Approximately 78 acres of pasture/hay fields, which are abundant in the Project area, may be displaced by Project infrastructure. Similarly, approximately 82 acres of second growth deciduous forest will be cleared for the Project. Of this total, 14 acres will be permanently cleared for Project infrastructure and 78 acres will be temporary cleared for construction. This will result in temporary and permanent minor habitat loss for some forest-nesting avian species. However, unlike most of the northeast where forest habitats remain a high priority, grasslands are more important in the State Lawrence River Valley and forested areas temporarily disturbed will be initially converted to grass habitats. Some grassland species may be disturbed or displaced by turbine noise and movement. Studies have shown small scale reductions in density for some nesting grassland bird species close to operating wind turbines (Leddy et al. 1999, Johnson et al. 2000). In general, use by grassland birds was lower in areas with turbines than in areas without. At Buffalo Ridge Montana, areas

3-26

000163

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

located 180 meters from wind turbines support higher densities of breeding birds than areas within 80 meters of turbines. There is a low potential risk that local breeding birds could collide with the wind turbines. This risk is expected to be very low for most of the grassland species, since breeding individuals typically fly well below tree level. Post construction mortality studies conducted at two eastern wind facilities indicate that turbines result in four to eight bird fatalities per turbine per year (Kerns and Kerlinger, 2004; Nicholson, 2002, 2003). Two thirds of these fatalities were estimated to be migrants. It is expected that impacts at the Saint Lawrence Wind Energy Project will be similar, and risk to breeding birds is expected to be low. The risk is slightly higher that nesting species such as red-tailed and broad-winged hawks, which fly above the tree heights, will collide with turbines, but still very low.
3.3.5.3 Mitigation Measures

The proposed Project will encourage continued farming activities in the area by supplementing area farmers’ income. This will also result in the maintenance of open grassland habitats since the regional climate favors a traditional late season harvest which is beneficial for grassland birds. In addition, preconstruction breeding bird surveys will be conducted in the area of impact. Areas grassland species nesting within or adjacent to proposed areas of construction will be avoided until after the breeding season to the extent practicable. If the location of particular Project facilities should present a high potential for displacement impacts, SLW will explore alternative configurations to minimize risk at these locations, to the extent practicable.
3.3.6 3.3.6.1 Over Wintering Birds Affected Environment

The upper reaches of the St. Lawrence River is one of New York's prime wintering locations for bald eagles (NYSDEC, 2006c). The wintering site is located along the St. Lawrence River in an area roughly bounded by Kingston, Ontario and Cape Vincent, New York on the southwest, and Cornwall, Ontario and Massena, New York on the northeast. Active since at least 1975, this wintering area is the second largest known in New York State and annually supports an average of 20 to 30 eagles. As lakes and rivers freeze, bald eagles that have bred in the northern parts of Canada move south to open water in search of food. In early winter, eagles can be spotted at Wellesley Island State Park along the edge of the ice or roosting in trees along the shoreline. As the river freezes, the eagles move further east to the Brockville Narrows or other open water. A waterfowl winter conservation area is located at Wilson Marsh along the eastern edge of Lake Ontario. This 305-acre area consists of open water up to 30 feet deep with flat rock, sand, or

3-27

000164

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

gravel on the bottom. A gravel barrier beach at the head of the bay separates it from the marsh, which consists of 98 acres of brushy swamp and 70 acres of mixed hardwood swamp. This area is located at the southwest corner of the Project area. In addition, results of the Audubon Christmas Bird Counts for the Watertown count circle, conducted December 2004 through January 2005 and December 2005 through January 2006, indicated that 55 species of birds over wintered in the Project vicinity during that two year period (Table 3-7). However, the number of individual species encountered varied from year to year with only 47 species observed each year. Species observed included waterfowl, black birds and starling, and song birds. The most numerous species observed, all exceeding a total of 500 individuals, were Canada geese, American crows, European starlings, rock doves, and house sparrows. SLW has also contracted West, Inc. to conduct winter bird surveys for the Project area (see Appendix B). Survey results will identify specific species that winter at the site and their use patterns of the site.
Table 3-7 (Sheet 1 of 2) Birds Observed During Audubon Christmas Bird Counts for Watertown, NY (NYWA) for Count Years 105 and 106 (12/2004-1/2005 and 12/2005-1/2006)1 Survey Date Common Name Snow Goose Canada Goose Tundra Swan American Black Duck Mallard Greater Scaup Long-tailed Duck Common Goldeneye Hooded Merganser Common Merganser Ring-necked Pheasant Ruffed Grouse Wild Turkey Great Blue Heron (Blue form) Bald Eagle Northern Harrier Sharp-shinned Hawk Cooper's Hawk Accipiter sp. Red-tailed Hawk Rough-legged Hawk American Kestrel Scientific name Chen caerulescens Branta canadensis Cygnus columbianus Anas rubripes Anas platyrhynchos Aythya marila Clangula hyemalis Bucephala clangula Lophodytes cucullatus Mergus merganser Phasianus colchicus Bonasa umbellus Meleagris gallopavo Ardea herodias Haliaeetus leucocephalus Circus cyaneus Accipiter striatus Accipiter cooperii Accipiter Buteo jamaicensis Buteo lagopus Falco sparverius 18 Dec 2004 (41 hrs) 11 4523 -16 407 4 4 1 14 39 --93 -1 17 2 3 -52 13 1 28 Dec 2005 (31 hrs) -913 7 3 84 --170 -100 2 1 290 2 2 -2 3 1 84 11 3

3-28

000165

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 3-7 (Sheet 2 of 2) Birds Observed During Audubon Christmas Bird Counts for Watertown, NY (NYWA) for Count Years 105 and 106 (12/2004-1/2005 and 12/2005-1/2006)1 Survey Date Common Name Ring-billed Gull Herring Gull Great Black-backed Gull Rock Pigeon Mourning Dove Red-bellied Woodpecker Downy Woodpecker Hairy Woodpecker Northern Flicker Pileated Woodpecker Northern Shrike Blue Jay American Crow Common Raven Horned Lark Black-capped Chickadee Tufted Titmouse Red-breasted Nuthatch White-breasted Nuthatch Eastern Bluebird American Robin European Starling Cedar Waxwing American Tree Sparrow White-throated Sparrow Dark-eyed (Slate-colored) Junco Lapland Longspur Snow Bunting Northern Cardinal Red-winged Blackbird Brown-headed Cowbird House Finch American Goldfinch House Sparrow Total Number of Species
1

Scientific name Larus delawarensis Larus argentatus Larus marinus Columba livia Zenaida macroura Melanerpes carolinus Picoides pubescens Picoides villosus Colaptes auratus Dryocopus pileatus Lanius excubitor Cyanocitta cristata Corvus brachyrhynchos Corvus corax Eremophila alpestris Poecile atricapillus Baeolophus bicolor Sitta Canadensis Sitta carolinensis Sialia sialis Turdus migratorius Sturnus vulgaris Bombycilla cedrorum Spizella arborea Zonotrichia albicollis Junco hyemalis Calcarius lapponicus Plectrophenax nivalis Cardinalis cardinalis Agelaius phoeniceus Molothrus ater Carpodacus mexicanus Carduelis tristis Passer domesticus

18 Dec 2004 (41 hrs) 34 38 14 547 284 2 15 6 -1 2 74 2601 1 55 227 1 1 18 -181 931 32 69 -14 -614 31 1 1 145 46 373 47

28 Dec 2005 (31 hrs) 11 17 12 1002 638 2 13 7 5 1 6 163 1330 4 120 206 -1 18 2 2 1672 -121 3 20 3 51 41 --66 35 711 47

Source: National Audubon Society (2002). The Christmas Bird Count Historical Results [Online].

3-29

000166

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

3.3.6.2

Potential Impact

Impacts to wintering birds, in particular waterfowl, are likely to be minimal. Most species of waterfowl forage in the open waters of the Saint Lawrence River and Lake Ontario, and roost in protected coves and wetlands along the shoreline. Turbines will not be placed in flight corridors between these roosting and feeding areas, thereby reducing the impact of collisions. In addition, Project turbines will avoid known feeding areas for most species of waterfowl, thus further reducing the probability of collision.
3.3.6.3 Mitigation Measures

SLW has selected the proposed Project layout to minimize impacts to sensitive receptors including wintering roosting and foraging birds. If the location of particular Project facilities should present a potential high risk for collision impacts, SLW will explore alternative configurations to minimize risk at these locations to the extent practicable.
3.3.7 3.3.7.1 Threatened and Endangered Species Affected Environment

A written request to the USFWS and the New York State Natural Heritage Program (NHP) regarding the presence of threatened or endangered species and unique or significant natural communities was sent on November 16, 2006. A response from the USFWS is pending. A December 2006 response from the NHP indicates that three endangered, eight threatened, and three special concern bird species; one endangered and one special concern bat species; one threatened turtle species; one rare fish species, and two endangered plants species occur near the Project (Table 3-8). A hibernaculum for the Indiana bat is located in Glen Park, approximately 24 miles southeast of the proposed Project area. Bald eagles winter along the St. Lawrence River between Cape Vincent and Massena. Common tern have been documented in the Wilson Bay Marsh located west of the Project area; the short-eared owl has been documented in the Dutch Point Uplands southwest of the Project area; and the great blue heron has been documented in Kents Creek also west of the Project (Payne and Cochran, 1972). The northern harrier has been documented at all three locations as well.
3.3.7.2 Potential Impact

Suitable habitat for two threatened plant species, the Michigan lily and autumnal water-starwort is potentially located within the Project footprint. Habitat containing these species may temporarily be disturbed during construction activities.

3-30

000167

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 3-8 (Sheet 1 of 2) Summary of Listed Species Reported in the Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Database

Common Name Vascular Plants Lilium michiganense Callitriche hermaphroditica Endangered (St.) NHP Yes Yes Endangered (St.) NHP Yes Yes

Scientific Name

Status (State/Federal) Source

Suitable Habitat OnSite?¹

Suitable Habitat in Project Area?¹

Suitable Habitat in Project Area?¹ Wet meadows, floodplain forests, swamps Lakes and streams

Michigan Lily

Autumnal WaterStarwort Fish Carpiodes cyprinus S2-Imperiled (NHP listing) NHP No Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes

Quillback

Rivers and lakes

Reptiles Emydoidea blandingii Yes Shrub swamps, marshes, and shallow ponds Yes No Yes Yes NHP NHP NHP NHP Threatened (St.) NHP No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Marshes, grasslands and croplands Yes Freshwater marshes Agricultural areas Grasslands and rocky inland shores NHP Marshes Grasslands Agriculture fields, grasslands Lakes, rivers, reservoirs Streams, ponds, lakes, marshes

Blanding’s Turtle1

Birds2 Asio flammeus Chlidonias niger Lanius ludovicianus Sterna hirundo Ixobrychus exilis Bartramia longicauda Circus cyaneus Haliaeetus leucocephalus Podilymbus podiceps Threatened (St.) Threatened (St.) Threatened (St./Fed.) Threatened (St.) Threatened (St.) Endangered (St.) NHP Endangered (St.) NHP Endangered (St.) NHP

Short-eared owl

Black Tern

Loggerhead Shrike

Common Tern

Least Bittern

Upland sandpiper

Northern harrier

Bald eagle

Pied-billed grebe

3-31

000168

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 3-8 (Sheet 2 of 2) Summary of Listed Species Reported in the Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Database

Common Name Cistothorus platensis Ammodramus henslowii Gavia immer Ardea herodias Spizella pallida Special Concern (St.) NHP Yes Yes Special Concern (St.) NHP Yes Yes Special Concern (St.) NHP No Yes Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes

Scientific Name

Status (State/Federal) Source

Suitable Habitat OnSite?¹

Suitable Habitat in Project Area?¹

Suitable Habitat in Project Area?¹ Marshes and wet meadows Grasslands Lakes Marshes and swamps Grasslands

Sedge Wren

Henslow’s sparrow

Common Loon

Great Blue Heron

Clay-colored sparrow

Mammals Myotis sodalis Myotis leibii Special Concern (St.) NHP No Endangered (St./Fed.) NHP Yes

3

Indiana bat

Yes Yes

Eastern small-footed myotis

Caves, mines, under rocks and tree bark, floodplain forest, beech-maple forest, limestone woodlands Caves, mines, under rocks and tree bark, forest and forest edge

1. 2.

Documented within 0.6 mile of project site (NHP) Avian species that may be located within a 10-mile buffer of the project boundary 3. Bats that may be located within a 40-mile buffer of the project boundary but have been documented beyond the boundaries of the project site

3-32

000169

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Since river and lake habitats will not be disturbed by the Project, no impacts to the quillback are anticipated. Similarly, potentially suitable habitat for Blanding’s turtle is present within the Project area; however, impacts to wetlands and ponds will be avoided. Therefore, construction and operation of the Project would not result in adverse impacts to this species. Raptors may be at lower risk for collision than others. Based on the wintering bald eagles use of the St. Lawrence River, the Project is not expected to have an adverse affect on eagle foraging or substantially increase the risk of eagle collisions with turbines. Northern harriers observed in the Project area are possible breeding individuals, as well as transient migrants. The wetlands and agricultural settings provide suitable habitat for the northern harrier. Northern harriers could be at risk of collision with turbines as they have been recorded as fatalities at other wind projects. However, the low level flights and low soaring frequency for breeding individual northern harriers is not likely to result in great risks for collision with turbines. In addition, the modern wind turbines proposed for the Project will have relatively low rotational speeds and tubular towers. These are two key factors that are expected to also reduce collision risk for raptors. It is not anticipated that the listed species associated with wetland habitats (black tern, common tern, least bittern, pied-billed grebe, common loon or great blue heron) would be adversely affected by the Project since documented occurrences are located outside the Project area and habitats located within the Project area will be avoided. As discussed in Section 3.3.5.2, some grassland species may be disturbed or displaced by turbine noise and movement. Female Indiana bat in New York are known to disperse between 12 and 40 miles from their winter hibernacula to roost locations on their foraging grounds (NYSDEC, 2006d). Although dispersal of the Indiana bat is in the range of the proposed Project, impacts are considered unlikely as Indiana bats typically fly low to the ground, below the rotor sweep area.
3.3.7.3 Mitigation Measures

Prior to construction, SLW will conduct surveys to determine the presence of listed species within and adjacent to the Project footprint. SLW will explore alternative configurations to minimize risk at these locations to the extent practicable. For plant species, if impacts are unavoidable, SLW will develop a management plan to address the handling of these plants during construction. Pre-construction surveys for listed bird species will be conducted in Project work areas to avoid disturbance of nesting threatened and endangered species. To mitigate temporary impacts to breeding listed species, clearing activities will occur prior to the breeding season. Where nesting

3-33

000170

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

individuals are encountered, construction will be rescheduled to minimize disturbance during construction to the extent possible. Although impacts to bats are not anticipated, SLW may develop a bat fatality monitoring program for implementation once construction is complete. Data collected could assist in expanding knowledge concerning the relationship between wind power projects and collision mortality. The design would follow established scientific procedures and protocols. A TAC would review the results and determine the length of the study.
3.3.8 3.3.8.1 Areas of Critical Concern Affected Environment

Critical Environmental Areas (CEAs) are specific local or state agency designated geographic areas that have an exceptional or unique character with respect to one or more of the following attributes: A benefit or threat to human health; A natural setting (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat, forest and vegetation, open space and areas of important aesthetic or scenic quality); Agricultural, social, cultural, historic, archaeological, recreational, or educational values; or An inherent ecological, geological or hydrological sensitivity to change that may be adversely affected by any change. CEAs are designated within the jurisdictional boundaries of a local or state agency and can encompass any geographical area that the agency owns, manages, or regulates. Several critical environmental areas are presently designated in Jefferson County. The Ashland Flats Wildlife Management Area (AWMA) is located in Jefferson County, in the Towns of Lyme and Cape Vincent in the vicinity of the proposed Project. This 2,037-acre area is owned and managed by the NYSDEC. It was designated a New York State Bird Conservation Area in 2003. AWMA has relatively large areas of early successional habitats, including grassland and shrub land. Forested areas and limestone barrens are also present. These habitats support a diversity of early successional bird species. AWMA is managed to maintain and enhance the grassland habitat present to ensure continued use by grassland birds. AWMA represents a migratory concentration site, a diverse species concentration site, an individual species concentration site, and a species at risk site. Protected species present at the AWMA include Short-eared Owl (endangered), Henslow's Sparrow (threatened), Sedge Wren (threatened), Northern Harrier (threatened), and Upland Sandpiper (threatened).

3-34

000171

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

3.3.8.2

Potential Impact

Critical areas will be avoided.
3.3.8.3 Mitigation Measures

Since critical areas will be avoided, no mitigation measures are proposed.
3.4 Transportation/Traffic

The proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project area would be located in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme, and would be surrounded by an extensive network of local, county and state managed roads (see Figure 2-1). This section describes the network of roads that may be used during construction of the proposed wind energy project, the potential impact of construction traffic on the existing transportation system, and measures to mitigate potential impact.
3.4.1 Affected Environment

Construction of the proposed Project would require hauling long- and semi-heavy loads on local, county and state managed roads. Most of the roads that may be impacted are paved, but some are surfaced with packed gravel. The general Project area includes NYS Route 12E and County Roads 8, 9 and 4. Nearby roads outside the Project area include Interstate Route 81, NYS Route 12, NYS Route 12F, NYS Route 180 and several other County Roads. NYS Route 12E and County Roads 4 and 9 form a closed network of roads around the proposed Project area. NYS Route 12E is a two-lane asphalt-paved road that extends from Watertown northwest toward the Towns of Lyme and Cape Vincent and then to the northeast toward the Town of Clayton, where it joins Route 12. NYS Routes 12 and 12E represent the major supply arteries for the construction phase of the Project. County Roads 4, 8 and 9 are two-lane asphalt-paved roads which are located within or around the Project. There are several other local roads located within the Project boundary that would be used during construction. These local roads include McKeever, Pelo, Mason, Peo (Gosier), Favret, Hell, Constance, Vincent (Branche), Vorta, Swamp (Wilson), Grant, Deer Lick, Pleasant Valley, Swart Out (Cemetery), Cold Spring, Burnt Rock, Depot, Wells Settlement (Ashland) and Gibbons (Merchant) Roads. Some of these roads have two names; the names in parentheses are the current reference. A majority of the local roads are asphalt paved except for Constance Road, a portion of Swamp (Wilson) Road, and a portion of Mason Road between Favret at County Road 4 which are gravel packed. In general the paved and gravel roads appear to be in good condition and capable of supporting the anticipated heavy and oversize construction vehicles. The preferred major delivery route to the Project area would include Interstate Route 81 to NYS 12E and County Roads 8, 9, and 4.

3-35

000172

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

3.4.2

Potential Impacts

The potential impacts to traffic and the transportation system are limited to activities that would occur during construction of the Project. There would be no impacts to traffic or transportation during the operation of the proposed wind energy Project. Impacts during construction include, but are not limited to, the following categories: the adequacy of existing roads and transportation infrastructure to accommodate construction equipment and oversize vehicles delivering wind turbine and tower components; the need for the Project to improve transportation infrastructure to accommodate construction needs, the need for the Project to temporarily re-locate overhead lines and other facilities to accommodate oversize vehicles, traffic delays and road closures due to transportation improvements or construction traffic, and increased traffic over local roads during construction. SLW investigated several routes throughout the Project area that could be used for delivery of turbine components and related construction materials. The turbine component delivery vehicles would be oversized, requiring modification to intersections to the preferred routes. It is expected that delivery of turbine components and materials would come from the north or south along Interstate Route 81. From Interstate Route 81, the primary routes include NYS Route 12, 12E, and 12F, and secondary routes include County Roads 8, 9, 4 and other local roads. These routes have been selected to minimize impacts to traffic on the local roads and surrounding communities. The roads proposed for material and equipment transport have been minimized, and steps would be taken during construction to make certain that safety is a priority. Material delivery routes would, in most cases, follow the routes established for turbine component delivery. Final construction transportation plans would be approved by state and local officials, as discussed below. Based upon this preliminary, screening level transportation/traffic evaluation, SLW selected primary delivery routes for construction of the Project including Interstate Route 81. These routes were selected to reach the largest number of wind turbine locations while minimizing potential impacts. For those turbine access roads that do not intersect primary routes, secondary east-west routes were selected. As with the primary routes, the secondary routes were selected to reach the largest number of turbine sites, while minimizing potential impacts. The following summarizes the preferred transportation routes for wind turbine component and material delivery:

3-36

000173

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Delivery Route No. 1: This route would be used for transportation from Interstate Route 81 to the access roads leading to proposed wind turbine sites in the northern portion of the Project area. The delivery vehicles would use Interstate Route 81 (Exit 50) and State Route 12 southwest towards the Town of Clayton. At the Town of Clayton, NYS Route 12 connects to NYS Route 12E. The vehicles would then use NYS Route 12E (southwest), towards the Town of Cape Vincent and County Road 9 towards Depauville, and McKeever Road. Delivery Route No. 2: This route would also be used for delivery vehicles from Interstate Route 81 to the access roads leading to proposed wind turbine sites in the northern portion of the Project area. The delivery vehicles would use Interstate Route 81 (Exit 48), State Route 342 (west) to NYS Route 12 towards Depauville, County Road 9 and McKeever Road. Delivery Route No. 3: This route would be used for delivery vehicles from Interstate Route 81 to the access roads leading to the proposed wind turbine sites in the southernmost and central portions of the Project area. The delivery vehicles would use Interstate Route 81 (Exit 46), State Route 12F (west) towards Dexter, NYS Route 180 (north), NYS Route 12E towards Lyme and then Cape Vincent and Favret Road. Delivery Route No. 4: This route would be used for delivery vehicles from Interstate Route 81 to the access roads leading to the proposed wind turbine sites located in the central portion of the Project area. The delivery vehicles would use Interstate Route 81 (Exit 46), NYS Route 12F West towards Dexter, NYS Route 180, NYS Route 12E towards Lyme and Cape Vincent, and County Road 8. County Road 8 connects to both Mason and McKeever Roads in this central portion of the Project area. The proposed route for construction and delivery of material and equipment associated with the proposed electrical substation (central portion of the Project area) is NYS Route 12E, Favret, Swamp and Wilson Roads. The delivery route of equipment and materials required for the proposed overhead electrical transmission line are still to be determined, but would use local and state and county roads in the vicinity of the Project. The preceding delivery and transportation routes for the proposed Project were selected to minimize impact to local traffic, damage to local, county and state highways, the number of roads being used for delivery, and potential improvements to individual roads. A detailed transportation study would be prepared when the location from which turbine and tower components would be delivered is known. Furthermore, private access roads would be
3-37

000174

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

constructed from public roads over privately owned land to the proposed turbine locations. A preliminary layout of access roads is depicted on Figure 2-1. The turbine construction cranes would be transported to the site in a semi-dismantled manner and hauled to specific crane assembly areas designated along the turbine access roads. The locations of the crane assembly area would depend on the feasibility of walking the crane between turbine sites. This would be further evaluated as part of the comprehensive transportation study pending Project approval. The physical dimensions of vehicles delivering the turbine and tower components would dictate the road width and turning radius needs at intersections along the delivery route, as these are the heaviest and longest vehicles that would be necessary for construction. Intersections located within the Project area were visually evaluated using a minimum truck turning radius of 130 to 150 feet, the required radius for the oversize vehicles typically used to deliver turbine and tower components. In addition, an engineer also conducted a screening level visual inspection of road surfaces and integrity of roads within the Project area to preliminarily assess the types of improvements that might be necessary to accommodate construction traffic. Based upon screening level visual observation, it appears that the following asphalt roads are considered acceptable to handle the turbine component deliveries: Interstate Route 81, NYS Route 12E, NYS Route 12, and County Roads 9, 8, and 4. Some intersections may require modifications to handle construction vehicles with a wide turning radius. As stated, a more thorough transportation study would be performed when the delivery route for turbine and tower components has been finalized. Modifications to intersections may include increasing the corner radii, adding road width upstream of necessary intersections, adding road width downstream of necessary intersections, or a combination of these modifications. The degree to which corner radii can be enlarged is limited by houses, bridges and/or culverts located in proximity to the intersections, which may make it necessary to increase road width either upstream or downstream of intersections requiring improvement. Intersection modifications may require the acquisition of additional property and, in some cases, re-location of utility poles and/or guardrails. Where culverts or ditches cross under existing intersections, culverts may have to be extended. The drainage features at applicable intersections may be modified or new drainage features may be created along the edges of modified intersections to maintain proper drainage. Such improvements or modifications would be coordinated with the appropriate highway departments and appropriate

3-38

000175

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

wetland and stormwater permits would be obtained. Existing culverts and bridges would also be inspected and, if required, approvals for improvements would be obtained. Local roads may require modifications to allow for use during turbine component and other types of construction use. These modifications may include: gravel overlay to reduce rippling and to smooth grade changes; widening to provide sufficient road width for delivery vehicles; raising the profile of the road to provide additional structural capacity and sufficient surface drainage; and adding larger culverts to smooth grade changes. The materials used for construction would be obtained from many locations. In addition to the wind turbine and tower components, typical construction materials may include, but are not limited to: gravel, concrete, reinforcing bar, electrical poles, electrical and miscellaneous materials. The vehicles used for delivery of Project materials would likely be of standard highway type, which are normally used on roads located within the Project area. These vehicles may include dump trucks, 18-wheel tractor trailers, flat-bed type trucks, short wheel base trucks, and concrete delivery trucks. Since physical dimensions of these vehicles are smaller than the turbine component delivery vehicles, they would be able to employ the preferred routes established for delivery of the turbine components. Since these vehicles are standard size and smaller, they can use a greater number of local roads. As a last resort, possible deviation from the preferred turbine component delivery routes may be considered. It is estimated that 35 to 40 concrete trucks would be required for each turbine foundation. This would result in 70 to 80 delivery trips for each turbine or approximately 6,500 to 10,000 total trips over the duration of the project. In addition, material delivery would include gravel for the development of access roads, road improvements, and intersection modifications. Other material deliveries would include reinforcing bar for each foundation, electrical equipment and materials for each turbine and the electrical transmission and interconnect line network. The potential for lane and possibly road closures during road improvements exists. In addition, the increase in traffic over Project roads during construction would impact travel time for those people using county and local roads. SLW does not anticipate adverse safety impacts to the area due to material delivery vehicles. Although there would be a significant number of vehicles in the area during construction activities, safety measures would be implemented to reduce the potential adverse traffic conditions as described in Section 3.4.3.

3-39

000176

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

3.4.3

Mitigation Measures

The proposed Project transportation routes have been selected to minimize impacts to roads and surrounding communities. The number of roads used for material and equipment transportation has been limited to the minimum needed for construction. Material delivery routes would, in most cases, follow the routes established for turbine component delivery. Aside from the oversized vehicles that would deliver turbine and tower components, construction vehicles would be similar in nature to vehicles currently traveling over the road network and therefore would likely not require special mitigation measures. Construction equipment and workforce vehicles would not be parked along public roadways, but rather in designated parking areas, so as to preserve safety along local roadways. In consultation with appropriate local officials, a Project speed limit would be established. SLW would work with local officials to enforce all traffic safety requirements, including the Project speed limit. Construction vehicles may create dust plumes on gravel roads. The Project would develop a dust control plan to ensure that visibility along roadways is maintained. See Section 3.9 for further detail on the dust control plan. SLW would obtain all necessary permits from the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and respective local highway department(s) in order to make necessary road improvements and to operate oversize vehicles. Construction related wear and tear to county and local roads would be discussed with the entities that manage the transportation system and an appropriate strategy for road restoration would be developed. SLW would continually assess work areas approximately two weeks ahead of construction and would provide schools (during the school-year), police, fire, and emergency service agencies with advance notice of lane or road closures.
3.5 Land Use and Zoning

Land use and zoning in the Project area was determined through review of local town laws and aerial photographs. Land use and zoning are discussed in terms of regional land use patterns, Project area land use and zoning, agricultural land use, and future land use.
3.5.1 Affected Environment

Existing land use, potential impacts, and proposed mitigation measures are discussed in the following sections.

3-40

000177

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

3.5.1.1

Regional Land Use Patterns

The Project area is located in the western portion of Jefferson County in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme. Jefferson County is located in northwestern New York and is bordered by the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario on the north and west, St. Lawrence County to the northeast, Lewis County to the southeast, and Oswego County to the south. Jefferson County is primarily rural and dominated by agricultural land, scattered rural homes, and farms. The major population center of the County is the City of Watertown, which is about 25 miles southeast of the Project area. This city, including other villages and hamlets in the County are primarily residential. In terms of land use, Jefferson County is characterized by 1,028 farms consisting of 330,561 acres (Census of Agriculture, 2006) of active agricultural land, and residential land uses concentrated in and around villages and hamlets. Pockets of commercial and industrial development are scattered throughout the County along major transportation corridors. The highest percentage of land use by number of parcels for the County is residential properties (62.8 percent), followed by vacant land (21.8 percent), and agricultural properties at 5.1 percent (New York State Office of Real Property Services, 2006). Agriculture is a significant contributor to the County’s overall economy. It is one of the major dairy-producing counties (12th) in the State. Other important agricultural products in the County include: raising chickens for egg production, honey production, beef production, and sugar bushes for maple syrup production. Main crops in the County include: hay, corn, and small grains (Yarnall, 2002). Despite the importance of agriculture, employment in the agricultural sector has declined over the years and only accounts for 3.4 percent of total employment in the County in 2000. Meanwhile, the educational, health, and social services (24.4 percent); retail trade (14.2 percent); and public administration (10.4 percent) sectors have grown in importance (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006).
3.5.1.2 Project Area Land Use and Zoning

The Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme are predominantly rural with dairy farming leading the agricultural industry in the area. The highest percentage of land use by number of parcels for both towns is residential properties in Cape Vincent (60.1 percent) and Lyme (62 percent), followed by vacant land in Cape Vincent (25.3 percent) and Lyme (28.4 percent). The third highest percentage of land use by number of parcels was agricultural properties in Cape Vincent (7.4 percent) and 4.2 percent in Lyme (New York State Office of Real Property Services, 2006).

3-41

000178

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Both towns have zoning ordinances, and review of the proposed Project would be covered under New York’s State Environmental Quality Review Act. In addition to town regulations for both Cape Vincent and Lyme, a building permit would be required through Jefferson County.
3.5.1.3 Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme

Town of Cape Vincent: The Town of Cape Vincent Zoning Ordinance does not have specific regulations placed on wind energy facilities or turbines; however, the proposed Project would require Site Plan Approval by the Planning Board. Following approval and any additional reasonable conditions that may apply, a Zoning Permit and Certificate of Compliance is required through the Code Enforcement Office. Once all town permits are finalized, a Building Permit through Jefferson County is required prior to construction. The proposed Project is located solely within the Agricultural Residential District. Town of Lyme: At this time, the Town of Lyme Zoning Ordinance does not have specific regulations placed on wind energy facilities or turbines, but the proposed Project would require a Special Use Permit, followed by a Zoning Permit and Certificate of Compliance. The purpose of the special permit procedure is to allow the Zoning Board of Appeals to attach reasonable safeguards and conditions to special uses (Town of Lyme, 1989). A portion of the proposed overhead transmission line would cross the Chaumont River in the Town of Lyme, which is within the coastal zone delineated by the New York Department of State’s Division of Coastal Resources in its Coastal Management Program (CMP). The inland coastal boundary is variable by region (the Town of Lyme is in the Great Lakes Region) but generally is 1,000 feet from the shoreline in non-urbanized areas, and 500 feet or less from the shoreline in urbanized areas. In some areas, the boundary may extend inland up to 10,000 feet to encompass significant coastal resources. The proposed overhead transmission line would cross a portion of the Chaumont River, which lies within a significant coastal resources area and is thus in the state-designated coastal zone. The applicant of a permit for development in the coastal zone must submit to the lead federal agency for that permit a “Statement of Consistency” that the project is consistent with New York’s federally approved coastal zone management program and policies. The New York Department of State’s Division of Coastal Resources must agree with this Statement and issue a “Consistency Determination” before any federal permit may be issued for the Project (15 CFR 930.60).

3-42

000179

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

SLW will submit an application to cross the Chaumont River to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The NYS Division of Coastal Resources Consistency Determination must be issued before the Corps may issue a notice to proceed with construction of the overhead transmission line over the Chaumont River. The proposed Project would follow the State’s applicable coastal policies. Specifically, the Project would be consistent with the following policies: 11-17 (flooding and erosion hazards policies), 27 (energy policy), 30-35, 41 (water and air resources policies), and 44 (wetlands policy). All of the State's policies are derived from existing laws and regulations administered by various State agencies. The NYSDEC administers many of the programs found in the State’s polices (e.g., the Department operates regulatory programs, which provide protection to tidal and freshwater wetlands [Policy 44], restrict development and other activities in flood and erosion hazard areas [policies 11-17], and protect air and water resources [policies 30-35 and policies 4043]). Other agencies, such as the Public Service Commission and the State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment administer programs that regulate the siting of energy transmission facilities and regulate the location of electric power plants.
3.5.1.4 Agricultural Land Use

Approximately 1,028 working farms occupy 330,561 acres in Jefferson County according to the 2002 U.S. Department of Agricultural National Agricultural Statistics Service (Census of Agriculture, 2006). The leading agricultural products in Jefferson County include: dairy products (78.1 percent), cattle and calve products (9.3 percent), hay and silage products (5.3 percent), colonies of bees and honey products (1.6 percent), and 1.6 percent as corn used for grain (Yarnall, 2002). According to U.S. Census Bureau (2006) statistics, 3.4 percent of the population was engaged in farming in 2000. The Project area affects one agricultural district (Jefferson County Agricultural District #2 North) and the entire Project area is located in this district. Agricultural land use is a significant component of the Project area with about 7,400 acres of the Project area (82 percent) in row crops, field crops, or pastureland. The Project area includes approximately 102 working farms, most of which are dairy farms. The patchwork of fields and farms located in the many valleys edged by ridge tops with steep slopes is what defines the landscape/community character of the majority of the Project area. Within the Project area, approximately 75 percent of the area is designated as prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance (Table 3-9).

3-43

000180

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 3-9 Summary of Prime Farmland1 in the Project Area
Farmland Class Prime Farmland Prime Farmland if Drained Not Prime Farmland Farmland of Statewide Importance N/A
1 2

Total Acres by Farmland Class 1173 1852 2230 3789 21

Total Percent by Farmland Class 13 20 25 42 <1

2

Source: Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resource Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Survey Area, State [Online]. Soil data were not provided for this component.

3.5.1.5

Future Land Use

Other than the proposed Project, future land use patterns in the area are anticipated to remain largely unchanged for the foreseeable future. Communication with the Town of Cape Vincent (Edsall, 2006) found one proposed industrial development (1 acre of land bought by the Town for water storage) outside of the Project Area. Various residential developments, including a proposed seasonal trailer park development would be dispersed throughout the Town. Communication with the Town of Lyme (Staudenmayer, 2006) found no commercial or industrial proposed or planned future developments. Several residential developments have been proposed in the Village of Chaumont and on the outskirts of town.
3.5.2 Potential Impacts

The Project would have impacts on land use. These would include temporary, constructionrelated impacts, as well as permanent, long-term impacts. These impacts are described below.
3.5.2.1 Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme

The proposed Project was designed to meet or exceed all of the requirements in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme land use and zoning ordinances. The proposed Project is compliant with local zoning and land use regulations in Cape Vincent and Lyme.
3.5.2.2 Agricultural Land Use

Most of the proposed Project would be built on or adjacent to agricultural lands. Construction of the Project would result in the temporary disturbance of approximately 191 acres of agricultural land and the permanent conversion of approximately 98 acres of agricultural land to wind turbines, a substation, and access roads.

3-44

000181

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Two types of impacts may result from wind facility construction on agricultural lands. The first is the permanent loss of productive agricultural land because it would be used for Project facilities such as access roads and turbine foundations. The second potential impact is reduced agricultural productivity of the soils disturbed during construction. Both types of impacts can be minimized or completely avoided with proper planning.
3.5.2.3 Future Land Use

The proposed Project would not interfere with alternative future plans to develop the land to be occupied by the wind energy facility or its ancillary facilities. Minimum buffers from wind turbines place a slight constraint on development that can be co-located on parcels that have wind turbines or are adjacent to wind turbines. However, capturing the wind asset provides an individual benefit to landowners, an economic benefit to the local community, and energy security, as well as environmental and human health benefits to the state. The buffers are not a significant impact on other equally desirable uses. There appears to be no conflict between the proposed Project and future residential developments.
3.5.3 3.5.3.1 Mitigation Measures Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme

The proposed Project is compliant with local zoning and land use regulations in Cape Vincent and Lyme.
3.5.3.2 Agricultural Land Use

To minimize impacts to agricultural resources, the Project has been sited and would be built in accordance with guidelines provided by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (Appendix A). The agricultural protection measures provide guidance for siting wind power facilities, constructing access roads, staging and storage areas, vegetation clearing and disposal, excavation and backfilling, turbine erection, and restoration.
3.5.3.3 Future Land Use

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not have a significant impact on future land uses. Consequently, no mitigation is necessary to address these impacts.
3.6 Utilities and Community Services

The Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme are served by several community facilities and services including: public utilities, police protection, fire protection and emergency response, health facilities, education facilities, and parks and recreation facilities.

3-45

000182

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

3.6.1

Affected Environment

These community facilities and services are briefly discussed below, and are generally considered adequate for the local population.
3.6.1.1 Public Utilities and Infrastructure

Public Utilities: Public utilities and infrastructure in the Project area include various overhead and underground facilities. Aboveground components include electric distribution and telephone lines along most of the public roads. Communications towers, including television and radio broadcast antennas and cellular phone communications towers also occur in and around the Project area. Underground utilities include sewer and water mains, telephone lines, and cable television lines. These utilities are concentrated in the towns and villages in the vicinity of the Project area. Electrical services throughout Jefferson County are provided by National Grid, and natural gas is available along the Black River corridor and the southern portion of the I-81 corridor (Yarnall, 2002). Police Protection: Three (3) police departments are located near the Project area. All emergency calls are dispatched by the Jefferson County 911 center. The New York State Police and Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department have police protection jurisdiction in the Project area, and the Cape Vincent Village Police Department patrols within its respective village limits and does not have jurisdiction beyond its municipal boundaries. The County Sheriff’s Department provides patrol cars for the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme (Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department, 2006). The New York State Police (Troop D) augments the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department and are headquartered in Oneida (New York State Police, 2006). The nearest satellite station is located about 25 miles southeast of the Project area in Watertown. The main police stations for the Project area include: Cape Vincent Village Police Department 177 North James Street Cape Vincent, New York 13618 (315) 654-3400

3-46

000183

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department 753 Waterman Drive Watertown, New York 13601 (315) 786-2700 New York State Police, Troop D, Zone 3 Station 25873 State Route 37 Watertown, New York 13601 (315) 782-2112 Fire Protection and Emergency Response: Two (2) fire departments are located near the proposed Project area. The Cape Vincent Volunteer Fire Department provides advanced emergency medical and critical care services, and the Chaumont Fire Department provides basic life support services (New York State Department of Health, 2006a). Other nearby local fire departments may provide additional support if needed and they would be chosen based on proximity and response time. Local fire departments in the Project area include the following: Cape Vincent Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. 241 East Broadway Street Cape Vincent, New York 13618 (315) 654-2004 Chaumont Fire Department 11385 New York State 12 East Chaumont, New York 13622 (315) 649-2410 Health Care Facilities: Three (3) major hospitals are located in Jefferson County. The Samaritan Medical Center in Watertown and River Hospital in Alexandria Bay are both located about 26 miles from the Project area. The Carthage Area Hospital is located about 40 miles from the Project area in Carthage (New York State Department of Health, 2006b). As stated, local hospitals near the Project area include: Samaritan Medical Center 830 Washington Street Watertown, New York 13601 (315) 785-4000

3-47

000184

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

River Hospital, Inc. 4 Fuller Street Alexandria Bay, New York 13607 (315) 482-2511 Carthage Area Hospital 1001 West Street Road Carthage, New York 13619 (315) 493-1000 Educational Facilities: Two (2) public school districts provide educational services to the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme, including associated villages and hamlets. The Project would be located in the Thousand Islands and Lyme Central school districts. The Thousand Islands Central School District total enrollment during the 2004 to 2005 academic school year for grades K through 12 was 1,162 students (New York State Education Department, 2006a). This school district is composed of two elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. The Cape Vincent Elementary School is located in Cape Vincent and the other three school buildings are located in the Town of Clayton. Located in Chaumont about 10 miles from the Project area, the Lyme Central School District total enrollment during the 2004 to 2005 academic school year for grades K through 12 was 365 students (New York State Education Department, 2006b). No other public or private schools are located in the Project area. The school district offices are located as follows: Thousand Islands Central School District, District Office 8481 High Street Clayton, New York 13624 (315) 686-5594 Lyme Central School District 11868 Academy Street Chaumont, New York 13622 (315) 649-2417 Parks and Recreation: The Project area and vicinity includes several parks and recreational facilities. These areas include two state parks near the water, four other points, two wildlife management areas (WMAs), and one fish hatchery that is managed by three groups. These parks and recreational facilities offer many recreational opportunities. Burnham Point and Cedar Point

3-48

000185

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

state parks are located near the Project area (New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, 2006). These parks accommodate activities such as boating, hunting, picnicking, camping, fishing, and swimming. Other visitor areas near the Project area include Beadle Point, Tibbetts Point and Lighthouse, Wilson Point, and Dablon Point. The Tibbetts Point Lighthouse is located at the entrance from Lake Ontario into the St. Lawrence River, and is still actively maintained by the U.S. Coast Guard. After the lighthouse became fully automated in 1976, the light-keeper’s room was converted into a hostel; the Lighthouse Museum is located adjacent to the hostel. Two WMAs are located several miles from the Project area and include: French Creek WMA and Ashland Flats WMA. In addition, the historic Cape Vincent Fish Hatchery is located near the Project area. The State fish hatchery, formerly a Bureau of Fisheries building, was built in 1856, but is no longer managed by the government. Today, there is a program between the State, the Lake Ontario Fisheries Coalition, and the Village of Cape Vincent to raise Walleye in 13 of the 24 fish ponds in the Village of Cape Vincent that have been idle for over 30 years. Six ponds were opened in 2005, one additional pond was opened in 2006, and one additional each year for a total of 13 ponds. Each pond has the potential of raising 30,000 fingerlings each spring to be released (Village of Cape Vincent, 2005). The New York State Seaway Trail is also a State designated recreational resource in the vicinity of the Project area. The Seaway Trail is an approximate 454 mile scenic route consisting of locals roads that parallel Lake Erie, the Niagara River, Lake Ontario, and the St. Lawrence River. The Seaway Trail has been selected as one of “America’s Byways” by the United States Department of Transportation.
3.6.2 Potential Impacts

The Project is not anticipated to result in significant adverse effects on community facilities or services within the Project area, including utilities, emergency services, education facilities, and other community services.
3.6.2.1 Public Utilities and Infrastructure

Public Utilities: The Project would result in short- and long-term increases in energy usage associated with construction and operation of the Project. Short-term impacts during construction of the Project would be limited to minor increases in the demand for fossil fuels and petroleum products necessary for the operation and maintenance of construction equipment, machinery, and vehicles. Energy use would increase as a result of construction personnel traveling to and from

3-49

000186

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

the site. However, neither of these represents significant impacts on energy resources. The Project would not result in significant increases in the demand for utilities such as telephone, water, and sanitary sewer needs. Utilities would be required during construction for the operation of the staging areas (e.g., job trailers). There is a slight possibility that some overhead electrical distribution lines would have to be temporarily relocated to accommodate crane routes during construction. SLW would collaborate with utility owners to reduce impacts to their facilities to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to existing utility distribution facilities are not anticipated as a result of Project operation and maintenance. The Project would not result in significant adverse long-term impacts to local utilities and energy resources. Long-term energy use would increase slightly as a result of facility maintenance and operation personnel traveling to and from the site. However, these impacts would be minor because the amount of required electricity and fuel is small, and local fuel suppliers and utilities have sufficient capacity available to serve the Project’s needs. In addition, the Project will inject new power into the regional grid at the Lyme Substation increasing the local electricity supply and system reliability. As a result, no other improvements to the existing energy supply system would be necessary beyond any system upgrades identified by the NIMO [or National Grid] Facility Study to interconnect the Project transmission line to the Lyme Substation. Emergency Services: The Project would not have significant adverse impacts on the demand for emergency services. Existing services (e.g., police, fire, ambulance, and health care) have the personnel and equipment necessary to respond to emergencies that could occur during both construction and operation of the Project. However, certain Project-related activities could affect the ability of emergency service providers to perform their duties. For instance, during construction, large vehicles and temporary road closures could block emergency vehicle access to area farms and homes. This is not anticipated to be a significant problem due to the small number of residents within the Project area, the general availability of alternate access routes, and correspondence and coordination that would occur between construction managers and local police departments. The Project also could experience vandalism and/or trespass problems that would require involvement of local police. Based on experience with other wind power projects in New York, this is not anticipated to be a significant impact. The wind turbines themselves also pose a slight risk related to falling ice that may accumulate on rotor blades during the winter. Although ice can fall off the turbine blades under certain conditions during the winter, the maximum distance ice has been observed to fall from wind

3-50

000187

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

turbines is less than 400 feet (Morgan et al., 1998). A more typical scenario would involve any accumulated ice falling straight down and landing around the tower base. This is consistent with the findings of Morgan et al. (1998) and with anecdotal reports from other operating wind projects in the northeastern region of the country. Educational Facilities: During construction, the Project would not adversely impact the local school districts. Temporary construction workers would not create significant demand for school district services or facilities because they would stay only for the duration of construction, which would be approximately 7 to 10 months. These workers typically would not relocate their families to the area for this short duration. Transportation planning for construction would take into account school bus routes and schedules. During operation, the Project is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in the demand on educational facilities. The operating Project would employ one to three full-time employees. The existing educational facilities have sufficient capacity to accommodate this small number of school children in the area. The Project could have a positive economic impact on the school districts. In New York, a portion of the funds from the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) that SLW would negotiate in lieu of taxes is typically dedicated to the school districts. In other New York communities that host wind projects, PILOT funds to school districts have significantly increased the districts ability to pay down debt, advance capital improvements, and otherwise improve the educational experience for local students. Park and Recreation Facilities: Other community services and facilities, such as libraries and park and recreation facilities would not be adversely affected by construction or operation of the Project. Some construction workers may stay in nearby campgrounds for the constructionduration of the Project, but this number is not significant. Additional municipal and county revenue generated by the Project would help maintain and possibly expand these services and facilities.
3.6.3 Mitigation Measures

The Project would have a beneficial impact on public utilities and infrastructure by providing clean renewable energy that can be used by the people of Jefferson County and New York State. In addition, this would advance the governor’s goal of having 25 percent of the State’s power provided by renewable sources by 2013 (American Wind Energy Association, 2006a, b, c, d).

3-51

000188

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Public Utilities: To protect local utilities and utility services, including aboveground electrical lines and/or poles, and buried natural gas lines, SLW would meet with the corresponding utility entities to review the Project components, Project construction schedule, identify crossing methodologies, and develop any relocation plans that may be required. Additionally, prior to construction, buried utilities would be identified by the contractor using Protection of Underground Facility procedures (16 NYCRR Part 753) and in accordance with the Dig Safely New York Program. Emergency Services: Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not have a significant impact on most emergency services, such as police, ambulance, and health care facilities. To mitigate concerns of the local fire departments regarding inexperience with the components of the new wind facility, during construction and operation of the wind power facility, SLW would maintain appropriate level of preparedness and equipment for emergency rescue operations involving the nacelle and tower. In addition, the appropriate personnel involved with the Project would meet with the local emergency service personnel (police, fire, ambulance, and health care) to review and discuss the planned construction process. During this meeting the Project representative would review with the local personnel the important details involved with Project construction including the unique construction equipment, the overall construction process and construction scheduling. During this meeting all hazardous materials that may be present during construction and/or operation would be discussed. Prior to construction of the Project, SLW would have established with the appropriate county, town, and/or local official a coordinated emergency response plan to be followed by all emergency response personnel in case of an emergency at the St. Lawrence Wind Power Facility. This Fire Prevention and Control Plan would be developed for the Project to ensure the safety of employees and local residents, visitors, and their property. Prior to the commencement of construction the Applicant would present, review, and finalize this Plan in cooperation with local fire departments. Educational Facilities: Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not have a significant impact on educational facilities. Consequently, no mitigation is necessary to address these impacts. Park and Recreation Facilities: Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not have a significant impact on other community services and facilities, such as libraries and park and recreation facilities. Consequently, no mitigation is necessary to address these impacts.

3-52

000189

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

3.7 3.7.1 3.7.1.1

Cultural Resources Archeological Resources Affected Environment

A review of archeological site files maintained by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, that functions as New York’s SHPO, revealed 12 Native American and 5 Euroamerican archeological sites previously recorded within one mile of the Project. The Native American sites include one Paleo-Indian find, three Woodland Stage sites (including one St. Lawrence Iroquois village site), and eight sites of unknown Native American prehistoric period chronological association. The five Euroamerican archeological sites include the remains of nineteenth-century structures. An additional two sites are recorded within the site files of the New York State Museum that have not been attributed to either the prehistoric or historic time periods. Review of historic cartographic sources indicates that early Euroamerican settlement in the area was near roads, most of which reflect current roadways within the area of potential effects (APE). Given the Project design goal of locating wind turbines no closer than 1,200 feet and 615 feet of existing structures and roads respectively, the Project also achieves the unintentional goal of avoiding most historic structures and potential archeological remains of former historic structures within the APE. Four previously listed National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) properties, the Nicholas Cocaigne House (90NR01121), the Warren Wilson House (90NR01130), the Xavier Chevlaier House (90NR01120) and the Claude Vautrin House (90NR01129), are located within the APE for archeology and may have associated historic archeological resources. Cultural resources studies have been initiated to determine the presence of archeological and historical architectural resources. These studies have been designed to be in compliance with the New York SHPO Guidelines for Wind Farm Development Cultural Resources Survey Work (2006). A field inspection was conducted of a majority of the Project area of potential effects for archeology (archeology APE) to identify aboveground evidence of archeological sites, areas that have the potential to contain intact archeological resources, and areas recommended for no additional testing due to wetlands, extreme slopes and/or visible evidence of ground disturbances. Field inspection of the Project revealed that the APE for archeology is relatively undisturbed and the general topography of the APE exhibits low relief. Most of the APE appears to be suitable for archeological testing. The Project APE may have been an attractive environment to Native American populations. Potable water sources are plentiful and the APE retains proximity to aquatic food resources along

3-53

000190

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

lowland streams and marshes and across large upland marshes. Lithic resources such as Black River chert nodules are relatively abundant along many streams and riverbanks throughout the APE. Canoe travel was possible along the shore of Lake Ontario and across the portage between the Chaumont River and French Creek, east and north of the Project APE. Ceremonial or burial places have been recorded at several locations within the general Project APE. Thus, the Project APE would have been optimal for occupation and/or use by Native American populations. One factor that may have limited Native American populations within the Project APE may have been the availability of well drained soils that would likely have been preferred for settlement locations. Approximately nine percent of soils within the Project APE currently exhibit good drainage. A Phase IA cultural resources report is being prepared and will be provided to the SHPO, the USACE, and the Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board for their review and comment. Phase IB archeological investigations have been recommended to take place within the archeology APE (TtEC, 2007). A testing strategy would be developed and implemented following consultation with the SHPO. Proposed cultural resources investigations would follow the New York State Historic Preservation Office Guidelines for Wind Farm Development Cultural Resources Survey Work. If archeological sites are discovered as a result of the Phase IB survey, a number of identified sites may qualify as potential historic properties (i.e., resources that are potentially eligible for inclusion in the NRHP). If so, a subsequent Phase II survey would provide information sufficient to assess if identified sites may be eligible for the NRHP.
3.7.1.2 Impact Analysis

Construction and operation of the Project could affect archeological resources that are potentially eligible for the NRHP. Project impacts could be direct or indirect. Direct impacts could include the physical destruction or damage to all or a portion of a site. Indirect impacts could include the introduction of elements that could potentially diminish the integrity of sites or alter settings associated with historic properties. The proposed Project includes a wind-powered electrical generating facility consisting of up to 96 turbine locations and ancillary structures and land development described on page 2-2. The total Project APE includes approximately 674 acres. SLW intends to avoid impacts to archeological resources that may be potentially eligible to the NRHP to the greatest extent possible.

3-54

000191

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

3.7.1.3

Mitigation Measures

The proposed Project layout would be modified, if necessary, to avoid impact to historic properties to the greatest extent practicable. If NRHP-eligible sites are identified, and if the Project design cannot be adjusted so that the sites may be avoided, it may be necessary to develop a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which would outline steps to be taken to mitigate adverse Project effects. It is expected that SLW, the SHPO, the Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board, the USACE and identified interested parties may be signatories of the MOA. Project construction would begin following successful implementation of all agreed-upon mitigation measures.
3.7.2 3.7.2.1 Architectural Resources Affected Environment

The area of potential effects for architecture (architecture APE) has been defined by the Project viewshed which is included in the Visual Resource Assessment prepared by Saratoga Associates (Appendix C). The architectural site files maintained online by the SHPO indicated that there are currently 23 NRHP-listed properties located within one mile of the Project, including 1 NRHP District (Broadway Historical District). Four of these historic properties, the Nicholas Cocaigne House (90NR01121), the Warren Wilson House (90NR01130), the Xavier Chevlaier House (90NR01120) and the Claude Vautrin House (90NR01129), are located within or near the APE for archeology. A survey to inventory architectural cultural resources that may be style-dated as 50 years old or older has been initiated within the positive viewshed area located within one mile of the Project. A total of 467 additional structures and 7 cemeteries have been recorded. Of these, 66 structures are recommended as potentially eligible to the NRHP. SLW would meet with SHPO to discuss the initial 1-mile ring survey results. Following this consultation, an architectural historical survey would continue to encompass the remaining portions of the architecture APE for the Project. Once the survey has been completed, the potential visual impacts of the Project on architectural resources listed in, nominated to, and recommended potentially eligible for the NRHP would be assessed. A report that summarizes the architectural historical survey methods, results, and visual impact assessment would be developed and provided to the SHPO, the USACE, and the Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board for review and comment.
3.7.2.2 Impact Analysis

Studies are being performed to determine if the Project may be visible from structures listed in, eligible for, or recommended as potentially eligible to the NRHP (historic properties). Assessments would be made to determine if the Project may result in adverse effects to potentially significant structures located within the architecture APE. Visual effects that may

3-55

000192

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

result in a change to the setting and/or character of a historic property may be assessed as adverse. Given the low relief of the APE and the limited areas with stands of trees, it is probable that many of the inventoried structures within one mile, and possibly within five miles, of the project will be afforded views of one or more Project turbines.
3.7.2.3 Mitigation Measures

If it is determined that the Project would result in adverse effects, SLW would consider if minor redesign may be feasible to avoid adverse effects. If avoidance of effects is not possible, SLW would work with the Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board, SHPO, the USACE, and interested parties to develop a MOA that would stipulate appropriate activities that would be performed to mitigate effects.
3.8 3.8.1 Visual Resources/Community Character Affected Environment

To evaluate Project visibility and visual impact, a Visual Resource Assessment (VRA) was prepared by Saratoga Associates, Landscape Architects, Architects, Engineers, and Planners, P.C. The VRA (included as Appendix C) followed basic New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Program Policy “Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts” (NYSDEC, 2000) and SEQRA criteria to minimize impacts on visual resources. This visual policy requires a visual assessment when a proposed facility is potentially within the viewshed of a designated aesthetic resource. In the case where significant impacts are identified, the Applicant (e.g., developer) is required to employ reasonable and necessary measures to eliminate, mitigate or compensate for adverse aesthetic effects. This NYSDEC visual policy is also included in Appendix C for reference. It should be noted that this visual resource study and assessment was performed prior to minor turbine location modifications. As a result, SLW is committed to performing updated visual resource impact studies as part of the SEQRA and permitting process. The VRA for this Project included, but was not limited to, the following components: Define the existing landscape character/visual setting to establish the baseline visual condition from which visual change is evaluated; Conduct a visibility analysis (viewshed mapping and field investigations) to define the geographic area surrounding the proposed facility from which portions of the Project might be seen; Identify sensitive aesthetic resources to establish priority places from which further analysis of potential visual impact is conducted;

3-56

000193

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Select key receptors from which detailed impact analysis is conducted; Depict the appearance of the facility upon completion of construction; Evaluate the aesthetic effects of the visual change (qualitative analysis) resulting from Project construction, completion and operation; and, Identify opportunities for effective mitigation. As stated in the VRA, there are no specific Federal rules, regulations or policies governing the evaluation of visual resources and/or mitigation measures. However, the methodology used in the VRA report is based on standards and procedures used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, New York State Department of Transportation, and the NYSDEC. As stated in previous sections of this DEIS and within the VRA report, the Project area is located in the western portion of Jefferson County in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme. Jefferson County is located in northwestern New York and is bordered by the St. Lawrence River to the north and Lake Ontario to the west, St. Lawrence County to the northeast, Lewis County to the southeast, and Oswego County to the south. Jefferson County is primarily rural and dominated by agricultural land, scattered rural homes, and farms. Further, the proposed Project is located in the scenic Thousand Islands region of New York State at the convergence of the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. The Thousand Islands is a popular waterfront vacation destination extending from the eastern shore of the St. Lawrence River. The region, well known for the scenic beauty, of its shoreline and over 1,800 islands, offers numerous cultural, recreational and entertainment attractions. While resorts, restaurants and tourist attractions on the American side of the River are largely clustered around the Villages of Clayton and Alexandria Bay, recreational and tourism resources are found throughout the Thousand Islands coastal area, including the waterfront portion of the study area. The affected environment included the following specific features detailed in the VRA report: Topography and vegetation; Water features; Transportation; and Population centers.

3-57

000194

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

3.8.2

Potential Impact

Due to the height of the proposed wind turbines, the project would be visible from a variety of locations within five (5) miles of the proposed Project area. The VRA report identified the following: Viewshed maps indicate that one or more turbine highpoints (i.e. apex of blade rotation) will be theoretically visible from approximately 65% of the five-mile radius study area. Approximately 35% of the study area will likely have no visibility of any wind turbines due to intervening landform or vegetation. Additionally: 20+ turbine highpoints will be visible from approximately 51% of the study area; 40+ turbine highpoints will be visible from approximately 42% of the study area; 60+ turbine highpoints will be visible from approximately 36% of the study area; and 80+ turbine highpoints will be visible from approximately 28% of the study area. Photo simulations provided in the VRA illustrate that, when visible, a substantial portion of individual turbines will be seen above intervening landform and vegetation. From foreground vantage points (within ½ mile), all or most of the 275-foot tall turbine tower, nacelle and 300-foot diameter turbine rotor will commonly be visible above intervening vegetation. From background vantage points (3+ miles), foreground vegetation will often screen the lower portions of the turbine structure (tower and nacelle) limiting views to the upper portion of the rotor turning above the tree line. This high degree of Project visibility is attributed to the broad agricultural clearing and lack of screening hills typical throughout much of the five-mile radius study area. Turbine visibility is most common from inland areas where cleared agricultural lands provide long vistas in the direction of turbine groupings. The area most affected by views of the Project will be the central portion of the turbine area where multiple turbines will be visible up to 360-degrees around a vantage point. Multiple turbines will also be visible from portions of the St. Lawrence River coastal area northeast of the Village of Cape Vincent. Based on field observation, such visibility would likely be lessened to some degree by existing clusters of localized (non-forest) vegetation. Direct views of multiple turbines will occur from offshore vantage points on the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. Views are also found on lake and river islands from shoreline areas oriented toward the Project, as well as island hillsides with downslope

3-58

000195

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

vistas in the direction of the Project. Such views will occur on both sides of the international border within the five-mile radius study area. While the viewshed map indicates theoretical visibility of multiple turbines within the Village of Cape Vincent, field observation determined the prevalence of mature street trees and site landscaping combined with one- and two-story residential and commercial structures will commonly block views in the direction of the Project from the downtown and waterfront area. Filtered or framed views of proposed turbines are likely through foreground vegetation and buildings from the perimeter of the Village. Direct views are more prevalent on the outskirts of the Village and hamlet where localized residential and commercial structures, street trees and site landscaping are less likely to provide a visual barrier. Based on viewshed analysis, the highpoint of one or more of the proposed turbines will be visible from approximately 45 (67%) of the 67 inventoried visual resources. Photo simulations provided in the VRA illustrate the degree and character of Project visibility from 16 representative visual resources impacted by the Project. In addition, the Project will be within view of 31 visual resources of Statewide Significance. Of these, 19 are private properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Considering these properties are not open to the general public, and the listed historic significance is not associated with the cultural sensitivity of the setting (e.g., the listed historic significance of the property is associated with a person, event, and/or architecture/engineering), the aesthetic impact of Project visibility on these resources is diminished. The proposed Project will also be visible from much of the Seaway Trail Scenic Byway. Of the 23.6 miles of the Seaway Trail (NY Route 12E) traversing the five-mile radius study area, the high point of one or more turbines will be visible from approximately 17.5 miles (74 percent). The scenic value of waterfront property has resulted in a nearly continuous pattern of residential development along the shoreline. Built structures include traditional singlefamily residences, cottages, camps and mobile homes; nearly all oriented to take best advantage of water views. Development density along the waterfront is highly variable, ranging from large wooded estate lots set back from nearby roadways and neighboring properties, to neighborhood scale clusters of small wood frame camps and trailer homes of varying quality, vintage and size. Shoreline areas between the water’s edge and residential structures are commonly cleared, partly or often completely, to create unencumbered vistas of the water. While many waterfront properties are very well maintained and contribute to the overall beauty of the waterfront landscape, other private properties have fallen to some degree of disrepair and detract from the visual quality of the waterfront setting.

3-59

000196

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

The introduction of large, clearly man-made structures creates an obvious disruption of the planar agricultural landscape. The well-defined vertical form of turbines on the horizon introduces a contrasting and distinct perpendicular element into the landscape. The proposed turbines would be the tallest visible elements within view and will be disproportionate to other elements on the regional landscape. The distribution of turbines across an extended area would result in the proposed Project being perceived as a highly dominant visual element. The moderately paced sweeping rotation of the turbine blades would heighten the conspicuity of the turbines; no matter the degree of visibility. This portion of New York State is quite rural with a very small year round population. The year-round population of the Town of Cape Vincent is just 3,345. However, with a large number of second homes, camps and cottages, along the waterfront the seasonal population of the Town is estimated at more than 8,000 during the summer vacation season. Highways within the study area are relatively lightly traveled. NY Route 12E has an average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume of less than 1,400 vehicles at the Village of Cape Vincent. Based on the VRA, of 197 studied shadow receptors located within 10 rotor diameters: 22 (11.2 %) will be impacted 0-1 hrs/yr; 89 (45.2 %) will be impacted 2-10 hrs/yr; 29 (14.7 %) will be impacted 11-20 hrs/yr; 22 (11.2 %) will be impacted 21-30 hrs/yr; 21 (10.7 %) will be impacted 31-40 hrs/yr; 11 (5.6 %) will be impacted 41-50 hrs/yr; 3 (1.5%) will be impacted greater than 50 hrs/yr. The three (3) receptors that will theoretically be impacted more than 50 hours per year include structure #102 (94.8 hours), structure #103 (81.5 hours) and structure #106 (72.5 hours); see Appendix C for reference. There are no regulations or guidelines that establish an acceptable degree of shadow flicker impact on a potential receptor. Based on the limited number of hours any structure will be impacted, shadow flicker is not expected to create an adverse impact on most nearby residential dwellings. For residences where shadow flicker is greatest, this impact might be considered an annoyance by some, and unnoticed by others. The United States Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires aviation warning lights on the turbines, which could present a potential adverse visual impact from some viewing locations. The FAA works with Project proponents and wildlife
3-60

000197

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

resource agencies to ensure the appropriate lighting scheme is chosen for each Project. The FAA provides technical guidance, which is described below, to establish a baseline for wind project lighting schemes. However, the FAA would deviate from the standards in its guidance when there is a demonstrated better approach. The purpose of aviation warning lights is so that wind turbines can be seen by aircraft flying at an altitude at which a collision could occur. Therefore, aviation warning lights have a very tight beam that extends brightly at the elevation necessary for visibility from aircraft, but which does not cast noticeable light at the foot of the wind turbines. The FAA’s Technical Note: Development of Obstruction Lighting Standards for Wind Turbine Farms, November 2005, reports the most effective method of providing hazard warning lights to pilots of a wind turbine farm in a grid pattern, such as the St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project, is the following: Initially, each of the defined corners of the grid layout should be selected for lighting, and then, lights should be placed on turbines along the outer limits of the Project so that the maximum spacing between lit turbines is no more than 1/2 mile (approximately 50 of the proposed 96 turbines). If it appears as though the end of the lighting strings may be crowded, it may be necessary to move the lights back one or two turbines to create an even lighting configuration. If the grid is over 1 mile wide across the center of the group of turbines, it may be appropriate to position one or two lights within the center of the configuration to again provide warning to pilots attempting to climb over the outer limits of the grid, and descending into the center of the grid. Elevation should also be considered. On occasion, it has been documented that one or two turbines may be positioned at locations that really do not lend themselves to the linear, cluster, or grid layouts. In this event, the following guidelines should be followed. If the turbine protrudes from the general limits of the Project, the turbine should automatically receive a lighting fixture. If another turbine is collocated with the first turbine, it does not require any lighting as long as it is within 500 feet from the lit turbine and not positioned on the outboard side of the lit turbine. If these requirements cannot be met, both turbines, in this case, would need to be illuminated. Other key points include painting the turbines white to preclude daytime white strobe lights and red flashing lights at night that are synchronized to flash in unison. SLW would work with the FAA and wildlife resource agencies to establish the appropriate lighting system for the proposed

3-61

000198

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

wind energy project and integrate best lighting configurations and practices during and after construction.
3.8.3 Mitigation Measures

Although the visual mitigation options are limited given the nature of the project and its siting criteria, the following mitigation measures are proposed for the Project. These mitigation measures are in addition, and similar, to those offered in the VRA report: Wind turbine design is largely driven by aerodynamic efficiency. SLW is limited in selection of turbine styles to designs presently offered by wind turbine manufacturers. The wind turbines should be painted (using a non-specular material) an off-white color and would not be used for commercial advertising. SLW places a high priority on facility maintenance, not only for operational purposes, but for aesthetic appearances in the community as well. Considering the proposed Project will include up to 96 wind turbines that will be visible over a wide viewshed area, traditional treatments such as fences, earthen berms and vegetative screening cannot be applied in an effective manner to screen these major structures. Perimeter screen plantings will be used to minimize visibility of the proposed substation and operations/maintenance buildings from the proposed right-of-way. Aviation warning lighting should be limited to the minimum required by the FAA. The Project would purchase aviation warning lights that are shielded or otherwise directed so that they are the least visible from the ground, and are sited in accordance with applicable Town land use laws and ordinances. Due to the height of the proposed turbines, the FAA requires red flashing aviation obstruction lighting to be placed atop the nacelle on a number of turbines, to be determined, to assure safe flight navigation in the vicinity of the project. To the extent practicable, the electrical interconnect would be installed underground. Any overhead electrical transmission, to the greatest extent practicable, would be sited away from where such infrastructure can be viewed from roads. SLW would also minimize clearing necessary for installation of the interconnect. The proposed turbines would maintain appropriate buffers to minimize visual impact and extended shadow flicker. While it is a relatively common practice to conduct a tethered helium balloon visibility study to publicly demonstrate the horizontal and vertical position of a proposed structure, and establish

3-62

000199

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

target points that assist in developing photographic simulations, a balloon visibility study has not been conducted for this Project for several reasons: Balloon studies require relatively calm conditions to assure reliable balloon positioning. By their very nature, wind energy sites are inherently windy places. The proposed wind energy facility includes up to 96 wind turbine locations. Raising 96 balloons simultaneously would be a difficult exercise at best. While it is certainly possible to launch three or five balloons representing a small sample of the total number of turbines, such an exercise would not offer a reliable representation of the full extent of the proposed project. Moreover, it is likely that none of the sample balloons would be visible from many potentially affected resources. This would result in false interpretation of Project impacts by untrained observers. Similarly, using fewer than 96 balloons would result in numerous photographs taken with no visible balloons, thus defeating the purpose of using the balloons as survey targets for photo simulation. As discussed, current three-dimensional modeling technology allows for highly accurate simulation of the proposed Project within the context of an existing condition photograph without use of target balloons. This information not withstanding, SLW is prepared to conduct a balloon visibility study in a timely manner should the Lead Agency determine that such a study is useful and desirable.
3.9 3.9.1 Air Quality Affected Environment

The NYSDEC Division of Air Resources publishes air quality data annually. The most recent air quality data available is the 2005 Annual New York State Air Quality Report - Ambient Air Monitoring System (NYSDEC, 2006a). This report includes ambient air quality data through 2005, as well as long-term monitoring trends in air quality derived from data collected at monitoring stations across the State. The following is a summary of existing air quality as reported therein: Concentrations are taken from monitoring stations located in Jefferson County, New York, or the nearest location. Ambient air quality standards are shown in parentheses. Short-term concentrations are based on the highest and second-highest measured concentrations (consistent with the applicable standard not to be exceeded more than once per year) unless otherwise noted. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) [Nick’s Lake #2167-03] Annual - 0.0009 parts per million (ppm) (0.03 ppm)

3-63

000200

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

24-hour - 0.007 ppm (0.14 ppm) 3-hour - 0.011 ppm (0.50 ppm) Inhalable Particulates (PM10) [Nick’s Lake #2167-03] 2004 Annual – 13 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) (2005 data not yet available) Inhalable Particulates Less Than 2.5 Microns (PM2.5) [Potsdam #4477-01] Annual Average of Last 3 Years – 7.7 ug/mg3 (15 ug/m3) Average of 98th Percentile of Last Three Years – 23 ug/mg3 (65 ug/m3) Ozone (O3) [Perch River #2223-01] 4th Highest Daily Maximum 8-hour Average During Last 3 Years - 0.080 ppm (0.08 ppm) PM10 (Sulfates and Nitrates) [Nick’s Lake #2167-03] Sulfate Fraction 2004 Annual – 3.7 ug/m3 (2005 data not yet available) Nitrates Fraction 2004 Annual – 0.2 ug/ m3 (2005 data not yet available) The EPA Green Book (EPA, 2006c) lists Currently Designated Non-Attainment Areas for all criteria pollutants by county for the entire United States. As of its last update on March 15, 2006, Jefferson County is designated as within attainment for all major pollutants monitored, with the exception of 8-hour (hr) ozone, which is out of compliance in part of the county.
3.9.2 Potential Impacts

Development of wind-powered electrical generation, such as the proposed Project, would result in an improvement to air quality by offsetting emissions created by fossil-fuel-burning power plants. Based upon calculations for other wind farms in New York, SLW scaled pollutant offsets for the proposed Project to determine the pollutant offsets that would likely result if the Project was built. The pollutant offset calculations were based on 2002 emissions data for sources located in New York State, which were reported to the EPA. These estimates also take into account approximate wind farm capacity factors:

3-64

000201

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Average emission factors x 136 MW = estimated emission offsets: SO2: 4.918 tons/MW x 136 MW = 668.8 tons per year (tpy) NO2: 1.735 tons/MW x 136 MW = 236.0 tpy CO2: 1,166 tons/MW x 136MW= 158,576 tpy Based upon these assumptions, the proposed Project would result in estimated annual reductions of approximately 669 tons of nitrogen oxides (NO2), 236 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), and substantial quantities of other pollutants including particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds. This not only leads to healthier air, but also helps to reduce climate change impacts associated with fossil-fuel burning power plants. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions contribute to global warming. The proposed Project would offset approximately 158,576 tons of carbon dioxide annually that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere. By offsetting air pollutants and greenhouse gases, the Project provides a benefit to environmental resources and human health. However, during construction there may be short-term localized air quality impacts. Temporary, minor adverse impacts to air quality may result from the operation of construction equipment and vehicles. Impacts would occur as a result of emissions from engine exhaust and the generation of fugitive dust during earth-moving activities and travel on unpaved roads. The increased dust and emissions would likely not be sufficient to significantly impact local air quality. However, dust could cause annoyance at certain yards and residences located adjacent to unpaved town roads or project access roads.
3.9.3 Mitigation Measures

The Project would have a long-term beneficial impact on air quality, so displacing emissions of air pollutants may be viewed as mitigation for other environmental impacts associated with the Project. Construction generated dust would be mitigated by a number of standard best management practices (BMPs). First, SLW would minimize the extent of exposed or disturbed areas on the site at any one time, and those areas would be restored or stabilized as soon as practicable. During construction, dust problems would be identified and reported to the construction project manager and the contractor. Water (or other DOT approved dust control substances) would be used to wet down dusty roads as needed during the duration of construction activities. Other standard dust control mitigation measures include:

3-65

000202

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Vehicles used during construction would comply with applicable Federal and State air quality regulations; Limiting engine idling time and equipment shut down when not in use; Dust suppression on unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas, and using water or DOT approved dust suppression materials in compliance with State and local regulations; Traffic speeds on access roads would be kept to 25 mph to minimize generation of dust; Car-pooling among construction workers would be encouraged to minimize constructionrelated traffic and associated emissions; Disturbed areas would be re-planted or graveled to reduce wind-blown dust; and Erosion control measures would limit deposition of silt to roadways.
3.10 Noise

3.10.1 Affected Environment

The areas in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme surrounding the proposed Project have existing ambient noise conditions that should be considered as part of the noise impact analysis. These sources include, but are not limited to, windy conditions in the vicinity of the Project, background traffic conditions, farming equipment, etc. Potential receptors are houses, schools, churches and other buildings and structures in the general vicinity of the Project. The regulations and guidance that govern potential noise associated with the Project include, but are not limited to, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) and 6 NYCRR Part 617, SEQR and applicable local land use laws and ordinances associated with wind turbine operation in the Town of Cape Vincent.
3.10.2 Potential Impact

The proposed Project would generate noise during and after construction. Construction noise would include noise generated during the transport of Project materials and equipment, and the installation of project components. Temporary noise impacts may occur during the construction phase of the project at the closest residences. However, construction-related noises would not be significantly louder than routine daily events such as vehicles passing on the road or operating farm machinery. In addition, construction-related noise would be a relatively short-term phenomenon. Although SLW has not yet determined the specific turbine that will be installed, SLW has evaluated a typical 2.0 MW turbine for purposes of noise analysis at this time. This analysis uses the Gamesa G87 2.0 MW wind turbine. Noise levels generated by this turbine are slightly louder than levels generated by a possible 3.0 MW turbine. All of the turbines would be assumed to
3-66

000203

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

operate at their maximum sound level, which occurs at wind speeds of 8 meters/second and above, as measured at 10 meters above the ground. Operational noise would be associated with the wind turbine gearbox and movement of the rotors. To address operational noise impacts, TtEC prepared a Sound Level Report to study potential Project noise impacts. This report is included as Appendix D. The report concluded that predicted sound levels from the Project turbines operating at maximum sound level producing conditions are quite low at the surrounding residences (i.e. < 48.3 decibels [dBA]) and would not add significantly to existing ambient sound levels, nor create a significant noise impact. In general, the Project turbines would be inaudible at most residences outside the projected noise contours. Predicted levels are in compliance with the NYSDEC document entitled “Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts”, and the local draft ordinance in the Town of Cape Vincent associated with commercial wind turbine operation. The Sound Level Report was based upon calculating sound levels that would be generated by Project operation. The commercially available CadnaA software model, developed by Datakustik GmBH, was used for this analysis. The software takes into account spreading losses, ground and atmospheric effects, shielding from terrain, barriers and buildings, and reflections from surfaces. The software is standards-based and the International Organization for Standardization 9613-2 standard was used for air absorption and other noise propagation calculations. The model results are presented in two ways. First, TtEC depicted noise contours that show the distribution of noise levels from 45 dBA up to 55 dBA over the entire Project area. Secondly, TtEC depicted the calculated sound level at specific receptor points, which include the nearest residences. Predicted sound levels at the 246 nearest residences and one (1) school identified in the area vary from 22.9 to 48.3 dBA. The predicted turbine sound level at the Thousand Islands High School at the northeastern tip of the Project is only 41.1 dBA which is below the existing ambient level and does not appear to pose noise concerns. The predicted increase in sound levels over existing ambient levels are all below the 6 dBA increase identified by the NYSDEC as having the potential to produce noise impacts. As a result, noise levels from the proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project are in compliance with State guidelines and would not produce noise impacts above NYSDEC policy.
3.10.3 Mitigation Measures

Although noise impacts are expected to be minor, mitigation measures would include:

3-67

000204

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Adhering to regular construction work hours Mondays through Saturdays, and typically not working on Sundays or after hours; Implementing BMPs during construction, such as using appropriate mufflers; and Notifying adjacent landowners of noise impacts in advance (such as if blasting becomes necessary).
3.11 Socioeconomics

To understand the effects this Project would have on the socioeconomic conditions in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme, in Jefferson County, New York, it is important to understand the current state of the economy in the area. Socioeconomic information is described in terms of population and housing, economy and employment, and municipal revenues and taxes.
3.11.1 Affected Environment

Existing population and housing, employment and income, and municipal revenues and taxes in the County, Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme, and Villages of Cape Vincent and Chaumont are described and evaluated below.
3.11.1.1 Population and Housing

The estimated population of Jefferson County in 2005 was 116,384. Between 1990 and 2000, the County's population increased by 0.7 percent and between 2000 and 2005 it increased by 4.2 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). According to U.S. Census Bureau (2006) data for 2000, the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme have populations of 3,345 and 2,015, respectively; and the Villages of Cape Vincent and Chaumont have populations of 760 and 592, respectively. All but the Village of Chaumont experienced a population increase in the Project area between 1990 and 2000. The Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme experienced population increases of 20.8 percent and 18.5 percent, respectively and the Village of Cape Vincent experienced an increase of 11.3 percent. The Village of Chaumont experienced a slight decrease of 0.2 percent (1 person) between 1990 and 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). Housing units for Jefferson County, and each municipality for 2000, are presented in Table 3-4. In 2000, the number of total available housing units in the two Towns and two Villages varied. The Town of Cape Vincent had the most number of housing units and the highest vacancy rate at 2,783 total units, of which 867 units (31.2 percent) were occupied and 1,916 units (68.8 percent) were vacant. The Town of Lyme had a similarly high vacancy rate and low occupancy rate. The Villages had higher occupancy rates ranging from 69.3 percent to 85.3 percent (Table 3-10).

3-68

000205

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 3-10 2000 County and Municipality Housing Units County and Town/Village Number Jefferson County 40,068 Town of Cape Vincent 867 Town of Lyme 813 Village of Cape Vincent 348 Village of Chaumont 233 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006 Occupied Housing Percentage 74.1% 31.2% 37.2% 69.3% 85.3% Vacant Housing Number 14,002 1,916 1,370 154 40 Percentage 25.9% 68.8% 62.8% 30.7% 14.7% Total Available Housing Units Number 54,070 2,783 2,183 502 273

In 2000, the median value of owner-occupied units in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme were $76,400 and $73,600, respectively, and the Village of Cape Vincent ($70,900) were above the median housing value for Jefferson County ($68,200), but were still moderate to low when compared to the median value for New York State ($148,700). The median housing value for the Village of Chaumont ($57,200) was $11,000 below Jefferson County’s median value (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006).
3.11.1.2 Economy and Employment

According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2006), the largest industry in Jefferson County in 2000 was educational, health, and social services, with 24.4 percent of all workers employed in this sector. The second largest industry was retail trade (14.2 percent), and the third largest industry was public administration (10.4 percent). The educational, health, and social services was the top industry in each Town and Village, and the second and third largest industries in the Towns and Villages varied between public administration and retail trade. However, the third largest industry in the Town of Cape Vincent was construction (11.4 percent). The 2005 unemployment rate for Jefferson County was 4.8 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006).
3.11.1.3 Municipal Revenues and Taxes

Municipalities (i.e., Towns, Villages and counties) are responsible for providing specific services to those who live and work within their boundaries. Municipalities incur costs associated with providing these services, and to offset these costs, collect revenues by levying taxes. Tax revenues in the Project area accrue from both sales taxes and real property taxes. The taxing jurisdictions in the Project area include Jefferson County, the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme, the Villages of Cape Vincent and Chaumont, and the Thousand Islands and Lyme Central school districts.

3-69

000206

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

The total 2005 property tax levy for Jefferson County was $20,932,051. Of this amount, the property tax levy for the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme were $276,000 and $240,750, respectively. The property tax levy for the Villages of Cape Vincent and Chaumont were $225,981 and $68,472, respectively (New York State Office of Real Property Services, 2006b). For those items not included in the Jefferson County Sales and Use Tax Exemption (e.g., clothing, footwear, and items used to make or repair exempt clothing costing less the $110 per item or pair) a total sales tax of 7.75 percent is levied on purchases within the County (Jefferson County retains 3.75 percent). The current sales tax rate for Jefferson County is 7.75 percent, which includes a 4 percent state tax and 3.75 percent local tax (New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, 2006).
3.11.2 Potential Impacts

The Project would have both direct and indirect positive economic effects on participating individual landowners, Villages, Towns, County, and school districts. These effects would commence during construction and continue throughout the operating life of the Project. Shortterm benefits of Project construction would include additional employment, income, and expenditures associated with construction of the Project. For example, construction workers would purchase food in local restaurants and may stay at local hotels or in nearby campgrounds. Long-term benefits operating the Project would generate significant additional revenue through a Licensing Fee to host communities, a PILOT agreement, purchases of goods and services, and lease payments to participating landowners. The Project would provide one to three operational jobs, and likely result in some increased visitation to the Project area by tourists interested in wind power. All of these results could have a beneficial effect on local businesses. The overall socioeconomic impact of Project construction and operation is discussed in detail below.
3.11.2.1 Population and Housing

Jefferson County and the Towns and Villages located in the Project area experienced a moderate growth rate between 1990 and 2000. This trend likely would continue regardless of whether or not the proposed Project is built. The Project would not generate construction employment at a level that would significantly increase population in either the Towns or the County. Even though employment during the construction period would be significant (approximately 50 to 150 construction jobs), this employment is relatively short-term, and is not expected to result in workers permanently relocating to the area. For the duration of construction (approximately 7 to 10 months) there could be a temporary increase in local population and demand for temporary

3-70

000207

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

housing by out-of-town workers. However, this demand would be relatively modest, and could easily be accommodated by the availability of vacant housing in the affected Towns and surrounding communities. Beyond this relatively minor (and positive) short-term impact, Project construction would not have significant impact on population and housing. Based on the above housing information and high vacancy rate, there is likely an adequate supply of local housing and temporary accommodations in Jefferson County for the expected Project demand. This number of housing units would sufficiently accommodate construction workers. Few new permanent employees are anticipated for operation of the wind facility, therefore no long-term impacts on local housing are anticipated. Approximately one to three full-time jobs would be created once the Project is fully operational. These employees would be expected to reside locally, which could translate into the purchase of a few homes and the addition of a few families to the surrounding communities. Based on vacancy rates in the Towns, there would be an adequate number of housing units available for purchase or rent. Although this represents a positive economic impact, long-term employment associated with the Project is not large enough to have a significant impact on local population or housing characteristics.
3.11.2.2 Economy and Employment

Based on construction employment figures at other wind power projects in New York, it is anticipated that construction of the St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project would employ a total construction workforce of approximately 50 to 150 workers. It is anticipated that about twothirds of this anticipated workforce would be from the western New York labor market, which in light of the size of the labor force and the number of unemployed, can easily supply the required workforce. Local employment would benefit those in the construction trades, including equipment operators, truck drivers, laborers, and electricians. Project construction would require workers with specialized skills, such as crane operators, turbine assemblers, specialized excavators, and high voltage electrical workers. It is anticipated that the majority of these workers would be located outside of the Project area and would remain only for the duration of construction. In addition to the direct jobs created during construction, this Project is expected to have an indirect impact on the local economy through the purchases of goods and services, which would support local businesses and perhaps result in the creation of some additional new jobs.

3-71

000208

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

With respect to tourism in the region, it is worth noting that other wind power projects in New York have resulted in a significant increase in visitation from tourists interested in the projects. This has resulted in increased local expenditures for goods and services, but these have not been quantified, and are probably fairly modest.
3.11.2.3 Municipal Revenues and Taxes

The proposed Project would significantly increase the revenues of each of the taxing jurisdictions in the Project area. Annual PILOT payments would be negotiated, along with road use agreements. The Project would have a beneficial impact on municipal budgets and taxes because the taxing jurisdictions would receive additional annual revenue from the Project in the form of PILOT revenues, which would be necessarily distributed to the relevant taxing jurisdictions according to their share in the combined tax rate. During construction, the Project would not impact municipal budgets and taxes. Temporary construction workers would not create significant demand for municipal or school district services or facilities. These workers would not generate significant revenue through payment of property taxes. The Project would result in impacts to the local road system and this would have the potential to affect local highway department expenditures and budgets.
3.11.3 Mitigation Measures

As described above, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not have a significant adverse impact on local population and housing, and would have a short-term beneficial impact on the local economy and employment. The negotiated PILOT agreement would provide a significant long-term benefit to the communities and school districts. Consequently, no mitigation is necessary to address these impacts. The only potential adverse impact to municipal budgets and taxes would be the impact of Project construction on local roads, and the need to repair or upgrade these roads to accommodate construction vehicles and higher activity. To mitigate this impact, any construction-related damage or improvements to State, County, or Town roads would be the responsibility of the Applicant, and would be undertaken at no expense to the municipalities.
3.12 Telecommunications

3.12.1 Affected Environment

Comsearch was contracted to evaluate the potential for the Project to impact existing telecommunication signals. Comsearch performed an analysis to evaluate the potential effect of the planned St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project in Jefferson County, New York on existing non-

3-72

000209

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Federal Government microwave telecommunication systems and off-air television stations within 100 miles, both in the United States and Canada (Appendix E).
3.12.1.1 Microwave Analysis

Microwave telecommunication systems are wireless point-to-point links that communicate between two sites (antennas) and require clear line-of-sight conditions between each antenna. Comsearch identified three (3) microwave paths that intersect the Project area (see graphics in Appendix E): WLQ373, WML409 and WPOS292. However, only one of these paths (WPOS292) was identified to have a potential conflict with any of the proposed turbine locations. As a result, proposed turbines No. 19 and 20 would be relocated out of the Worst Case Fresnel Zone such that interference would be avoided.
3.12.1.2 Television Analysis

Off-air stations are television broadcast signals that can be received directly on a television receiver from terrestrially located broadcast facilities. Rotating wind turbines can compete with the "direct wave" appearing at the antenna of a ground receiver. In some instances it is possible to create television signal distortion capable of making reception difficult (Evans, 2005). To determine if the proposed turbines would affect television reception in the area, Comsearch identified the off-air television stations within a 100-mile radius of the proposed Project (Appendix E), both in the United States and in Canada. Comsearch examined the coverage of the off-air TV stations and the communities in the area that could potentially have degraded television reception due to the location of the wind turbines. The stations that are most likely to affect Jefferson County and the vicinity would be those stations at a distance of 40 miles or less. Within this range, there are 32 licensed stations in the United States and 13 licensed stations in Canada (Appendix E). Of the 32 licensed stations in the United States, only 9 are presently broadcasting. Three of these 9 are full power analog stations, one of which is also licensed in the area with digital modulation. However, digital signals are not subject to interference from intervening structures (NWCC, 2005). Therefore, there is a potential for two American off-air TV stations to be affected by rotating wind turbines (Appendix E). Of the 13 Canadian stations licensed within the 40-mile area, only 8 produce television broadcast signals in the vicinity of the Project. Seven of these 8 stations have analog signals; the remaining station broadcasts digitally.

3-73

000210

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Comsearch also determined that there is approximately the same amount of Canadian television stations available in the area as American television stations. Without including low power television stations, there are a total of ten analog stations and two digital stations serving the Project area.
3.12.1.3 AM Radio Analysis

In general, it is possible for a turbine to interfere with AM radio signals. If a turbine intercepts a low frequency radio wave from an AM broadcast antenna, it can "re-radiate" the signal with an arbitrary phase delay. This secondary radiator then becomes a radio frequency source that interferes with the primary signal, causing fading and noise in receivers tuned to the frequency (Evans, 2005). The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires that studies be conducted to determine if a proposed development will affect existing AM radio broadcast stations. Specifically, a study is required when the proposed development is located within 1.6 miles (1.0 kilometers) of a non-directional broadcast station and/or within 4.8 miles (3.0 kilometers) of a directional broadcast station. SLW determined that there are no AM broadcast stations located within these distances that would require an FCC study (http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/amq.html). SLW also determined that it is unlikely that the proposed turbines would interfere with AM radio signals.
3.12.1.4 National Telecommunications and Information Administration Notification

In the spring or summer of 2007 (or as required by the lead agency), SLW would send a written notification of the proposed project to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the United States Department of Commerce. Upon receipt of notification, the NTIA provides plans for the proposed project to the federal agencies represented in the Interdependent Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC), which include the Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Education (DOE), Department of Justice (DOJ), and the FAA. The NTIA then identifies any project-related concerns during a 30-day review period.
3.12.2 Potential Impacts 3.12.2.1 Operation Microwave Communication Systems

Comsearch identified three (3) microwave paths that intersect the Project area. However, only one of these paths was identified to have a potential conflict with any of the planned turbine locations. SLW would relocate these turbines (Turbines Nos. 19 and 20) such that the Project would not impact microwave communication systems.

3-74

000211

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Television Communication Systems

The television analysis report developed by Comsearch detailed information for each of the offair television stations that occur within 100 miles of the Project. This information included the strength (power) of each broadcast, as well as the type of service provided (digital, analog, etc.). Comsearch concluded that although in some locations particular television channels may be distorted or lost once the wind turbines are operational, many of the other channels would continue to be received without degradation. Based upon this data, it is unlikely that there would be a significant impact to television signal coverage during project operation.
AM Radio Analysis

All proposed wind turbines within the Project are located at least 1.6 miles (1.0 kilometers) from a non-directional AM broadcast station and/or 4.8 miles (3.0 kilometers) from a directional AM broadcast station. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Project will interfere with existing AM radio transmissions.
NTIA Notification

Should the NTIA identify Project-related concerns related to signal blockage following their 30day review of the Project, SLW would relocate the appropriate project facilities. Therefore, impacts to the IRAC radio frequency transmissions are not anticipated.
3.12.3 Mitigation Measures 3.12.3.1 Operation Microwave Communication Systems

SLW would relocate proposed Turbines Nos. 19 and 20 such that the Project would have no impact on microwave communication systems. Therefore, no mitigation measures would be necessary.
Television Communication Systems

If Project operation results in any impacts to existing off-air television coverage, SLW would address and resolve each individual problem as necessary. Mitigation actions could include adjusting existing receiving antennae, upgrading the antenna, or providing cable or satellite systems to the affected households. In addition, the FCC's mandate to transition all off-air television broadcasts from analog signals to digital signals by January 1, 2009 would eliminate turbine-related interference problems as digital signals are not subject to interference from intervening structures (NWCC, 2005).

3-75

000212

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

AM Radio Analysis

The Project will not impact existing AM radio transmissions. No mitigation measures will be necessary.
NTIA Notification

Should the NTIA identify Project-related concerns related to signal blockage following their 30day review of the Project, SLW would relocate the appropriate project facilities.
3.13 Safety and Security

3.13.1 Affected Environment 3.13.1.1 Microwave Analysis

Safety concerns associated with the construction of wind energy projects mirror the concerns of most large-scale construction projects. These concerns include, but are not be limited to (1) transportation of equipment and materials using heavy construction equipment, (2) overhead hazards, (3) open excavations, and (4) electrocution. These “typical” hazards are well understood, and would be mitigated through the use of common construction safety measures. During the operation of wind energy facilities, other, more unique, safety concerns sometimes arise and need to be addressed to mitigate their potential effect. Examples of such safety concerns include possible ice shedding, tower collapse, blade throw, stray voltage, fire and lightning strikes.
3.13.1.2 Ice Shed

Ice shed may occur when ice builds up on the blade of a turbine and then breaks off and falls to the ground. While this is a potential safety concern, it should be noted that there has never been a reported injury from ice shed by wind turbines, despite the installation of more than 6,000 MW of wind energy worldwide (Morgan, Bossanyi, and Siefert, 1998). The ice that forms on a wind turbine's blades is relatively thin. Ice buildup on a turbine's blade changes its shape, reducing the lift-drag ratio and increasing surface friction and resulting in the blade losing its ability to develop speed (AWEA, 2006). Ice would be shed from blades as the temperature rises, and then the blades would begin to rotate at higher speeds.
3.13.1.3 Tower Collapse/Blade Failure

While there is the potential for a tower collapse or blade failure during the operation of wind energy projects, these events are extremely rare. Such collapses are potentially dangerous for both project personnel and the general public. Past incidents have generally been the result of

3-76

000213

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

manufacturing defects, poor maintenance, wind gusts that exceeded the maximum design load of the turbine structure, or lightning strikes (AWEA, 2006). Technological improvements and safety standards have made such occurrences rare in the industry.
3.13.1.4 Stray Voltage

The term stray voltage generally refers to low levels of neutral-to-earth electrical currents that occur between two points on a grounded electrical system (Wisconsin Legislative Council, 2000). Stray voltage usually is the result of poorly connected or damaged wiring systems, corrosion, or damaged insulation materials. Wind power facilities have the potential to create stray voltage if the electrical system is both poorly grounded and located near underground or poorly grounded metal objects.
3.13.1.5 Fire

Due to their height, physical dimensions, and complexity, wind turbines may present response difficulties to local emergency responders should a fire occur within or near the structures. Storage and use of diesel fuels, lubricating oils, and hydraulic fluids within the Project creates the potential for fire or medical emergencies.
3.13.1.6 Lightning Strikes

Wind turbines are susceptible to lightning strikes due to their height and construction materials. Modern wind turbines include lightning protections systems, which generally prevent catastrophic blade failure.
3.13.1.7 Homeland Security

The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has developed a series of regulations that apply to the design and operation of Critical Energy Infrastructure.
3.13.2 Potential Impact 3.13.2.1 Ice Shed

Ice build-up on turbine blades would cause an imbalance, which would alert turbine sensors resulting in a complete shut down of the effected turbine. As previously noted, as the ice thaws it would typically fall straight to the ground, as the turbine would not be rotating. While a very remote potential exists for ice shed to cause personal or property injury, the sensors within the towers themselves greatly reduce these risks by shutting down the affected turbines as soon as they detect an imbalance.

3-77

000214

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

3.13.2.2 Tower Collapse/Blade Failure

International engineering standards are used to certify modern wind turbines from manufacture, through construction. The ratings include withstanding different levels of hurricane force winds and other criteria (AWEA, 2006, a, b, c, d). Modern wind turbines also include state-of-the-art braking systems, pitch controls, sensors, and speed controls which greatly reduce the risk of tower collapse and blade failure. The safety features installed on modern wind turbines greatly lower the chance of a catastrophic failure.
3.13.2.3 Stray Voltage

Stray voltage is preventable through the use of proper electrical installation and grounding practices. Certified electrical engineers would ensure that all electrical facilities are properly grounded and insulated to reduce the risk of stray voltage. Proper maintenance of all facilities would ensure that the wind energy project does not contribute to stray voltage within the Project area.
3.13.2.4 Fire

Fire at operating wind turbines has been extremely rare over the several decades that turbines have been employed worldwide. However, as there are flammable materials such as lubricants in the turbine nacelle, there is a remote possibility that a turbine fire could occur.
3.13.2.5 Lightning Strikes

Lightning protection systems were first added to rotors in the mid-1990s. These protection systems are now a standard component of modern turbines. The protection systems can detect all lightning events. Should the system detect a problem, the turbine would be shut down automatically.
3.13.2.6 Homeland Security

It is not anticipated that the proposed Project would be a target for any homeland security concerns. However, as the Project contains Critical Energy Infrastructure, SLW would design all facilities in accordance with guidance and regulations of the DHS.
3.13.3 Mitigation Measures 3.13.3.1 Ice Shed

The use of buffers from roads and property lines and public control measures would minimize the already low public safety risk of ice shed. Ice detectors would be installed at previously determined locations to notify maintenance personnel of icing conditions, which would allow the operator to take the appropriate actions.
3-78

000215

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

3.13.3.2 Tower Collapse/Blade Failure

The use of buffers from roads and property lines and public control measures would minimize the already low public safety risk associated with tower collapse or blade failure. The standard engineering design and protection systems incorporated into modern wind turbines would prevent and minimize problems that could lead to tower collapse or blade failure.
3.13.3.3 Stray Voltage

Stray voltage concerns would be addressed through proper electrical engineering design and grounding of Project electrical components.
3.13.3.4 Fire

A Fire Prevention and Control Plan would be developed for the Project to ensure the safety of company employees and local residents, visitors, and their property. Prior to the commencement of construction SLW would present, review and finalize the Fire Prevention and Control Plan in cooperation with local fire departments.
3.13.3.5 Lightning Strikes

The standard lightning protection system installed within the rotor blades would be used to prevent and minimize problems associated with lightning strikes.
3.13.3.6 Homeland Security

SLW would design all facilities in accordance with guidance and regulations of the DHS.

3-79

000216

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

4.0 4.1

CUMULATIVE AND GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS Cumulative Impacts

In addition to environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project, cumulative impacts to area resources previously discussed may occur as a result of existing, proposed or future projects and activities. Due to the height of the proposed turbine structures and the unique nature of their movement, it is anticipated the cumulative impacts would result from development of other potential wind energy projects, rather than development of facilities more common to the landscape such as cellular/communications towers, and transmission facilities. Although it is difficult to determine where and how future wind projects will be developed, and which future wind projects might contribute to cumulative impacts to area resources, the SEQR process requires that reasonably related cumulative impacts be evaluated. There are no existing wind energy projects in the vicinity of the proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project. As a result, cumulative impacts associated with existing wind projects were not evaluated in this DEIS. However, numerous potential wind energy projects across New York State are in the development and planning phases. Progress of these projects is highly variable, and ranges from preliminary site investigations (e.g., critical information analyses) to those with completed System Reliability Impact Studies (requirement of New York State), detailed project plans, and landowner agreements. Based on local filings, the BP Wind Power Project in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme may be considered a proposed or future project for the purposes of cumulative impact analysis. It should be noted that several other projects in the United States and Canada are likely in the planning and/or pre-development phases as well, but specific details are presently unknown. This is because the location and other site related information are not publicly available at this time. However, based on known wind resources, it is reasonable to assume that proposed project sites range from less than 1 to approximately 20 miles from any component of the proposed Project. Given these distances, cumulative impacts to the residences and other ancillary structures within the Project area from noise or shadow flicker will not occur, as the turbines would not overlap or be interspersed with the proposed Project. Other potential cumulative impacts may include construction related impacts to roads and bridges. However, this would only occur if the Projects were constructed simultaneously and if they used the same construction delivery routes. In the unlikely event that this situation arises, any cumulative impacts would be temporary and short-term in duration. Upon approval(s) of individual projects, coordination of transportation routes would be undertaken by the involved project developers to assure that the duration and extent of project impact is minimized and that road repair/restoration work is accomplished in an appropriate amount of time. The most likely cumulative impact(s) resulting from the construction of the cited project, and of other potential projects in this high wind resource area, is the effect on migrating and local birds,
4-1

000217

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

bats and other ecological resources, visual/aesthetic resources and community character. Annual fatalities for birds and bats at wind projects vary among sites depending on site specific conditions but, based on several post construction mortality studies, an average annual fatality rate have been estimated at 3.2 birds per turbine per year and 14.5 bats per turbine per year. Cumulatively, this may result in an adverse effect on the regional populations of certain avian and bat species that are not able to reproductively compensate for such reductions. However, it should also be noted that bird collisions with wind projects represent a very small portion of all bird collisions with man-made objects. From a habitat perspective, the surge in development of wind projects in the northeast, as part of various state initiatives to promote renewable energy production, may also result in a regional loss and fragmentation of forested habitat depending upon the site selection of specific projects. The cumulative impact of multiple projects will be highly variable depending upon the number of turbines visible, their proximity to the viewer, the landscape setting and the viewer’s opinion regarding renewable energy. If multiple projects were visible, the typical scenario would have portions of one project being visible in the foreground while another is visible in the background. General perspective and viewing distance differences are discussed in the VRA in Appendix C. Long distance views are highly variable and often screened by topography and forest vegetation. As a result, visibility of multiple projects would be greater in an area such as Jefferson County due to the relative flat topography, open agricultural areas and low residential density. The assumption that one or more projects would complete all appropriate local, State and Federal reviews, permitting and other associated requirements is speculative in nature. As a result, any or all proposed projects may not be constructed and thus not contribute to cumulative impacts associated with the proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project. The proposed Project and other potential projects would offer positive cumulative impact(s) to air quality and socioeconomics. The construction of the Project, and other potential projects, would result in cumulative positive impact from their operation, which would result in the avoidance of pollutant emissions. Further, the proposed Project (and others) would result in a net positive cumulative socioeconomic benefit to the local communities. The projects (including SLW’s) are expected to generate millions of dollars in direct economic benefit from landowner royalties and wages, and millions of dollars in municipal revenues to the local Towns and school boards.
4.2 Growth Inducing Impacts

Some proposed actions under the SEQR process have the potential to trigger further development by either attracting a significant local population, inviting commercial or industrial growth, or by inducing the development of similar projects adjacent to the built facility. The

4-2

000218

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

proposed wind energy project does not require a permanent work force greater than approximately 3 to 10 employees, and therefore will not lead to significant, permanent growth in local population or housing. The temporary impacts associated with the construction workforce were discussed in Section 3.11. As a result, secondary or indirect impacts associated with local growth are not anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed Project. The St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project is proposed, in part, because of the existing wind resource and associated transmission facilities allow the action to be economically viable. Specifically, the availability of adequate wind and the presence of an existing transmission line in the Town of Lyme allows for generation and transmission of the Project’s electric output to the power grid. Since existing transmission lines have limited additional capacity, the Project may make future projects more difficult to develop if such development could only be accommodated by upgrading existing transmission lines.

4-3

000219

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

5.0

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

The proposed Project would result in the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of certain resources as described below. However, on the whole, the commitment of these resources would be justified by the many benefits that would result from implementation of the Project. Human and financial resources continue to be expended by SLW, the State of New York (i.e., various state agencies), Jefferson County, and the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme for the planning and review of the Project. This expenditure of human resources and money would continue to be required throughout the permitting and construction phases of the Project. The Project would also require a commitment of land for the life of the Project. The land to be developed for wind turbine tower locations, access roads, transmission lines and substations would not be available for alternative purposes for the life of the Project. However, because the turbines/towers can be removed, the land used for the Project can be reclaimed for alternative use at some future date. Therefore, the commitment of this land to the Project is neither irreversible nor irretrievable. Various types of construction materials and building supplies would be committed to the Project. The use of these materials, such as gravel, concrete, steel, etc., would represent a long-term commitment of these resources, which would not be available for other projects. Energy resources would be irretrievably committed to the construction and operation of the Project. Fuel and electricity would be required during the manufacture and transportation of materials and components, during site preparation and turbine installation activities, and for the transportation of workers and materials to the Project site. Despite this, the energy resources expended to construct and operate the Project would be offset and dwarfed by the clean, renewable energy generated by the Project.

5-1

000220

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

6.0

EFFECTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

The SLW Project would have significant, long lasting positive impacts on the use and conservation of energy. When the Project is in operation, it would deliver approximately 136 MW of clean renewable energy at the point of interconnection to the electricity grid. The Project would accomplish this without having to produce, transport, store, or burn any fossil fuel in the process. Production of this clean, renewable energy would not create air or water pollution or add to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is enough electricity for over 45,000 homes in New York State (on an average annual basis). Some of the principal benefits of the Project are in accordance with the 2002 State Energy Plan (New York State Energy Planning Board, 2002), namely: "Stimulating sustainable economic growth;" "Increasing energy diversity…including renewable-based energy;" and "Promoting and achieving a cleaner and healthier environment." The SLW Project would add to and diversify the state's sources of power generation. Greater use of renewable energy would displace use of other less desirable sources of electricity generation, such as the fossil fuels that pollute the air and water and contribute to global warming. NYSERDA commissioned a study entitled The Effects of Integrating Wind Power on Transmission System Planning, Reliability and Operations (February 2005, the “NYSERDA Report”). The NYSERDA Report concludes, based on load and wind profiles from 2001 and 2002 that 65 percent of the electricity displaced by wind generation would come from natural gas, 15 percent from coals, 10 percent from oil and 10 percent from imports. The NYSERDA Report also found that 3,000 MW of wind energy would result in total annual New York wholesale electricity market variable cost reductions of over $400 million per year. Of this total, the SLW Project would be responsible for almost $15-20 million in benefits to energy consumers each year. In addition, the NYSERDA Report found that it is not necessary to start up additional traditional generation to back up wind generation. The New York PSC issued an Order approving a Retail RPS Policy on September 24, 2004. The Order presented the PSC's renewable energy policy. The Order identified targets and procedures to achieve an increase in renewable energy used in the State to at least 25 percent by the year 2013. The SLW Project would be part of the effort to achieve the state’s goals of the Renewable Portfolio Standard.

6-1

000221

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

The SLW Project also supports compliance with Executive Order 111, issued by Governor George Pataki on June 10, 2001. The Executive Order requires all New York State agencies to purchase 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2005 and 20 percent by 2010.

6-2

000222

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

7.0 7.1

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Geographic Scope and Primary Project Criteria

The analysis of alternative geographic locations for a wind energy electrical-generating facility must be limited in scope to a degree that makes sense. For the purposes of this alternatives analysis, the geographic scope under consideration is within the boundaries of the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme in Jefferson County, New York. Alternatives analysis outside of this geographic area cannot be valid because the potential impacts of an alternative outside the proposed geographic area would be speculative in nature and the equivalent of the no action alternative. The primary criteria for siting the SLW Project included the following: Adequate wind speeds to support an economic project; Proximity to a transmission line that can transport energy generated by a project; Ability to build a project in compliance with applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations; and Ability to build a project without significant adverse impacts.
7.2 Assessment of Electric Generation Technologies

The types of wind turbine generators being considered for this Project are all MW-class, threebladed, upwind designs with proven track records. The final choice of turbine would be decided by two additional factors: 1. Cost of Energy – Various model turbines perform differently in different conditions. A project location's meteorological characteristics, such as wind speed, distribution and shear, can indicate the selection of one type of turbine over another. 2. Turbine Availability – Because of the recent public support for generating a homegrown, clean, renewable industry, there is currently a shortage of all MW class, three-bladed, upwind turbines. The primary difference in turbines that generate greater MWs is rotor blade length. Older wind turbine models had smaller average rotor diameter, but the newer, more efficient generation of turbines have a much higher average rotor diameter. The productivity of a turbine is directly related to the size of the rotor swept area. As a result turbines that have longer blades tend to be relatively more productive.

7-1

000223

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

7.3

No Action Alternative

SEQRA requires consideration of the "no action" alternative. In the case of the SLW Project, the no action alternative assumes that the Project area would continue as active agricultural land, forest, and rural residential property. The “no action” alternative would have no impact on current land use or zoning. It would maintain environmental, socioeconomic and energygenerating conditions as they currently exist. If the “no action” alternative were selected, no wind energy generating facility and ancillary Project facilities would be built in the Project area. As a result, none of the minor environmental impacts associated with Project construction and operation would occur. Conversely, if the “no action” alternative were selected, no socioeconomic benefits would accrue to the area. The local economy and community would not benefit from income from construction jobs, lease payments to the landowners, annual tax revenues or PILOT payments. In addition, if the “no action” alternative were selected, the benefits of adding approximately 136 MW of clean, renewable energy to New York State's energy mix would be lost. There would be no offset of the State's reliance on fossil-fuel-fired generators, which contribute to acid rain, smog, green house gases, and other environmental problems. If the “no action” alternative were selected, other Project benefits would also be lost, such as lost potential tourism to the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme. Based upon the above and given the short-term and relatively minor nature of anticipated impacts of the SLW Project, and the significant economic benefits that the Project would generate, the “no action” alternative is not a preferred alternative.
7.4 Alternative Project Site Analysis

Various Project layout alternatives were considered and rejected during the Project siting process. The proposed conceptual Project layout (see Figure 2-1) is the result of an iterative meteorological, environmental, and engineering analysis of the best locations for Project facilities in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme. As stated above, the primary criteria for siting the SLW Project included the following: Adequate wind speeds to support an economic project: In order to find the most efficient turbine sites for generating electricity, SLW used computer models that combined wind resource data from meteorological towers in the Project area, long-term

7-2

000224

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

weather data, topography, and environmental factors. Wind turbines create turbulence, or wake, immediately downstream of the rotor. Wake can interfere with the operation of neighboring wind turbines, creating extra wear and tear, and decreasing their efficiency for producing electricity. Using computer models, SLW ensured that turbines were spaced correctly so as to avoid wake losses and turbulence and optimize energy creation. Proximity to a transmission line that can transport energy generated by a project: The SLW Project would be interconnected with the 115 kV transmission line owned by National Grid in the Town of Lyme. Ability to build a project in compliance with applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations: For example, the turbine locations were selected to maintain a buffer of approximately 615 feet from the center of proposed turbine foundations and a buffer of 1,200 feet from the nearest outer wall of existing occupied residence. In many cases, SLW more than doubled the required setback from residences required by law. The turbine buffers minimize the visual and sound effects of the turbines on local residences. The turbine locations were also selected to maintain a minimum buffer from existing road rights-of-way. The minimum buffer, as measured from the centerline of the tower foundation, are at least 615 feet from all roads. Ability to build a project without significant adverse impacts: For example, turbine and access road locations were adjusted to avoid wetland areas. Few other areas in the State of New York have as strong and reliable wind as the mouth of the St. Lawrence River. This, in combination with the sparse population, and dominant agricultural and managed land use, make the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme suitable for development of a large-scale wind power project. The current project layout is sited so as to maximize the productivity of the proposed wind energy project by using the most energetic (windy) sites along with the land where wind turbines would have the least environmental or residential impact. Areas to the north and west are within prohibited municipal districts and a significantly greater extent of wetlands near the coast of Lake Ontario (west) and the St. Lawrence River (north), as well as greater population densities (Village of Cape Vincent to the north. Thus, relocating the Project elsewhere within the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme would reduce its economic viability, and potentially increase its environmental and socioeconomic impacts,. The same factors that make the Project site desirable were considered in siting individual turbines. Individual turbines were sited in a manner that sought to minimize or avoid adverse

7-3

000225

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

environmental impacts while maximizing the utilization of wind resources and, as a result, the commercial viability of the proposed Project. The proposed wind turbines and associated facilities on the site have been located so as to minimize loss of active agricultural land and/or interference with agricultural operations. Turbines have also been sited to minimize impacts to forests, wetlands, adjacent landowners and local municipal districts (e.g., Riverfront, Lake). Project components of alternative size and number were considered. A project of significantly more, or fewer, turbines would pose challenges to the technical or economic feasibility of the Project. If the proposed number of turbines were significantly reduced, the economic feasibility of the Project would be jeopardized and the maximum benefit of the available wind resource would not be realized. The Project Applicant is doing business in a wholesale electric market that is highly competitive and extremely price-sensitive. Commercial wind farms produce two products: 1) the commodity electric energy, and 2) Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) that convey the “environmental attributes” that are generated with each unit of electricity produced from renewable energy sources. The power produced is sold directly to the power grid through an hourly auction, essentially guaranteeing that the lowest price always wins, and assuring New York rate-payers the most competitive electricity rates). The emphasis of this “merchant” market place is on lowcost. As a result, for a wind power project to be economically feasible, and maintain its financial commitments designated within the PILOT and applicable host community agreements, it must be able to sell its electricity in the merchant market place. The high fixed costs of developing and constructing wind energy projects dictate that the larger a project can be, the more competitive it is likely to be. Given the increased competition from in-state wind projects, SLW has concluded that a significantly smaller project is less likely to be economically feasible. Alternatively, a larger project would result in location of wind turbine towers in areas that are less productive, and force installation of more turbines in areas with larger and more abundant natural resources (e.g., wetlands). Further, SLW has concluded that the transmission line on which the Project would interconnect has limited capacity, which limits a larger project.

7-4

000226

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

7.0 7.1

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Geographic Scope and Primary Project Criteria

The analysis of alternative geographic locations for a wind energy electrical-generating facility must be limited in scope to a degree that makes sense. For the purposes of this alternatives analysis, the geographic scope under consideration is within the boundaries of the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme in Jefferson County, New York. Alternatives analysis outside of this geographic area cannot be valid because the potential impacts of an alternative outside the proposed geographic area would be speculative in nature and the equivalent of the no action alternative. The primary criteria for siting the SLW Project included the following: Adequate wind speeds to support an economic project; Proximity to a transmission line that can transport energy generated by a project; Ability to build a project in compliance with applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations; and Ability to build a project without significant adverse impacts.
7.2 Assessment of Electric Generation Technologies

The types of wind turbine generators being considered for this Project are all MW-class, threebladed, upwind designs with proven track records. The final choice of turbine would be decided by two additional factors: 1. Cost of Energy – Various model turbines perform differently in different conditions. A project location's meteorological characteristics, such as wind speed, distribution and shear, can indicate the selection of one type of turbine over another. 2. Turbine Availability – Because of the recent public support for generating a homegrown, clean, renewable industry, there is currently a shortage of all MW class, three-bladed, upwind turbines. The primary difference in turbines that generate greater MWs is rotor blade length. Older wind turbine models had smaller average rotor diameter, but the newer, more efficient generation of turbines have a much higher average rotor diameter. The productivity of a turbine is directly related to the size of the rotor swept area. As a result turbines that have longer blades tend to be relatively more productive.

7-1

000227

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

7.3

No Action Alternative

SEQRA requires consideration of the "no action" alternative. In the case of the SLW Project, the no action alternative assumes that the Project area would continue as active agricultural land, forest, and rural residential property. The “no action” alternative would have no impact on current land use or zoning. It would maintain environmental, socioeconomic and energygenerating conditions as they currently exist. If the “no action” alternative were selected, no wind energy generating facility and ancillary Project facilities would be built in the Project area. As a result, none of the minor environmental impacts associated with Project construction and operation would occur. Conversely, if the “no action” alternative were selected, no socioeconomic benefits would accrue to the area. The local economy and community would not benefit from income from construction jobs, lease payments to the landowners, annual tax revenues or PILOT payments. In addition, if the “no action” alternative were selected, the benefits of adding approximately 136 MW of clean, renewable energy to New York State's energy mix would be lost. There would be no offset of the State's reliance on fossil-fuel-fired generators, which contribute to acid rain, smog, green house gases, and other environmental problems. If the “no action” alternative were selected, other Project benefits would also be lost, such as lost potential tourism to the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme. Based upon the above and given the short-term and relatively minor nature of anticipated impacts of the SLW Project, and the significant economic benefits that the Project would generate, the “no action” alternative is not a preferred alternative.
7.4 Alternative Project Site Analysis

Various Project layout alternatives were considered and rejected during the Project siting process. The proposed conceptual Project layout (see Figure 2-1) is the result of an iterative meteorological, environmental, and engineering analysis of the best locations for Project facilities in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme. As stated above, the primary criteria for siting the SLW Project included the following: Adequate wind speeds to support an economic project: In order to find the most efficient turbine sites for generating electricity, SLW used computer models that combined wind resource data from meteorological towers in the Project area, long-term

7-2

000228

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

weather data, topography, and environmental factors. Wind turbines create turbulence, or wake, immediately downstream of the rotor. Wake can interfere with the operation of neighboring wind turbines, creating extra wear and tear, and decreasing their efficiency for producing electricity. Using computer models, SLW ensured that turbines were spaced correctly so as to avoid wake losses and turbulence and optimize energy creation. Proximity to a transmission line that can transport energy generated by a project: The SLW Project would be interconnected with the 115 kV transmission line owned by National Grid in the Town of Lyme. Ability to build a project in compliance with applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations: For example, the turbine locations were selected to maintain a buffer of approximately 615 feet from the center of proposed turbine foundations and a buffer of 1,200 feet from the nearest outer wall of existing occupied residence. In many cases, SLW more than doubled the required setback from residences required by law. The turbine buffers minimize the visual and sound effects of the turbines on local residences. The turbine locations were also selected to maintain a minimum buffer from existing road rights-of-way. The minimum buffer, as measured from the centerline of the tower foundation, are at least 615 feet from all roads. Ability to build a project without significant adverse impacts: For example, turbine and access road locations were adjusted to avoid wetland areas. Few other areas in the State of New York have as strong and reliable wind as the mouth of the St. Lawrence River. This, in combination with the sparse population, and dominant agricultural and managed land use, make the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme suitable for development of a large-scale wind power project. The current project layout is sited so as to maximize the productivity of the proposed wind energy project by using the most energetic (windy) sites along with the land where wind turbines would have the least environmental or residential impact. Areas to the north and west are within prohibited municipal districts and a significantly greater extent of wetlands near the coast of Lake Ontario (west) and the St. Lawrence River (north), as well as greater population densities (Village of Cape Vincent to the north. Thus, relocating the Project elsewhere within the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme would reduce its economic viability, and potentially increase its environmental and socioeconomic impacts,. The same factors that make the Project site desirable were considered in siting individual turbines. Individual turbines were sited in a manner that sought to minimize or avoid adverse

7-3

000229

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

environmental impacts while maximizing the utilization of wind resources and, as a result, the commercial viability of the proposed Project. The proposed wind turbines and associated facilities on the site have been located so as to minimize loss of active agricultural land and/or interference with agricultural operations. Turbines have also been sited to minimize impacts to forests, wetlands, adjacent landowners and local municipal districts (e.g., Riverfront, Lake). Project components of alternative size and number were considered. A project of significantly more, or fewer, turbines would pose challenges to the technical or economic feasibility of the Project. If the proposed number of turbines were significantly reduced, the economic feasibility of the Project would be jeopardized and the maximum benefit of the available wind resource would not be realized. The Project Applicant is doing business in a wholesale electric market that is highly competitive and extremely price-sensitive. Commercial wind farms produce two products: 1) the commodity electric energy, and 2) Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) that convey the “environmental attributes” that are generated with each unit of electricity produced from renewable energy sources. The power produced is sold directly to the power grid through an hourly auction, essentially guaranteeing that the lowest price always wins, and assuring New York rate-payers the most competitive electricity rates). The emphasis of this “merchant” market place is on lowcost. As a result, for a wind power project to be economically feasible, and maintain its financial commitments designated within the PILOT and applicable host community agreements, it must be able to sell its electricity in the merchant market place. The high fixed costs of developing and constructing wind energy projects dictate that the larger a project can be, the more competitive it is likely to be. Given the increased competition from in-state wind projects, SLW has concluded that a significantly smaller project is less likely to be economically feasible. Alternatively, a larger project would result in location of wind turbine towers in areas that are less productive, and force installation of more turbines in areas with larger and more abundant natural resources (e.g., wetlands). Further, SLW has concluded that the transmission line on which the Project would interconnect has limited capacity, which limits a larger project.

7-4

000230

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 1-1 (Sheet 1 of 7) Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Aspect of Affected Environment Physiography, Geology, and Soils Potential Impact Erosion and sedimentation construction. Proposed Mitigation A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be developed and implemented for the construction period. A Dust Control Plan would be developed and implemented. A SWPPP would be developed and implemented for the operational period. SLW would follow NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets Guidelines for Siting and Constructing Wind Farms. Geotechnical studies would be conducted prior to final engineering design. A Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCCP) would be developed and implemented. A SWPPP would be developed and implemented for the construction period. Clearing near surface waters would be kept to a minimum to prevent significant disturbance to the habitats associated with surface waters; A SWPPP would be developed and implemented for the construction period. Crossings of the Chaumont River and other streams and tributaries would be accomplished by overhead spanning. It is likely that poles can be located greater than 50 feet from both sides of the Chaumont River and other streams and tributaries. It is possible to string cable between these utility poles in a manner that would not require construction equipment to drive through shallow surface waterbodies. To minimize the impacts to wetlands, no Project infrastructure would be placed in wetlands, unless absolutely necessary. Qualified wetland biologists would field verify the absence of wetlands in the Project footprint, using delineation methods prescribed by the Army Corps of Engineers. Where impacts could occur, if practicable, Project components would be moved to avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands. SLW would obtain Army Corps of Engineers permit authorization for any unavoidable disturbances to wetlands and mitigate as required by any permit conditions.

during

Construction traffic could also create airborne dust. The proposed Project, once built, could potentially cause a minor alteration to existing drainage patterns. Impacts to agricultural soils during construction and operation Shallow bedrock and other geologic challenges (e.g., karst and problematic soils) could be encountered during construction. Release of hazardous substances associated with construction or operation. Water Resources Streams, Rivers, and Lakes Soil erosion during construction could impact ground water. Potential temporary impacts during construction could result from clearing and grading near stream banks. Overhead transmission line would cross surface waterbodies.

Wetlands

Desktop data indicates that there could be minor temporary impact associated with the construction of the overhead transmission line.

1-4

000231

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 1-1 (Sheet 2 of 7) Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Aspect of Affected Environment Vegetation Potential Impact Clearing for construction may temporarily impact abundant vegetation communities. Minor temporary impacts to wildlife habitat associated with construction of the Project would be limited to clearing of forested habitat along the overhead transmission line right-of-way and within small portions of the laydown area for 16 turbines. Bat collision with wind turbines is a potential impact. Proposed Mitigation Clearing of vegetation would be minimized in areas that are ecologically sensitive, such as forested uplands, forested wetlands and the banks of creeks crossed by the overhead transmission line. The Project was designed to avoid significant impact to wildlife. Project infrastructure is sited away from critical habitat and forested clearing would be minimized or avoided to the extent possible. Although impacts to bats are not anticipated to be greater than at other similar wind projects, SLW may develop a bat fatality monitoring program for post-construction implementation if pre-construction studies suggest a possibility of bat collisions. SLW has selected the proposed Project layout to minimize impacts to migrating birds. Should location of particular Project facilities present a potential high risk for collision impacts, SLW will explore alternative configurations to minimize risk at these locations. The proposed Project will encourage continued farming activities in the area by supplementing area farmers’ income. This will also result in the maintenance of open grassland habitats since the regional climate favors traditional late season harvest which is beneficial for grassland birds. Mitigation is not necessary because conversion of forest habitat in the Project area will benefit birds that nest and forage in open habitats which are relatively more important in the region. SLW is studying potential avian impact at the Project site. The Project site is anticipated to pose a low risk to breeding birds. SLW is studying potential bat impact at the Project site. SLW has chosen to move forward with site development, in part because the Project site is anticipated to pose a low risk to threatened or endangered species. Although impacts to bats are not anticipated, SLW may develop a bat fatality monitoring program for implementation once construction is complete if pre-construction studies suggest possible impact.

Non-bat Mammals

Bats

Migrating Birds

During operation of the Project, there is the potential that migratory birds could collide with wind turbines.

Breeding Birds

Threatened and Endangered Species

There may be a minor, temporary impact during construction due to the clearing and construction work in open nesting and foraging habitat. A much smaller footprint of such habitat, which is abundant in the Project area, may be displaced by Project infrastructure. Approximately 82 acres of second growth deciduous forest would be cleared for Project components, which could result in temporary and permanent minor habitat loss for some forest-nesting avian species. There is a low potential risk that local breeding birds could collide with the wind turbines. Individual bats or bat colonies for the Indiana bat and the small-footed myotis have been documented in Jefferson County, within approximately 15 to 40 miles of the proposed Project. No impacts are anticipated.

1-5

000232

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 1-1 (Sheet 3 of 7) Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Aspect of Affected Environment Potential Impact There is a slight risk of collision for migrating raptors. There is a slight risk of collision for breeding birds. Proposed Mitigation SLW is studying potential avian impact at the Project site. The Project site is anticipated to pose a low risk to threatened or endangered species. To mitigate temporary impacts to breeding listed species, pre-construction surveys would be conducted in Project work areas to avoid impacts to nesting individuals. In areas where nesting individuals are encountered construction will be rescheduled to minimize disturbance to the extent possible. In addition clearing activities would occur prior to the breeding season where appropriate.. SLW will develop a management plan to address the handling of these plants during construction if impacts are unavoidable. SLW would obtain all necessary permits from NYSDOT and local highway department(s) in order to make necessary road improvements and to operate oversized vehicles on the roads. Construction related wear and tear to County and local roads would be discussed with the entities that manage the transportation system and an appropriate strategy for road restoration would be developed. A Transportation and Traffic Plan would be created for the Project and would address this issue. SLW would assess work areas two weeks ahead of construction and would provide schools (during the school-year), police, fire, and emergency service agencies with advance notice of lane or road closures.

Transportation

Suitable habitat for Michigan lily and autumnal water-starwort species may temporarily be disturbed during construction activities. The potential need for the Project to improve transportation infrastructure to accommodate construction needs or repair damage to roads caused by construction traffic.

The need for the Project to temporarily relocate overhead lines and other facilities to accommodate oversize vehicles. Traffic delays and road closures due to transportation improvements or construction traffic.

1-6

000233

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 1-1 (Sheet 4 of 7) Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Aspect of Affected Environment Potential Impact Increased traffic generally over local roads during construction. Proposed Mitigation A Transportation and Traffic Plan would be created for the Project and would address this issue. The proposed Project transportation routes have been selected to minimize impacts to roads and surrounding communities. The number of roads used for material and equipment transportation has been limited to the minimum needed for construction. Aside from the oversized vehicles delivering turbine and tower components, construction vehicles would be similar in nature to vehicles currently traveling over the road network and therefore would likely not require special mitigation measures. Construction equipment and the personal vehicles of construction workers would not be parked along public roadways, but rather in designated parking areas, so as to preserve safety along local roadways (unless exceptions are requested and granted by the appropriate authorities). In consultation with appropriate local officials, a Project speed limit would be established. A Dust Control Plan would be developed and implemented for the construction period. If construction is concurrent, coordination between the projects may be required, to make sure that responsibilities for road impacts and remediation are properly recognized and assigned. To the extent there is any overlap in project construction schedules, SLW would coordinate transportation activity with the other projects and would seek to modify its traffic management plan, if necessary, in an effort to mitigate cumulative effects on local transportation and coordinate road construction or improvements. The proposed Project is compliant with local zoning and land use regulations.

Transportation Cumulative

Project construction traffic may create fugitive dust. If the SLW Project and BP projects are built during the same construction season, it is possible that similar construction transportation routes may be chosen.

Land Use and Zoning

The Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme have no specific requirements for development of wind projects in their jurisdictions, but have general zoning and land use regulations established for development. Construction of the Project would result in the temporary disturbance of approximately 191 acres of agricultural land and permanent conversion of 98 acres of agricultural land to wind turbine structures, a substation and pervious access roads.

SLW would follow NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets Guidelines for Agricultural Mitigation for Wind Power Projects.

1-7

000234

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 1-1 (Sheet 5 of 7) Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Aspect of Affected Environment Utilities and Community Services Potential Impact The Project would result in minor shortand long-term increases in energy usage associated with construction and operation of the Project. Long-term energy use would increase slightly as a result of facility maintenance. Proposed Mitigation Mitigation is not necessary as neither of these represents significant impacts on energy resources. Mitigation is not necessary as this impact would be minor because the amount of required electricity and fuel is small, and local fuel suppliers and utilities have sufficient capacity available to serve the Project’s needs, and the Project will augment the local electricity supply. SLW would collaborate with the utility owners to reduce impacts to their facilities to the maximum extent practicable. SLW would assess work areas two weeks ahead of construction and would provide schools (during the school-year), police, fire, and emergency service agencies with advance notice of lane or road closures. SLW would issue press releases to local newspapers and radio stations regarding lane or road closures. The proposed Project layout would be modified, if necessary, to avoid impact to historic properties to the greatest extent practicable. If NRHP-eligible sites are identified, and if the Project design cannot be adjusted so that the sites may be avoided, it may be necessary to develop an MOA which would outline steps to be taken to mitigate adverse Project effects. Project construction would begin only following successful implementation of all agreed-upon mitigation measures. If it is determined that the Project would result in adverse effects, SLW would consider whether minor redesign is feasible to avoid adverse effects. If avoidance of effects is not possible, SLW would work with the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme, SHPO, the US Army Corps of Engineers, and interested parties to develop an MOA that would stipulate appropriate activities that would be performed to mitigate effects.

There is a remote possibility that some overhead electrical distribution lines would have to be temporarily relocated to accommodate crane routes. During construction, large vehicles and temporary roads closures could block emergency vehicle access to area farms and homes.

Cultural Resources

Construction and operation of the Project could affect archeological resources that are potentially eligible to the NRHP.

Studies are being performed to determine whether the Project might be visible from historic structures listed in, eligible for, or recommended as potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Assessments would be made to determine if the Project may result in adverse effects to potentially significant structures located within the architecture APE. Visual effects that may result in a change to the setting and/or character of a historic property may be assessed as adverse.

1-8

000235

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 1-1 (Sheet 5 of 7) Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Aspect of Affected Environment Visual Resources Potential Impact The Project would be visible from a variety of locations within 5 miles of the proposed Project area. Proposed Mitigation Although the visual mitigation options are limited given the nature of the Project and its siting criteria, the following mitigation measures are proposed for the Project: Turbines would be painted white or light grey with non-specular material and not be used for commercial advertising. Turbines would not be allowed to rust. To the extent practicable, the electrical interconnect between turbines would be installed underground. Overhead electrical transmission from the turbines to the 115 kV transmission line, to the greatest extent practicable, would be sited away from where such infrastructure can be viewed from roads. The developer would also minimize clearing necessary for the installation of the electrical interconnect. The proposed turbines would maintain appropriate buffers from property lines nearby residences, roads and other nearby visually sensitive areas. Perimeter plantings around the substation may be planned to reduce visual impact. Appropriate plantings will be assessed after construction. The proposed turbines would maintain appropriate buffers to minimize visual impact and extended shadow flicker. Settlement agreements could be used to purchase landscape screening (trees, shrubs), or exclusionary treatments such as curtains or blinds. Aviation warning lighting would be limited to the minimum required by the FAA. The Project would purchase aviation warning lights that are shielded or otherwise directed so that they are the least visible from the ground. Due to the height of the proposed turbines, the FAA requires red flashing aviation obstruction lighting to be placed atop the nacelle on a to be determined number of turbines to assure safe flight navigation in the vicinity of the Project.

Some residences located within 10 turbine diameters would experience some degree of shadow flicker in the Town of Cape Vincent.

The United States Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires aviation warning lights on the turbines, which could present a potential adverse visual impact from some viewing locations.

1-9

000236

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 1-1 (Sheet 6 of 7) Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Aspect of Affected Environment Visual - Cumulative Potential Impact Construction of the SLW Project and the BP projects in relatively close proximity to one another may have the potential to create cumulative visual impacts. There may be locations where turbines from projects would be visible, either at the same time or in rapid succession while traveling on area road-ways. In most locations within the study area, only small portions of either project would be visible. However, in some open elevated settings, it is possible that large portions of projects would be visible. Temporary minor adverse impacts to air quality may result from the operation of construction equipment and vehicles. The proposed Project would generate noise during construction. Proposed Mitigation The proposed mitigation described above would be employed.

Air Quality Noise

A Dust Control Plan would be developed and implemented for the construction period. Adhering to regular construction work hours Mondays through Saturdays, and typically not working on Sundays or after hours. Implementing best management procedures during construction, such as using appropriate mufflers. Notifying adjacent landowners of noise impacts in advance. Noise impacts will be avoided by buffers from property lines, residences, roads and other sensitive areas, and by obtaining vendor sound levels produced by the proposed turbines. No mitigation necessary because the Sound Level Study demonstrated that the Project would produce sound levels that are below the significant impacts level and are allowable under applicable regulations. If Project operation results in any impacts to existing off-air television coverage, SLW would address and resolve each individual problem as necessary. Mitigation actions could include adjusting existing receiving antennas, upgrading the antenna, or providing cable or satellite systems to the affected households. Should the NTIA identify any Project-related concerns related to signal blockage following their 30-day review of the Project, SLW would mitigate impacts as required.

The Project would not have significant noise impacts during operation.

Telecommunications

It is unlikely that there would be a significant impact to television signal coverage during Project operation.

It is unlikely that the Project would impact government communications.

1-10

000237

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 1-1 (Sheet 7 of 7) Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Aspect of Affected Environment Potential Impact There is a remote possibility that ice shed from turbines could cause personal or property injury. Proposed Mitigation The use of buffers from roads and property lines and public control measures would minimize the already low public safety risk of ice shed. All turbines would have automatic braking and shutdown. Ice detectors would be installed at previously determined locations to notify maintenance personnel of icing conditions, which would allow the operator to take the appropriate actions. The use of buffers from roads and property lines and public control measures would minimize the already low public safety risk associated with tower collapse or blade failure. The standard engineering design and protection systems incorporated into modern wind turbines would prevent and minimize problems that could lead to tower collapse or blade failure. Stray voltage concerns would be addressed through proper electrical engineering design and installation of all Project electrical components. A Fire Prevention and Control Plan would be developed for the Project to ensure the safety of company employees and local residents, visitors, and their property. Prior to the commencement of construction SLW would present, review and finalize the Fire Prevention and Control Plan in cooperation with local fire departments. The standard lightning protection system installed within the rotor blades would be used to prevent and minimize problems associated with lightning strikes. SLW would design all facilities in accordance with guidance and regulations of the Department of Homeland Security.

Safety and Security

There is a remote possibility that tower collapse or turbine failure could cause personal or property injury.

Wind power facilities have the potential to create stray voltage only if the electrical system is both poorly grounded and located near underground or poorly grounded metal objects. Due to their height, physical dimensions, and complexity, wind turbines may present response difficulties to local emergency responders should a fire occur within or near the structures. Storage and use of diesel fuels, lubricating oils, and hydraulic fluids within the Project boundary also create the potential for fire or medical emergencies. Due the height and materials used to construct, the wind turbines are susceptible to lightning strikes. It is not anticipated that the proposed Project would be a target for any homeland security concerns.

1-11

000238

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 1-2 (Sheet 1 of 2) Permits and Approvals for the St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Agency Towns Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board Town of Cape Vincent Code Enforcement Officer Town of Cape Vincent Code Enforcement Officer Town of Cape Vincent Departments Town of Lyme Planning Board Town of Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Lyme Departments Jefferson County Planning Department Highway Department Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency (JIDA) New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Department of State Division of Coastal Resources Department of Transportation Department of Agriculture & Markets Public Service Commission New York State Energy Research and Development (NYSERDA) New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP) Completion of a NYS General Municipal Law Section 239-m review and issuance of recommendations. County road work permits. Potentially involved with PILOT approval. If so, issuance of SEQRA Findings. Potentially, Article 24 Permit for disturbance of state jurisdictional wetlands. SPDES General Permit for stormwater discharges (creation of SWPPP and SPCCP). Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Issuance of SEQRA Findings as an involved agency. Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination Special Use Permit for oversize/overweight vehicles. Highway work permits. Submit Notice of Intent for work in an Agricultural District. PSL §68 Certificate. Issuance of SEQRA Findings. Administration of Renewable Portfolio Standard procurement. Description of Permit or Approval Required Administration of SEQRA Process, and issuance of findings (as Lead Agency under SEQRA). Site Plan Approval and other land use considerations Zoning Permit for erection of structures (Zoning Law Section 705). Issuance of building permits/certificates of compliance. Review and approval of highway work permits/road agreements. Participation in SEQRA Process as an involved agency; issuance of SEQRA findings Special Permit (Zoning Board of Appeals) and other land use considerations Issuance of building permits/certificates of compliance. Review and approval of highway work permits/road agreements.

Cultural Resources Consultation.

1-12

000239

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 1-2 (Sheet 2 of 2) Permits and Approvals for the St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Agency Federal Agencies Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Description of Permit or Approval Required

Notice of Construction and Aviation Lighting Plan. USACE Nationwide Section 10 Permit for aerial crossing of the Chaumont River. Potential for USACE Section 404 Nationwide Permit for placement of fill in federal jurisdictional wetlands/waters of the U.S. Remote Potential for USACE Section 404 Individual Permit for placement of fill in federal jurisdictional wetlands/water of the U.S. NEPA compliance if Individual Permit. Federal consistency and applicable permits for the Coastal Zone Management per USACE. Consultation regarding special status species. 29 CFR 1910 regulations (standard conditions for safe work practices during construction).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

1-13

000240

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

2.9

Regulatory Approvals

Development of the Project would require permits, approvals, and consultations with local, state, and federal agencies. The permits and approvals that are expected to be required are listed in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1 (Sheet 1 of 2) Permits and Approvals for the St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Agency Towns Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board Town of Cape Vincent Code Enforcement Officer Town of Cape Vincent Code Enforcement Officer Town of Cape Vincent Departments Town of Lyme Planning Board Town of Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Lyme Departments Jefferson County Planning Department Highway Department Jefferson County IDA New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Department of State Division of Coastal Resources Department of Transportation New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets Submit Notice of Intent for work in an Agricultural District. Description of Permit or Approval Required Administration of SEQRA Process, and issuance of findings (as Lead Agency under SEQRA). Site Plan Approval (Planning Board) and other land use considerations for construction of turbine foundations and transmission line to Town boundary Zoning Permit Issuance of building permits/certificates of compliance. Review and approval of highway work permits/road agreements. Participation in SEQRA Process as an involved agency; issuance of SEQRA findings. Special Permit (Zoning Board of Appeals) and other land use considerations for construction of transmission line to substation Issuance of building permits. Review and approval of highway work permits/road agreements. Completion of a NYS General Municipal Law Section 239-m review and issuance of recommendations. County road work permits. Potentially involved with PILOT approval. If so, issuance of SEQRA Findings. Potentially, Article 24 Permit for disturbance of state jurisdictional freshwater wetlands. SPDES General Permit for stormwater discharges (creation of SWPPP and SPCCP). Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Issuance of SEQRA Findings as an involved agency. Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination Special Use Permit for oversize/overweight vehicles. Highway work permits.

2-14

000241

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 2-1 (Sheet 2 of 2) Permits and Approvals for the St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Agency Public Service Commission NYSERDA NYSOPRHP (SHPO) Federal Agencies FAA Description of Permit or Approval Required PSL §68 Certificate. Issuance of SEQRA Findings. Administration of Renewable Portfolio Standard procurement. Cultural Resources Consultation. Notice of Construction and Aviation Lighting Plan. USACE Nationwide Section 10 Permit for aerial crossing of the Chaumont River. Potential for USACE Section 404 Nationwide Permit for placement of fill in federal jurisdictional wetlands/waters of the U.S. Remote Potential for USACE Section 404 Individual Permit for placement of fill in federal jurisdictional wetlands/water of the U.S. NEPA compliance if Individual Permit. Federal consistency and applicable permits for the Coastal Zone Management per USACE. Consultation regarding special status species. 29 CFR 1910 regulations (standard conditions for safe work practices during construction).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service OSHA

2.10

Public and Agency Involvement

SLW has conducted outreach with local governments prior to the submittal of this DEIS. SLW has had numerous informational sessions, meetings, and discussions with the involved Towns regarding the Project over the past several years. SLW has conducted numerous individual meetings with participating landowners and Project neighbors. SLW has also initiated consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). SLW intends to hold community open houses, as necessary, to inform the public of the Project. SLW would also create a Project website, as required by Chapter 641 of the NYS Laws of 2005 (“Ch. 641”) where the public can review the DEIS, obtain other Project information, and submit comments to SLW. During the SEQR process, the public and agencies would have a 30-day review and comment period for this DEIS. The lead agency would hold a public hearing during that period. In addition, several of the permits required for the Project would have public review and comment periods.

2-15

000242

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 3-1 General Description of Soil Series (Taken from Soil Survey of Jefferson County, New York [McDowell, 1989]) Risk of Corrosion Water Bedrock Table Depth Permeability Hydrologic Group¹ Depth (ft) ( in ) ( in/ hr ) C/D >6 10-20 0.6-2.0 D 1.5-1.5 20-40 <0.2 D 0.5-1.0 >60 <0.2 C/D >6 2-10 0.6-2.0 C 1.5-2.0 >60 0.2-2.0 D 0.5-1.5 >60 0.06-0.2 D 0-1.0 >60 0.2-0.6 D 0.5-1.5 >60 0.2-0.6 D 1.5-2.0 20-40 <0.2 pH 5.6-7.3 5.6-7.3 5.6-7.3 5.6-7.8 5.1-7.3 5.1-7.8 5.1-7.3 5.1-7.3 5.6-7.3 Concrete Low Low Moderate Low Low Moderate Low Low Low Uncoated Steel Low High High Low High High High High High Erosion Factors K 0.02 0.49 0.49 0.32 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 Unified Soil Classification² SM/GM MH,CH CH,MH CL,ML ML,CL-ML ML,MH CH,MH ML,MH MH,CH Plasticity Index NP-10 15-50 10-40 3-15 5-19 11-20 10-40 10-25 15-50

Soil Name Benson Chaumont Covington Galoo Hudson Kingsbury Livingston Reinbeck Wilpoint

¹a) Definition Hydrologic group is a group of soils having similar runoff potential under similar storm and cover conditions. Soil properties that influence runoff potential are those that influence the minimum rate of infiltration for a bare soil after prolonged wetting and when not frozen. These properties are depth to a seasonally high water table, intake rate and permeability after prolonged wetting, and depth to a very slowly permeable layer. The influence of ground cover is treated independently. (b) Classes The soils in the United States are placed into four groups, A, B, C, and D, and three dual classes, A/D, B/D, and C/D. In the definitions of the classes, infiltration rate is the rate at which water enters the soil at the surface and is controlled by the surface conditions. Transmission rate is the rate at which water moves in the soil and is controlled by soil properties. Definitions of the classes are as follows: A. (Low runoff potential). The soils have a high infiltration rate even when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly consist of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravels. They have a high rate of water transmission. B. The soils have a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly are moderately deep to deep, moderately well drained to well drained soils that have moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. They have a moderate rate of water transmission. C. The soils have a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly have a layer that impedes downward movement of water or have moderately fine to fine texture. They have a slow rate of water transmission. D. (High runoff potential). The soils have a very slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly consist of clay soils that have a high swelling potential, soils that have a permanent high water table, soils that have a clay pan or clay layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nearly impervious material. They have a very slow rate of water transmission. (1) Dual hydrologic groups, A/D, B/D, and C/D, are given for certain wet soils that can be adequately drained. The first letter applies to the drained condition, the second to the undrained. Only soils that are rated D in their natural condition are assigned to dual classes. Soils may be assigned to dual groups if drainage is feasible and practical. ² Unified Soil Classification, see ASTM D2487.

3-7

000243

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

3.1.3.4

Management of Oil and Hazardous Materials

Wind turbines, and their associated equipment, use lubricating and insulating oils in a closed system. A SPCC Plan would be developed as part of the SWPPP for the construction and operation of the Project as required by the SPDES permits.
3.2 3.2.1 3.2.1.1 Water Resources Groundwater and Groundwater Quality Affected Environment

Glaciolacustrine lake silts and clays overlie consolidated rocks of sedimentary origin in the area of the Project (Cadwell et al., 1991). Small portions of the Project consist of peat muck (swamp deposits) which are poorly drained areas and include of organic silts and sands. The glacial till deposits form surficial aquifers, while bedrock consisting of carbonate rocks (primarily limestone) form deep aquifers. These consolidated rocks yield water primarily from bedding planes, fractures, joints, and faults, rather than from intergranular pores. Carbonate rocks generally yield more water than other types of consolidated rocks because carbonate rocks are subject to dissolution by slightly acidic groundwater. Dissolution along bedding planes, fractures, and joints enlarges these openings and increases the permeability of these carbonate rocks (Isachsen et al., 2000). No known sole-source aquifers occur within the Project area or its vicinity (United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2006a). In 2000, total freshwater use was 17.21 million gallons per day (Mgal/d), of which 13.25 Mgal/d (27 percent) was from surface-water sources and 3.96 Mgal/d (73 percent) was from groundwater (USGS, 2006). However, domestic users acquired 100 percent of their water supply from groundwater sources (USGS, 2006). Table 3-2 lists an excerpt from the USGS report of water usage statistics in Jefferson County, New York. Current data (October 2006) from the EPA indicates that drinking water is obtained from groundwater, surface water and purchased groundwater/surface water resources in Jefferson County (EPA, 2006b).
Table 3-2 Year 2000 Water Usage Statistics in Jefferson County 1 Water Withdrawals2 Groundwater Surface Public supply3 2.17 8.20 Domestic, self-supplied withdrawals 0.45 0.00 1 Source: http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2000/index.html 2 6.39 Mgal/d was industrial use 3 Population (Year 2000) in Jefferson County was approximately 111,740 Type of Usages Unit Mgal/d Mgal/d

3-10

000244

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 3-8 (Sheet 1 of 2) Summary of Listed Species Reported in the Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Database

Common Name Vascular Plants Lilium michiganense Callitriche hermaphroditica Endangered (St.) NHP Yes Yes Endangered (St.) NHP Yes Yes

Scientific Name

Status (State/Federal) Source

Suitable Habitat OnSite?¹

Suitable Habitat in Project Area?¹

Suitable Habitat in Project Area?¹ Wet meadows, floodplain forests, swamps Lakes and streams

Michigan Lily

Autumnal WaterStarwort Fish Carpiodes cyprinus S2-Imperiled (NHP listing) NHP No Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes

Quillback

Rivers and lakes

Reptiles Emydoidea blandingii Yes Shrub swamps, marshes, and shallow ponds Yes No Yes Yes NHP NHP NHP NHP Threatened (St.) NHP No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Marshes, grasslands and croplands Yes Freshwater marshes Agricultural areas Grasslands and rocky inland shores NHP Marshes Grasslands Agriculture fields, grasslands Lakes, rivers, reservoirs Streams, ponds, lakes, marshes

Blanding’s Turtle1

Birds2 Asio flammeus Chlidonias niger Lanius ludovicianus Sterna hirundo Ixobrychus exilis Bartramia longicauda Circus cyaneus Haliaeetus leucocephalus Podilymbus podiceps Threatened (St.) Threatened (St.) Threatened (St./Fed.) Threatened (St.) Threatened (St.) Endangered (St.) NHP Endangered (St.) NHP Endangered (St.) NHP

Short-eared owl

Black Tern

Loggerhead Shrike

Common Tern

Least Bittern

Upland sandpiper

Northern harrier

Bald eagle

Pied-billed grebe

3-31

000245

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Table 3-8 (Sheet 2 of 2) Summary of Listed Species Reported in the Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Database

Common Name Cistothorus platensis Ammodramus henslowii Gavia immer Ardea herodias Spizella pallida Special Concern (St.) NHP Yes Yes Special Concern (St.) NHP Yes Yes Special Concern (St.) NHP No Yes Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes

Scientific Name

Status (State/Federal) Source

Suitable Habitat OnSite?¹

Suitable Habitat in Project Area?¹

Suitable Habitat in Project Area?¹ Marshes and wet meadows Grasslands Lakes Marshes and swamps Grasslands

Sedge Wren

Henslow’s sparrow

Common Loon

Great Blue Heron

Clay-colored sparrow

Mammals Myotis sodalis Myotis leibii Special Concern (St.) NHP No Endangered (St./Fed.) NHP Yes

3

Indiana bat

Yes Yes

Eastern small-footed myotis

Caves, mines, under rocks and tree bark, floodplain forest, beech-maple forest, limestone woodlands Caves, mines, under rocks and tree bark, forest and forest edge

1. 2.

Documented within 0.6 mile of project site (NHP) Avian species that may be located within a 10-mile buffer of the project boundary 3. Bats that may be located within a 40-mile buffer of the project boundary but have been documented beyond the boundaries of the project site

3-32

000246

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

8.0

LIST OF PREPARERS

This DEIS has been developed under the direction of the Applicant (St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC) with input from the following list of preparers. SLW’s lead consultant, Tetra Tech EC, Inc. was responsible for the majority of the SEQRA required elements of the document.
Firms Involved in Preparation of the St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project DEIS
Tetra Tech EC, Inc. 1000 The American Road Morris Plains, New Jersey 07950 Ethan Prout, PG Senior Geoscientist / Project Manager (973) 630-8162 Core DEIS Group: Thomas Adams, Consulting Scientist (Acoustic Study/Sound Level Report) Shaun Brooks, Environmental Planner (Land Use, Zoning, Socioeconomics, Planning) Michael Byle, PE, F.ASCE, Engineer Manager (Geotechnical & Transportation) Michael Ernst, Esq., Senior Energy Consultant (SEQR and Legal Review) Joseph Fischl, Senior Ecologist and SEQRA Technical Lead (Biology, Ecology, Natural Resources and SEQR Specialist) Sydne Marshall, Ph.D., Cultural Resources Lead (Cultural Resources & Archeology) Dominic Oppedisano, GIS Specialist (Geographic Information Systems [GIS]) Vinu Patel, PE, Engineer (Geotechnical & Transportation) Amy Parsons, Biologist (Biology, Ecology and Natural Resources) Stuart Reeve, Ph.D., Project Archeologist (Cultural Resources & Archeology) Heidemarie Roldan, Engineer (Deputy Project Manager) James Sexton, Ph.D., Architectural Historian (Architectural Resources) Jebby Varughese, Engineer (Geotechnical & Transportation) Jennifer Vitella, Biologist (Biology, Ecology and Natural Resources) Saratoga Associates, Inc. 443 Broadway Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 Matt Allen, RLA, Associate Principal (518) 587-2550 Comsearch 19700 Janelia Farms Boulevard Ashburn, Virginia 20147 Denise Finney, Project Manager (703) 726-5650 Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 2003 Central Avenue Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001 Lyman McDonald (307) 634-1756

8-1

000247

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

9.0

REFERENCES

American Wind Energy Association, 2006a. Website a. Wind Energy Fact Sheets: Comparative Air Emissions of Wind and Other Fuels, Wind Energy and Noise, Wind Power Myths vs. Facts. Accessed April 2006. http://www.awea.org/pubs/ factsheets.html. American Wind Energy Association, 2006b. Wind Energy and Climate Change. Website b. Accessed April 2006. http://www.awea.org/policy/ccwp.html. American Wind Energy Association, 2006c. Wind Energy and the Environment. Website c. Accessed April 2006. http://www.awea.org/faq/. American Wind Energy Association, 2006d. Small Wind in New York. Website d. Accessed November 28, 2006. http://www.awea.org/smallwind/newyork.html. Building Code of New York State, 2002. International Code Council and New York State Department of State. Cadwell, D.H, 1991. Surficial Geology of New York-Adirondack Sheet, New York State Geological Survey. Map and charts series no: 40. Census of Agriculture, 2006. National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2002 Census of Agriculture. Accessed November 28, 2006. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census_of_ Agriculture/index.asp. Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero (editors). 2002. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draft for review). New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, M.D. Strickland, D.P. Young, Jr., K.J. Sernka, and R.E. Good. 2001. Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States. National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC). 62 pp. Edsall, R., 2006. Personal communication between Richard Edsall, Town of Cape Vincent and Shaun Brooks, Tetra Tech EC. December 6, 2006. Evans, R.E., 2005. Wind Turbines and Radio Frequency Interference. Windpower. November 2005, pp. 16 -18. North American

9-1

000248

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1992. FEMA Map Service Center. Town of Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY., Flood Insurance Rate Map No: 01-06, Community No: 361062C, Map Dated; June 02, 1992, http://www.msc.fema.gov. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1993, FEMA Map Service Center. Town of Lyme, Jefferson County, NY., Panel 41 of 50 and 50 of 50, Community No: 360343 0041C and 360343 0050C, Map Dated; September 02, 1993, http://www.msc.fema.gov. Hawk Migration Association of North America, http://www.hawkcount.org [December 21, 2006]. 2006. Hawkcount! [Online].

Isachsen,Y.W, E.Landing, J.M.Lauber, L.V.Rickard, W.B.Rogers (editors), 2000. Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department, 2006. Jefferson County, New York Sheriff’s Department. Accessed November 27, 2006. http://www.co.jefferson.ny.us/jefflive.nsf/ sheriff. Johnson, G.D, 2005. A Review of Bat Mortality at Wind Energy Developments in the United States. Bat Research News 46:45-49. Johnson, G. D., W.P. Erickson, M.D. Strickland, R.E. Good, and P. Becker 2000. Avian and Bat Mortality Associated in the Initial Phase of the Foote Creek Rim Windpower Project, Carbon County, Wyoming: November 3, 1998-October 31, 1999. Report to SeaWest Energy Corp. and Bureau of Land Management. A Review of Bird Mortality at Wind Development in the United States. Kerns, J., and P. Kerlinger, 2004. A study of bird and bat collision fatalities at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center, Tucker County, West Virginia: Annual report for 2003. Prepared for FPL Energy and Mountaineer Wind Energy Center Technical Review Committee. Kushlan, James, A., Melanie J. Steinkamp, Katharine C. Parsons, Jack Capp, Martin Acosta Cruz, Malcolm Coulter, Ian Davidson, Loney Dickson, Naomi Edelson, Richard Elliot, R. Michael Erwin, Scott Hatch, Stephen Kress, Robert Milko, Steve Miller, Kyra Mills, Richard Paul, Roberto Phillips, Jorge E. Saliva, Bill Sydeman, John Trapp, Jennifer Wheeler, and Kent Wohl. 2002. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas: The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version 1. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. Washington, DC, U.S.A. 78 pp. Leddy, K.L., K.F. Higgins, and D.E. Naugle. 1999. Effects of Wind Turbines on Upland Birds in Conservation Reserve Programs. Wilson Bulletin 1111(1):100-104.
9-2

000249

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Lighthouses of Jefferson County, 2006. Lighthouses of Jefferson County, New York. Accessed November 28, 2006. http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Meadows/3702/jefflights2. html. Losito, M.P., 1993. Breeding ecology of female mallards in the St. Lawrence Valley, northern New York. Ph.D Dissertation, St. Univ. of New York, Syracuse. 110pp. McDowell,W.E., 1989, Soil Survey of Jefferson County, New York. United States Department of Agriculture, Soils Conservation Service, in cooperation with Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station. Morgan, C., Bossanyi, E., and Seifert, H., 1998. Assessment of Safety Risks Arising from Wind Turbine Icing. Proceeding of the International Conference, Wind Energy Production in Cold Climate, BOREAS IV, held at Hetta, Finland, March 31–April 2. Published by Finnish Meteorological Institute. Accessed November 27, 2006. http://virtual.vtt.fi/virtual/arcticwind/boreasiv/assessment_of_safety.pdf. National Audubon Society, 2002. The Christmas Bird Count Historical Results [Online]. http://www.audubon.org/bird/cbc [December 20, 2006]. National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC), 2005. Technical Considerations in Siting Wind Developments. Accessed April 2006. http://www.nationalwind.org/ New York Natural Heritage Program, 2006. Letter dated December 12, 2006 from Tata Seoane, Information Services, NY Natural Heritage Program to Jennifer Vitella, Biologist, Tetra Tech EC, Inc. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2000. Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts, Program Policy. Albany, NY. July 31, 2000. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2001. Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts, Program Policy. Albany, NY. February 2, 2001 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2004. New York State Water Quality Section 305b Report - 2004. Appendix A - Watershed/Basin Water Quality Summaries. Accessed 4 December 2006. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ dow/bwam/305b/appa.pdf

9-3

000250

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2006a. 2005 Annual New York State Air Quality Report - Ambient Air Monitoring System. Albany, NY. Accessed November 2006. www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dar/baqs/aqreport/ New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2006b. Mined Land Database, Accessed 6 December, 2006. http://www.dec.state.ny.us. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2006c. Endangered Species Program. Bald Eagles in the Saint Lawrence River Region. Accessed 13 December 2006. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/eaglestl.html New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2006d. nynhp.org/guide.php. http://www.acris.

New York State Department of Health, 2006a. Jefferson County Emergency Medical Services. Accessed November 27, 2006. http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/ems/counties/ jefferson.htm. New York State Department of Health, 2006b. Jefferson County Hospitals. Accessed November 27, 2006. www.hospitals.nyhealth.gov. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, 2006. Sales and Use Tax Exemption of Clothing, Footwear, and Items Used to Make or Repair Exempt Clothing. March 29. Accessed on November 27, 2006. http://www.tax.state.ny.us/pdf/memos/sales/m06 6_1s.pdf. New York State Education Department, 2006a. Overview of School Performance in English Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science and Analysis of Student Subgroup Performance for Thousand Island Central School. April. Accessed November 27, 2006. http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/repcrd2005/overview-analysis/220701040000.pdf. New York State Education Department, 2006b. Overview of School Performance in English Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science and Analysis of Student Subgroup Performance for Lyme Central School. April. Accessed November 27, 2006. http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/repcrd2005/overview-analysis/221301040000.pdf. New York State Energy Planning Board, June 2002. Energy Plan. Accessed April 2006. http://www.nyserda.org/ Energy_Information/energy_state_plan.asp

9-4

000251

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, 2006. State Parks. Accessed November 27, 2006. http://nysparks.state.ny.us/parks/.http://nysparks. state.ny.us/parks/. New York State Office of Real Property Services, 2006. New York Office of Real Property Services Municipal Profile. Accessed on November 28, 2006. http://www.orps. state.ny.us/cfapps/MuniPro/index.cfm. New York State Police, 2006. Troop D Information. Accessed November 27, 2006. http://www.troopers.state.ny.us/Contact%5FUs/Troop%5FInformation/Troop%5FD/. New York State Public Service Commission – Renewable Portfolio Standard, 2006. Accessed April 2006. http://www.dps.state.ny.us/03e0188.htm Nicholson, C.P. 2002. Buffalo Mountain Windfarmbird and bat mortality monitoring report: October 2000 – September 2001. Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee. Nicholson, C.P. 2003. Buffalo Mountain Windfarmbird and bat mortality monitoring report: October 2001 – September 2002 . Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee. North American Water Management Plan (1986), Partners in Flight (1990), U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (2001) and the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (2002). Northern Ecological Associates, Inc. 1994. Waterfowl and grassland bird surveys in sheetwater wetlands and adjacent farmlands in the St. Lawrence focus area of northern New York state. U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Service, Hadley, MA. 44pp. Payne, H.H. and R.W. Cochran. 1972. Ecological Survey Report of the Cape Vincent Area. The Central New York Chapter of the Nature Conservancy. Pashley, D.N., C.J. Beardmore, J.A. Fitzgerald, R.P. Ford, W.C. Hunter, M.S. Morrison, K. V. Rosenberg, 2000. Partners in flight: conservation of the land birds of the United States. American Bird Conservancy. The Plains, VA. 91 pp. Richard, L.V. and D.W. Fischer, 1970. Geologic Map of New York, New York State Museum and Science Service, Albany, NY, Adirondack Sheet Map and Chart series no: 15. Rosenberg, K.V., 2001. Partners In Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: Bird Conservation Region 13 – Lower Great Lakes/St.Lawrence Plain. Draft. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. 12pp.

9-5

000252

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Ruedemann, R., H.P. Crushing, H.L. Fairchild, C.H. Smyth Jr., 1908. Museum bulletin 145, Geology of The Thousand Islands Region, Alexandria Bay, Cape Vincent, Clayton, Grindstone and Theresa. New York State Museum/Geologic Survey, Albany, New York. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon, 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2005. Version 6.2.2006. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD [December 20, 2006]. Staudenmayer, T., 2006. Personal communication between Terry Staudenmayer, Zoning Board of Appeals Chairperson, Town of Lyme and Shaun Brooks, Tetra Tech EC. November 28, 2006. The Barre Montpelier Times Argus Newspaper, 2006. Lightning strike wrecks Searsburg turbine blade. Accessed April 2006. http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/ 20060222/NEWS/602220326/1003/NEWS02. February 2006. Town of Cape Vincent Zoning Law, 1989. Zoning Law: Amended in 1991, 1993, and 1998. Amended in 2006 to Recognize Wind Power Facilities. Town of Lyme, 1989. Town of Lyme Zoning Ordinance. Portions amended in 1997, 1993, and 1989. TtEC, 2007. Draft Phase 1A Cultural Resources Investigation, St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project, Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme, Jefferson County, New York. Prepared by Tetra Tech EC, Inc., Morris Plains, NJ. Prepared for St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC., Cape Vincent, NY. U.S. Census Bureau, 2006. Towns/Villages of Cape Vincent and Lyme in Jefferson County, New York American Fact Finder. Accessed on November 28, 2006. http://factfinder. census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. November 2005. Technical Note: Development of Obstruction Lighting Standards for Wind Turbine Farms (DOT/FAA/AR-TN05/50). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 23, 2006a (Last Updated). Region II Sole Source Aquifers. http://www.epa.gov/region02/water/aquifer/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 3, 2006b (Last Updated). Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) – Jefferson County, New York.

9-6

000253

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/sdw_query_v2.get_list?wsys_name=&fac_search=fac_begi nning&fac_county=JEFFERSON&pop_serv=500&pop_serv=3300&pop_serv=10000&p op_serv=100000&pop_serv=100001&sys_status=active&pop_serv=&wsys_id=&fac_sta te=NY&last_fac_name=&page=1&query_results=&total_rows_found= U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006c (Last Updated). Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/. March 15, 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001. U. S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, second edition - May 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006. Environmental Assessment for the St. Lawrence Wetland and Grassland Management District. Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Saint Lawrence Wetland and Grassland Management District, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Refuge Planning and Ducks Unlimited, Great Lakes/Atlantic Region. 64pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1986. Strategy for Cooperation. 19pp. North American Waterfowl Management Plan. A

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005. National Wetlands Inventory. 12 December 2006. http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/ U.S. Geological Survey, 2000. Estimated Use of Water in the United States County-Level Data for 2000. http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2000/index.html. U.S. Geological Survey, 2006. November 15, 2006 (Last Updated). New York – Jefferson County real-time water information. http://ny.cf.er.usgs.gov/nywin/county.cfm? countyCode=045 U.S. Geological Survey, 1992. National Land Cover Database. http://landcover.usgs.gov/ natllandcover.php. United States Geological Survey, 1958a. Cape Vincent North 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map, New York Quadrangle, Photo Inspected 1980, 1958. United States Geological Survey, 1958b. Cape Vincent South 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map, New York Quadrangle, Photo Inspected 1980, 1958. United States Geological Survey, 1958c Chaumont 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map, New York Quadrangle, 1958.

9-7

000254

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

United States Geological Survey, 1958d St. Lawrence 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map, New York Quadrangle, 1958. Village of Cape Vincent, 2005. Active Programs. Accessed December 11, 2006. http://www.capevincent.org/village/activeprograms.asp. Wells, D.L. 2000. Landbird conservation in the St. Lawrence Plain: the distribution and grassland, shrubland, and forest-dwelling species in continuously changing landscape. U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Service. Richville, NY. 25pp. Wisconsin Rural Energy Management Council, 2000. Wisconsin Legislative Council Information Memorandum. Accessed April 2006. http://www.legis.state.wi.us/ lc/jlc00/im00_13.pdf Yarnall, G., 2002. Jefferson County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan. Agriculture Plan compiled by George Yarnall. Accessed November 27, 2006. http://www.co.jefferson.
ny.us/pdfs/farmprot.pdf.

9-8

000255

000256

000257

000258

000259

PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT SOUND LEVEL REPORT JANUARY 2007
INTRODUCTION

Tetra Tech EC, Inc. (TtEC) performed computer modeling in order to calculate sound levels that would be generated by operation of the proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy project (Project) located in the Town of Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, New York. The commercially available CadnaA model, developed by Datakustik GmBH, was used for this analysis. The software takes into account spreading losses, ground and atmospheric effects, shielding from terrain, barriers and buildings, and reflections from surfaces. The software is standards-based and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9613-2 standard was used for air absorption and other noise propagation calculations (ISO, 1989). SLW proposes to install and operate approximately ninety-six (96) Gamesa G87 2.0 megawatt (MW) wind turbines, or equivalent, at the Project. For the purposes of this model, all of the turbines were assumed to be operating at their maximum sound level, which occurs at wind speeds of 8 meters/second (m/s) and above, as measured at 10 meters above the ground. The wind turbine hub is located 83.8 meters above the ground. The model results are presented in two ways. First, TtEC depicted noise contours that show the distribution of noise levels from 45 decibels (dBA) up to 55 dBA over the entire Project area. Secondly, TtEC depicted the calculated sound level at specific receptor points, which are the nearest residences. Both the noise contours and the receptors are overlaid on the same topographic map of the area. Predicted levels at the specific receptor points are presented in tabular format.

D-1

000260

APPLICABLE NOISE STANDARDS AND ORDINANCES The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) document entitled Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts (NYSDEC; February 2, 2001) provides the following guidance for assessing noise impacts: Table 1 Effect of Increases in Noise Levels on Receptors
Increase in Existing Ambient Sound Levels (dBA) 0–3 3–6 >6 Expected Effect on Receptors No appreciable effect. Potential for adverse noise impact only in cases where the most sensitive receptors are present. Potential noise impact. Requires a closer analysis of impact potential depending on existing sound pressure levels (SPLs) and the character of surrounding land use and receptors. Perceived as a doubling of the sound level.

10

Based on the above guidance, TtEC used an increase in the ambient level of 6 dBA as an indication of potential noise impacts. Sound levels less than a 6 dBA increase were an indication of no potential noise impacts. In addition, the NYSDEC policy indicates that the typical ambient level in rural environments is 45 dBA, where ambient noise is defined as the all encompassing noise from sources near and far and is determined by the Leq measure. Leq is the equivalent sound level that combines the time-varying sound levels over the measurement period into a single number. It can be thought of as the average noise level, but it is computed using logarithmic equations rather than the usual arithmetic method used to determine an average of a group of values. The Leq is always a little higher than the arithmetic average because of the greater levels of energy contained in the higher sound levels.

D-2

000261

Table 2 provides examples of sound levels of common sources of noise.
Table 2 Typical A-Weighted* Sound Levels
Sound Level (dBA) 180 160 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Source/Location Rocket Engine at 3 feet Sonic Boom Threshold of Pain Hydraulic Press at 3 feet Pneumatic Riveter at 3 feet Unmuffled Motorcycle at 3 feet Chain Saw at 3 feet Train at 100 feet Truck Traffic at 50 feet Auto Traffic at 50 feet Normal Conversation Typical Office Bedroom at Night Soft Whisper Sound Test Booth Breathing Threshold of Hearing No Sound Very Quiet Quiet Typical Moderately Loud Very Loud Extremely Loud Slight Pain Subjective Impression Severe Pain

Source: Compiled by T. Adams (TtEC) from various sources. * A-weighted sound levels are levels that have been adjusted to match the frequency response of the human auditory system. NOISE MODEL INPUT DATA

The specific wind turbine for the Project has not been determined at this time. As a result, the sound power level of the wind turbine with the current highest sound rating of a typical 2.0 MW wind turbine was used in this model. This turbine is the Gamesa G87 turbine with an Aweighted sound power rating of 105.3 dBA. The selected turbine will likely have a slightly lower sound rating. The data are provided as octave band sound power levels (PWL) in decibels (referenced to 10-12 watts). Sound power is a measure of the total acoustic power generated by a sound source and is independent of distance from the source. The un-weighted octave band sound power levels are presented in Table 3.

D-3

000262

Atmospheric absorption of sound from the turbines was calculated using a temperature of 10 degrees Celsius (50 degrees Fahrenheit) and a relative humidity level of 70 percent; typical for this area of New York. The ground absorption coefficient was selected as 0.5; where 0.0 is indicative of a highly reflective ground surface such as pavement or calm water, and 1.0 is highly absorptive ground surface such as agricultural land and forest. Since the Project consists of primarily agriculture with some forested areas, 1.0 would be the most realistic coefficient, but use of 0.5 would produce a more conservative modeled result for the purposes of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).
Table 3 Sound Power Levels Of Gamesa G87 Wind Turbine
Octave Band Center Frequency (Hertz)
31.5 PWL (dB re: 10-12 watts) 118.8 63 111.8 125 107.7 250 105.2 500 103.0 1k 100.8 2k 95.8 4k 88.6 8k 78.3 Total (dBA) 105.3 Total (dB) 120.2

RESULTS The modeled Project noise contour map is presented as Figure 1. The predicted level at 150 meters (500 feet) from each turbine is about 50 dBA and the area for potential impacts is small around the turbines ranging from about 250 meters (800 feet) for a single turbine where the ambient level is 40 dBA and up to 400 meters (1,300 feet) for multiple turbines in close proximity to each other at the same low ambient level. Higher ambient levels would cause the size of the potential impact area to shrink. Potential noise impacts were compared to an ambient sound level of 45 dBA. Measurements recently obtained at other proposed wind farm sites in New York confirm that the 45 dBA level presented in the NYSDEC noise policy is fairly accurate. Predicted sound levels at the 246 nearest residences and one (1) school identified in the area (Figure 1) vary from 22.9 to 48.3 dBA (Table 4). Houses not indicated by a symbol in Figure 1 are outside the Project boundaries and further from the turbines where the predicted levels would be below 22.9 dBA. The last column of the table shows the calculated increase in the assumed existing ambient level of 45 dBA. These increases range from zero to 5.0 dBA. These predicted increases in sound levels over the existing ambient are all below the 6 dBA increase identified by the NYSDEC as having the potential to produce a noise impact.

D-4

000263

The highest predicted level of 48.3 dBA is only 3.3 dBA above the existing ambient of 45 dBA. This level is below the 5 dBA increase allowed per the draft Town of Cape Vincent amended zoning regulations. This indicates that the project will also be in compliance with the draft amended zoning regulations if they are promulgated. As a result, noise levels from the proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project are in compliance with State guidelines, local draft zoning ordinance criteria for noise associated with commercial wind turbine operation, and will not produce noise impacts above New York policy. The predicted turbine sound level at the 1,000 Islands High School at the northeastern tip of the Project is only 41.1 dBA, which is below the existing ambient level and does not appear to pose noise concerns. Table 4 Predicted Sound Levels at Nearest Receptors to Turbines
Predicted Sound Level Range (dBA) 22.9 – 24.9 25 – 29.9 30 – 34.9 35 – 39.9 40 – 44.9 45 – 48.3 Number of Residences within Range 7 3 38 67 84 48 Predicted Increase in 45 dBA Ambient (dBA) 0 0 – 0.1 0.1 – 0.4 0.4 – 1.2 1.2 – 3.0 3.0 – 5.0

Table 5 presents the predicted sound level results in 100-foot increments from the base of a turbine extending from 100 feet to 2,000 feet. These results were obtained using the same conservative assumptions described above for the noise modeling. This table should be used as a general guide only since the values do not include the additive effect of multiple turbines located in close proximity to each other.

D-5

000264

Table 5 Predicted Sound Levels in 100-Foot Increments From a Single Isolated Turbine
Distance from Base of Turbine (feet) 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 Predicted Sound Level (dBA) 56 54.4 52.5 50.8 49.2 47.8 46.6 45.4 44.4 43.4 42.5 41.7 40.9 40.2 39.5 38.9 38.2 37.7 37.1 36.6

CONCLUSION Predicted sound levels from the Project turbines operating at maximum sound level producing conditions are quite low at the surrounding residences (i.e. < 48.3 dBA) and would not add significantly to existing ambient sound levels, nor create a significant noise impact. In general, the Project turbines would be inaudible at most residences outside the noise contours shown in Figure 1. Predicted levels are in compliance with the NYSDEC noise policy guidelines and the local Town of Cape Vincent draft ordinance regarding potential noise impacts associated with commercial wind turbine operation.

D-6

000265

REFERENCES DataKustik GmbH, 2005. Computer Aided Noise Abatement Model CadnaA, Version 3.5. Munich, Germany. ISO, 1989. International Organization for Standardization. Standard ISO 9613-2 Acoustics – Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors. Geneva, Switzerland.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). February 2, 2001. Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts, Program Policy. Albany, New York.

D-7

000266

000267

ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT VISUAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

Tetra Tech EC, Inc. 1000 The American Road Morris Plains, New Jersey 07950 January 7, 2007

Prepared for:

Landscape Architects, Architects, Engineers and Planners, P.C.

©Copyright All Rights Reserved Saratoga Associates #06-115

000268

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project– Visual Resource Assessment Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................4 1.1 Methodology ...................................................................................................................4 1.2 Project Description..........................................................................................................5
1.2.1 Aviation Obstruction Marking and Lighting ......................................................................... 6

2.0 Landscape Character/Visual Setting..................................................................................8 2.1 Topography and Vegetation ...........................................................................................8 2.2 Water Features ...............................................................................................................9 2.3 Transportation...............................................................................................................10 2.4 Population Centers .......................................................................................................10 3.0 Visual Impact Assessment................................................................................................12 3.1 Viewshed Mapping (Zone of Visual Influence)..............................................................12
3.1.1 Viewshed Methodology ..................................................................................................... 12 3.1.2 Verification of Viewshed Accuracy.................................................................................... 14 3.1.3 Viewshed Interpretation .................................................................................................... 14

3.2 Inventory of Visually Sensitive Resources ....................................................................18
3.2.1 Inventory Criteria............................................................................................................... 18 3.2.2 Summary Characteristics of Inventoried Resources......................................................... 20 3.2.3 Visibility Evaluation of Inventoried Resources .................................................................. 23

3.3 Factors Affecting Visual Impact ....................................................................................28
3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 Landscape Units ............................................................................................................... 28 Viewer/User Groups.......................................................................................................... 30 Distance Zones ................................................................................................................. 32 Duration/Frequency/Circumstances of View..................................................................... 32 Summary of Affected Resources ...................................................................................... 33

3.4 Degree of Project Visibility ............................................................................................36
3.4.1 Field Observation and Photography ................................................................................. 36 3.4.2 Photo Simulations ............................................................................................................. 36 3.4.3 Line-of-Sight Profiles......................................................................................................... 40

3.5 Character of Project Visibility ........................................................................................40
3.5.1 Compatibility with Regional Landscape Patterns.............................................................. 40 3.5.2 Visual Character during the Construction Period.............................................................. 41

3.6 Shadow Flicker Analysis ...............................................................................................42
3.6.1 Shadow Flicker Methodology............................................................................................ 43 3.6.2 Shadow Flicker Impact on Existing Structures ................................................................. 44

4.0 Mitigation Program ............................................................................................................45 5.0 Summary and Discussion of Potential Visual Impact ....................................................48 Appendix A Photographic Simulations Appendix B Line-of-Sight Profiles Appendix C Shadow Flicker Calculations
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 1

000269

List of Figures
Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure A1 Figure A2 Figure A3 Figure A4 Figure A5 Figure A6 Figure A7 Figure A8 Figure A9 Figure A10 Figure A11 Figure A12 Figure A13 Figure A14 Figure A15 Figure A16 Figure B1 Figure B2 Figure B3 Figure B4 Figure B5 Figure B6 Figure B7 Figure B8 Figure B9 Figure B10 Figure C1 Figure C2 5–Mile Viewshed – Topography Only ................................................................................16 5–Mile Viewshed – Topography and Vegetation.................................................................17 Visually Sensitive Resource Location Map.........................................................................24 Photo Simulation Location Map........................................................................................38 Photo Simulation – VP#2 Broadway Historic District ......................................................... A-1 Photo Simulation – VP#24 Village of Cape Vincent Boat Launch ........................................ A-3 Photo Simulation – VP#27 Cocaigne, Nicholas, House...................................................... A-5 Photo Simulation – VP#33 Intersection Merchant Rd. & CR6 ............................................. A-7 Photo Simulation – VP#35 Dyer, Reuter, House ............................................................... A-9 Photo Simulation – VP#38 Wilson, Warren, House.......................................................... A-11 Photo Simulation – VP#39 Intersection Favret Rd. & Hell St. ........................................... A-13 Photo Simulation – VP#40 Burnham Point State Park/Seaway Trail ................................. A-15 Photo Simulation – VP#43 Vautrin, Claude, House.......................................................... A-17 Photo Simulation – VP#45 NY Rte.12E - Seaway Trail Near Millen Bay ............................. A-19 Photo Simulation – VP#48 Docteur, Joseph, House........................................................ A-21 Photo Simulation – VP#58 Intersection Macomb Settlement Rd. & St. Lawrence Rd. (CR9) A-23 Photo Simulation – VP#59 Intersection Rosiere Rd. (CR4) & St. Lawrence Rd. (CR9)........ A-25 Photo Simulation – VP#59.1 NY Rte. 12E- Seaway Trail at Cedar Point State Park............ A-27 Photo Simulation – VP#61 NY Rte.12E - Seaway Trail Near Pelo Rd................................. A-29 Photo Simulation – VP#36.1 Long Point State Park ........................................................ A-31 Line-of-Sight Profile A-A’ – Village of Clayton Looking to Turbine #93.................................. B-1 Line-of-Sight Profile B-B’ – Wolfe Island North Looking to Turbine #86................................ B-2 Line-of-Sight Profile C-C’ – Hamlet of Saint Lawrence Looking to Turbine #77..................... B-3 Line-of-Sight Profile D-D’ – Wolf island at Banford Point Looking to turbine #65................... B-4 Line-of-Sight Profile E-E’ – Carleton Island West Looking to Turbine #65............................. B-5 Line-of-Sight Profile F-F’ – Carleton Island East Looking to Turbine #33 .............................. B-6 Line-of-Sight Profile G-G’ – Wolfe Island South Looking to Turbine #9 ................................. B-7 Line-of-Sight Profile H-H’ – Grenadier Island Looking to Turbine #5..................................... B-8 Line-of-Sight Profile I-I’ – Long Point State Park Looking to Turbine #18 ............................. B-9 Line-of-Sight Profile J-J’ – Hamlet of Three Mile Bay Looking to Turbine #34 ..................... B-10 Proposed Turbine Shadow Limits – Topography Only ....................................................... C-3 Proposed Turbine Shadow Limits – Vegetated ................................................................. C-4

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 2

000270

List of Tables
Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table C1 Viewshed Coverage Summary .........................................................................................14 Demographic Summary of Study Area Municipalities (2000 Census) .......................................20 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes for Study Area Highways (NYSDOT 2004) ....................20 Visual Resource Visibility Summary ..................................................................................25 Visual Resource Impact Summary....................................................................................34 Key Receptors Selected for Photo Simulation ...................................................................36 Shadow Impact on Existing Structures ............................................................................ C-1

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 3

000271

1.0

INTRODUCTION

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC (SLW) is proposing to develop a wind-powered electrical-generating facility of approximately 95 turbine locations with a capacity of approximately 136 megawatts (MW). The proposed Project will be located in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme in Jefferson County, New York. All turbines, temporary construction laydown area, access roads, underground interconnect lines, operations and maintenance building, and an electrical substation are proposed to be located in the Town of Cape Vincent; a majority of the overhead transmission line and the existing transmission grid point of interconnection are in the Town of Lyme. To address issues of potential visual impact, SLW has retained Saratoga Associates, Landscape Architects, Architects, Engineers, and Planners, P.C. to conduct a thorough and detailed Visual Resource Assessment (VRA) of the proposed Project. The purpose of this VRA is to identify potential visual and aesthetic impacts and to provide an objective assessment of the visual character of the Project, using standard accepted methodologies of visual assessment, from which agency decisionmakers can render a supportable determination of visual significance.

1.1 METHODOLOGY
Consistent with Visual Resource Assessment (VRA) practice, this report evaluates the potential visibility of the proposed Project and objectively determines the difference between the visual characteristics of the landscape setting with and without the Project in place. The process follows basic New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Program Policy “Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts” (NYSDEC 2000) (DEC Visual Policy) and State Environmental Quality Review (SEQRA) criteria to minimize impacts on visual resources. This process provides a practical guide so decision makers and the public can understand the potential visual impacts and make an informed judgment about their significance (aesthetic impact). There are no specific Federal rules, regulations, or policies governing the evaluation of visual resources. However, the methodology employed herein is based on standards and procedures used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (National Forest Service, 1974, 1995), U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDOI, 1980), U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (USDOT, 1981), NYS Department of Transportation (NYSDOT, 1988), and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC, July 31, 2000). This evaluation includes both quantitative (how much is seen and from what locations; or visual impact) and qualitative (how it will be perceived; aesthetic impact) aspects of visual assessment. The visual impact assessment includes the following steps: Define the existing landscape character/visual setting to establish the baseline visual condition from which visual change is evaluated; Conduct a visibility analysis (viewshed mapping and field investigations) to define the geographic area surrounding the proposed facility from which portions of the Project might be seen;
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 4

000272

Identify sensitive aesthetic resources to establish priority places from which further analysis of potential visual impact is conducted; Select key receptors from which detailed impact analysis is conducted; Depict the appearance of the facility upon completion of construction; Evaluate the aesthetic effects of the visual change (qualitative analysis) resulting from Project construction, completion and operation; and, Identify opportunities for effective mitigation. Consistent with the DEC Visual Policy, the visual study area for this VRA generally extends to a 5mile radius from the outermost turbines (hereafter referred to as the “five-mile radius study area” or “study area”). Beyond this distance it is assumed that natural conditions of atmospheric and linear perspective will significantly mitigate most visual impacts. However, considering the scale of the proposed Project and recognizing the proposed wind turbines will, at times, be visible at distances greater than five miles, site-specific consideration is given to resources of high cultural or scenic importance that are located beyond the typical 5-mile radius. The five-mile radius study area encompasses all of the Town and Village of Cape Vincent as well as portions of the adjacent Towns of Lyme and Clayton. The Village of Clayton is just outside of the five-mile radius study area. This VRA was prepared by a New York State registered Landscape Architect experienced in the specialized discipline of visual and aesthetic impact assessment.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project area is in the western portion of Jefferson County in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme. Jefferson County is located in northwestern New York and is bordered by the St. Lawrence River to the north and Lake Ontario to the west, St. Lawrence County to the northeast, Lewis County to the southeast, and Oswego County to the south. Jefferson County is primarily rural and dominated by agricultural land, scattered rural homes, and farms. The major population center of the County is the City of Watertown, which is about 25 miles southeast of the Project area. The proposed wind energy-generating turbines will be located within an area measuring approximately nine (9) miles by two (2) miles in the north-central portion of the Town of Cape Vincent. The Project perimeter (excluding the overhead transmission line), hereafter referred to as the “turbine area”, is generally bounded by County Route (CR) 6 (Pleasant Valley Road) to the west, NYS Route 12E to the north, CR 9 (Sand Bay Road) to the east, and CR4 (Rosiere Road) to the south. The proposed Project includes wind energy generating turbines in sufficient number to produce up to 136 MW of electricity. However, the specific turbine type and model has not yet been selected for this Project. The Project will consist of up to approximately 95 turbines at an output of up to 3.0 MW each. Due to changes in the conceptual layout, this VRA evaluates 95 of the largest turbine structure (3.0 MW) currently under consideration.
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 5

000273

The specification of a 3.0 MW turbine is used in this analysis. Turbine towers are assumed to be 275 feet tall from ground to nacelle (hub) and approximately 15 feet in diameter at the base. Each of the three turbine blades is assumed to be 150 feet in length (300-foot rotor diameter) with the apex of blade rotation reaching approximately 425 feet above ground elevation. 1 Each turbine will include a tall steel tower; a rotor consisting of three composite blades; and a nacelle, which houses the generator, gearbox, and power train. A transformer may be located in the rear of each nacelle, or adjacent to the base of the tower, to raise the voltage of the electricity produced by the turbine generator to the voltage level of the collection system . The color of the blades, nacelle, and tower will be off-white. The towers will be a tapered tubular steel monopole tower. The maximum rotation speed of the blades will be approximately 15-20 revolutions per minute (rpm), or about one (1) revolution every three to four seconds. In addition to the wind turbines, the Project will involve construction of approximately 29 miles of gravel access roads, 44 miles of buried interconnect, and an electrical substation located off of Swamp Road in the Town of Cape Vincent. A small operations and maintenance facility will be constructed on Hell Street, also in the Town of Cape Vincent. An approximately 9 mile long 34.5 to 115 kV overhead transmission line will be constructed to connect the Project with the existing transmission grid and electrical substation located on County Route (CR) 179 in the Town of Lyme. This new overhead transmission line will include approximately 250 “H” frame style structures, approximately 80 feet in height, supporting three (3) insulated transmission wires plus one or two additional smaller wires. 1.2.1 Aviation Obstruction Marking and Lighting According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), daytime lighting of wind turbines, in general, is not necessary. Turbines themselves, due to their solid (nonskeletal) construction, as well as their moving characteristics, provide sufficient warning to pilots during all daytime conditions and all documented terrain and sky conditions. The FAA recommends turbines be painted either bright white, or a slight shade from white, to provide the maximum daytime conspicuity. The FAA requires lighting of perimeter turbines, as well as interior turbines with a maximum gap between lit turbines of no more than ½ mile (2,640 feet). Based on these guidelines approximately 50 of the proposed turbines will be illuminated at night for aviation safety. One aviation obstruction light will be affixed to the rear portion of the nacelle on each turbine to be illuminated. Lighting may be L-864 red flashing lights, in the form of incandescent or rapid discharge (strobe). The FAA recommends red light emitting diode or rapid discharge style L-864 fixtures to minimize impacts on neighboring communities, as the fixtures’ exposure time is minimal, thus creating less of a nuisance. All light fixtures within the wind energy project must flash in unison, thus delineating the
1

Should smaller 1.5 MW machines be used, turbine towers will be approximately 264 feet tall from ground to nacelle (hub). Each of the three turbine blades would be approximately 127 feet in length (254-foot rotor diameter) with the apex of blade rotation reaching approximately 391 feet above ground elevation.
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 6

000274

project as one large obstruction to pilots.2 L-864 red flashing aviation obstruction lights are designed to emit light in an upward direction with maximum visibility for pilots.

2

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, “Development of Obstruction Lighting Standards for Wind Turbine Farms” (DOT/FAA/AR-TN05/50, November 2005)
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 7

000275

2.0

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER/VISUAL SETTING

Landscape character is defined by the basic pattern of landform, land use, vegetation, water features, and human development. This descriptive section offers an overview of the intrinsic visual condition of the study region and establishes the baseline condition from which to evaluate visual change. The St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project is located in the scenic Thousand Islands region of New York State at the convergence of the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. The Thousand Islands is a popular waterfront vacation destination extending from the eastern shore of Lake Ontario approximately 50 miles eastward along both the American and Canadian side of the St. Lawrence River. The region, well known for the scenic beauty of its shoreline and over 1,800 islands, offers numerous cultural, recreational and entertainment attractions. While resorts, restaurants and tourist attractions on the American side of the River are largely clustered around the Villages of Clayton and Alexandria Bay, recreational and tourism resources are found throughout the Thousand Islands coastal area, including the waterfront portion of the study area. The population centers within the study area include the Village of Cape Vincent (year-round population 7603), located on the shore of the St. Lawrence River, approximately one-mile north of the nearest turbine, and the Village of Clayton (year-round population 1,821), approximately six miles east of the nearest turbine. Year-round and seasonal residential development of varying density is nearly continuous along the waterfront of Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River shoreline throughout the study area (refer to Section 3.2.2. for additional information concerning seasonal population) The inland portion of the study area is decidedly rural and largely undeveloped. Broad tracts of agricultural land include open crop and pasture land and inactive successional old-field/scrubland. Patches of mature second growth deciduous woodland typically cover steep slopes, ravines, stream corridors, poorly drained soils and other areas historically unsuitable for agriculture. Other land cover includes hedgerows, yards, farmsteads, low-density residential uses, streams and small ponds. Gentle hills and ridges rising 60 to 100 feet above the St. Lawrence River are the dominant topographic feature. Built features typically include low-density single-family residential structures and farmsteads. Rural residential homes and agricultural support buildings typically clustered at crossroad hamlets or are very sparsely located on individual agricultural properties. The year-round population of the Town of Cape Vincent, outside of the Village is just 2,585.

2.1 TOPOGRAPHY AND VEGETATION
The study area is within the Eastern Ontario Hills subdivision of the Erie Ontario Lowland. The region is characterized by low-lying relief with shallow hills comprised of glacial till typical of the eastern shore of Lake Ontario4. The landscape generally appears relatively flat or gently sloping with elevations ranging upward from the St. Lawrence River (250 ft above sea level [ASL]) to over 340 feet ASL.

3 4

2000 census Thompson, p.40
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 8

000276

The proposed wind turbines will be located approximately ½ to ¾ mile inland from the southern bank of the St. Lawrence River and 1½ to 2 miles inland from the east shore of Lake Ontario, south and east of the Village of Cape Vincent. Topography within the turbine area ranges from approximately 270 to 340 feet ASL. A large portion of the study area has historically been cleared for agricultural use. Limited areas of second growth deciduous woodland are found in areas unsuitable for agriculture. Dominant tree species are representative of the beech-maple climax community found throughout much of the Eastern Ontario Hills region. These species include oak, beech, maple, ash, elm and hemlock. In addition to these deciduous climax species, isolated plantings of red and white pine are scattered throughout the study area. Coinciding with the mix of open field and woodlots is a significant area of secondary growth edge habitat. For the most part, this secondary growth takes the form of hedgerows, wood borders, and old fields.

2.2 WATER FEATURES
Water features are an important and scenic component of the visual landscape. The study area is bordered to the east by Lake Ontario and to the north by the St. Lawrence River. The Thousand Islands region is well known for the scenic character of its shoreline and many islands of varying size throughout a 50-mile stretch of the St. Lawrence River between Lake Ontario and Ogdensburg, NY. Combined with a wide variety of passive and active recreational opportunities, the aesthetic quality of the waterfront landscape is central to the Thousand Island region’s appeal as a well-known and popular summer vacation destination. The eastern shore of Lake Ontario is somewhat irregular and is characterized by a series of large bays, peninsulas and islands. The largest of these bays include Fuller Bay, Wilson Bay, Mud Bay and Chaumont Bay. Numerous islands, small and large, are clearly visible from the coastal area including Grenadier Island and Fox Island. The confluence of the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario is marked by Tibbetts Point at the north end of Fuller Bay. Within the study area, the St. Lawrence River is approximately eight miles wide between the south shore in the United States and its northern shore in Ontario, Canada. However, numerous islands intersect views making the river appear much narrower. Wolfe Island, Ontario, approximately 18 miles long and up to six miles wide, parallels the New York State shoreline varying from approximately ¾-mile offshore at the Village of Cape Vincent to approximately three miles wide near Carleton Island, NY, approximately three miles east of the Village. Carleton Island, 2.3 miles long and 1.2 miles wide, is located in a wider embayment between the New York shoreline and Wolfe Island. The 2,342-mile long St. Lawrence Seaway, the only commercial shipping route between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic Ocean, follows the St. Lawrence River through the Thousand Islands. The locks of the Seaway accept vessels 740 feet long, 78 feet wide and up to 166.5 feet in height above the waterline. The Seaway handles over 4,000 ship transits and 40,000,000 tons of cargo during a typical navigation season.5 The navigational channel of the Seaway within the study area follows the
5

http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com/en/pdf/mlo.pdf
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 9

000277

American side of the St. Lawrence River south of Wolfe Island, Ontario and north of Carleton Island, NY. Kents Creek, Three Mile Creek, Soper Creek Fox Creek, Little Fox Creek, Shaver Creek and their tributaries drain much of the agricultural lowlands inland from the coast. These creeks generally flow westerly to Lake Ontario. Scotch Creek, Wheeler Creek, and French Creek drain the northeast portion of the study area northerly to the St. Lawrence River.

2.3 TRANSPORTATION
Interstate 81, the most heavily traveled transportation route in the region, is approximately 17 miles east of the nearest turbine. I-81 connects central New York and points south with the international border at the Thousand Islands Bridge in Alexandria Bay. The primary transportation route through the study area is NYS Rte. 12E which travels north from Watertown to Cape Vincent, then northeast along the St. Lawrence River to Clayton. County Route 4 (Rosiere Road) runs east/west bordering the turbine area to the south. CR 6 (Pleasant Valley Road), CR 8 (Johnny Cake Road), and CR 9 (St. Lawrence Road) provide north-south access through the turbine area. Numerous local roads traverse the study area. Roads are typically two-lane with asphalt pavement, however some gravel surfaced seasonal roads exist.

2.4 POPULATION CENTERS
Waterfront Communities - The Village of Cape Vincent is located along the shoreline of the St. Lawrence River approximately one mile north of the nearest turbine. This small village maintains a modest grid street pattern including residential houses, churches, small hospital, and an assortment of commercial establishments (service facilities and offices). Retail and commercial services are generally clustered along Broadway (NY Rte. 12E), two blocks south of the waterfront. Moderate density single-family housing is found throughout the village. Development density drops sharply as one moves a quarter mile in any direction. Residential dwellings within the village tend to be older and well maintained with mature vegetation lining the roadways. An intact National Register Historic District is located along the waterfront west of the village center. Several dozen well-maintained residences front West Broadway and Tibbetts Point Road overlook the St. Lawrence River. Activities within the village are generally related to light tourism, small business, local shopping, and residential uses. Passing through the center of the Village is NY Rte. 12E, a lightly traveled state highway connecting Watertown (25 miles south) to the western Thousand Islands Region. At the Village of Cape Vincent, NY Rte. 12E turns northeastward along the St. Lawrence River to the Village of Clayton (15 miles northeast). The small waterfront hamlet of Three Mile Bay is located along NY Rte. 12E off of Chaumont Bay in the Town of Lyme. Three Mile Bay is approximately five miles south of the nearest turbine. This hamlet is largely a residential community with few commercial services. The organization of the hamlet is focused on the waterfront and road frontage along NY Rte. 12E.

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 10

000278

Year-round and seasonal waterfront homes, cottages and camps are nearly continuous along the St. Lawrence River throughout the study area. Residential land use varies from moderate to high-density seasonal homes in neighborhood clusters to lower density single-family parcels. Higher density waterfront residential uses are found in the small hamlet areas of Millen Bay, Beadle Point, Sand Bay, and Cedar Point. Waterfront residential uses include occasional several estate homes setback from roadways and adjacent properties. However, small frame cottages, seasonal camps, and mobile homes of varying vintage and quality are the most common form of seasonal structures within the study area. Boathouses and docks for recreational vessels are common throughout the coastal area. Shoreline properties are often cleared of vegetation to provide unencumbered views of the waterway from residences. Similar seasonal shoreline residential development is found in the western portion of the study area along embayments of Lake Ontario. The density of residential development tends to be somewhat less along the lakefront with road access to the shoreline more limited. Rural Residential Areas - Outside these waterfront communities, homes and agricultural support buildings are either clustered at crossroad hamlets, such as Rosiere, Warren, Saint Lawrence, and Smith Corners, or are very sparsely located on individual properties. Residences (a mix of old and new) and accessory structures (barns, garages, etc.) are often found in roadside locations, however many are located on isolated lots out of view from local roads. Rural homes range in quality from well maintained single-family frame construction to older housing stock in need of repair. Mobile homes, of varying vintage, located on isolated lots and within parks is also a common housing type.

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 11

000279

3.0

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
3.1 VIEWSHED MAPPING (ZONE OF VISUAL INFLUENCE)
3.1.1 Viewshed Methodology

The first step in identifying potentially affected visual resources is to determine whether or not the proposed Project would likely be visible from a given location. Viewshed maps are prepared for this purpose. Also known as defining the zone of visual influence, viewshed mapping identifies the geographic area within which there is a relatively high probability that some portion of the proposed Project would be visible. The overall accuracy of viewshed mapping is dependent on the number and location of control points (study points representing proposed turbines) used in the viewshed calculation. To calculate the maximum range of potential turbine visibility, one control point was established at the turbine high point (i.e., apex of blade rotation) for each of the 95 turbines evaluated. The resulting composite viewshed identifies the geographic area within the 5-mile study radius where some portion of the proposed wind energy project (the apex of one or more turbine blades) is theoretically visible. One viewshed map was prepared defining the area within which there would be no visibility of the Project because of the screening effect caused by intervening topography (See Figure 1 on page 16). This treeless condition analysis is used to identify the maximum potential geographic area within which further investigation is appropriate. A second map was prepared illustrating the probable screening effect of existing mature vegetation. This vegetated condition viewshed, although not considered absolutely definitive, acceptably identifies the geographic area within which one would expect to be substantially screened by intervening forest vegetation (See Figure 2 on page 17). Identified viewshed areas are further quantified to illustrate the number of turbines that may be visible from any given area. This cumulative degree of visibility is summarized on each map using the following groupings: 1-20 turbines visible; 20-40 turbines visible; 40-60 turbines visible; 60-80 turbines visible; and 80-95 turbines visible; By themselves, the viewshed maps do not determine how much of each turbine is visible above intervening landform or vegetation (e.g., 100%, 50%, 10% etc. of total turbine height), but rather the geographic area within which there is a relatively high probability (theoretical visibility) that some portion of one or more turbines would be visible. Their primary purpose is to assist in determining the potential visibility of the proposed Project from the identified visual resources. In this evaluation, ArcGIS 9.1 and ArcGIS 3D Analyst software was used to generate viewshed areas based on publicly available digital topographic and vegetation data sets. Viewshed overlays were created by first importing a digital elevation model (DEM) of the study area. This DEM, obtained
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 12

000280

through the United State Geologic Survey (USGS) from its National Elevation Dataset, is based on the best available digital elevation data including the 1:24,000-scale USGS topographic maps (10-foot contour intervals) and is accurate to a 10-meter grid cell resolution. The computer then scanned 360 degrees across this DEM from each control point, distinguishing between grid cells that would be hidden from view and those that would be visible based solely on topography. Areas of the surrounding landscape were identified where each control point would be visible; areas in shadow would not be visible. Vegetation data was extracted from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP). The C-CAP dataset, produced by the NOAA Coastal Services Center, was developed from LandSat 7 Thematic Mapper (TM) imagery (2000) and is accurate to a 30-meter grid cell resolution.6 The screening effect of vegetation was then incorporated by adding 40 feet in height to DEM grid cells that are completely forested (according to C-CAP dataset) and repeating the calculation procedure. Based on field observation, most trees in forested portions of the study area are significantly taller than 40 feet. This height thus represents a conservative estimate of the effect of vegetative screening. It is important to note that the C-CAP dataset is based on interpretation of forested areas that are clearly distinguishable from multi-spectral satellite imagery. As such, the potential screening value of site-specific vegetative cover such as small hedgerows and individual trees and other areas of nonforest tree cover may not be represented in the viewshed analysis. Furthermore, the C-CAP dataset does not include the screening value of existing structures. This is a particularly important distinction in populated areas, including the Village of the Cape Vincent and other commercial and residential areas, where existing structures are likely to provide significant screening of distant views. With these conditions, the viewshed map conservatively overestimates potential Project visibility in areas where the Project may be substantially screened from view. It is noteworthy that untrained reviewers often misinterpret treeless condition viewshed maps to represent wintertime, or leafless condition visibility (i.e., Figure 1). In fact, deciduous woodlands provide a substantial visual barrier in all seasons. Since the C-CAP dataset generally identifies only larger stands of woodland vegetation that is clearly distinguishable from multi-spectral satellite imagery, viewshed maps that include the screening value of existing vegetation are equally representative of both leaf-on and leaf-off seasons (i.e., Figure 2). Treeless condition analysis is provided only to assist experienced visual analysts identify the maximum potential geographic area within which further investigation is appropriate. Such topography-only viewshed maps are not generally intended or appropriate for public interpretation or presentation. Finally, the viewshed maps indicate locations in the surrounding landscape in which one or more turbine highpoints (i.e. apex of blade rotation) might be visible. These maps do not imply the magnitude of visibility (i.e., how much of each turbine is visible), the viewer’s distance from each
6

Thirty-meter resolution is the smallest vegetative grid cell increment commonly available for the Project region. This resolution provides an appropriate degree of accuracy for development of five-mile viewshed maps given the fairly broad patterns of existing land use in the area, as well as the accuracy of mapped topographic data (i.e., 1:24,000-scale USGS topographic maps with 10-foot contour intervals)
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 13

000281

visible turbine or the aesthetic character of what may be seen. Such interpretation is the subject of the next phase of analysis (see section 3.4 below). 3.1.2 Verification of Viewshed Accuracy Because the viewshed map identifies the geographic area within which one or more of the proposed turbines could theoretically be visible, but does not specify which of the 95 turbines evaluated would be within view, it is not readily feasible to field confirm viewshed accuracy. While it is common practice to field confirm viewshed maps prepared for a single study point through the use of balloon study or more intuitive means, the inability to field confirm viewshed accuracy is unique to analysis of multiple point projects covering a large geographic area, such as wind energy projects. To help determine the accuracy of the vegetation data used for viewshed development, the C-CAP data set was overlaid on a 1m color Digital Orthophoto Quadrangle (DOQ) infrared aerial image (2003) of the study area and reviewed for consistency. While minor inconsistencies were noted, including areas of recently cleared lands, areas of inactive/abandoned agricultural land showing a degree of pioneer species growth and areas of non-forest vegetative cover, the vast majority of woodland areas visible on the satellite image were highly consistent with the C-CAP overlay. 3.1.3 Viewshed Interpretation Table 1 indicates the degree of theoretical visibility illustrated on the viewshed maps within the 5-mile radius study area.
Table 1 Viewshed Coverage Summary
Topography Only Viewshed (see Figure 1*) Acres Percent Cover No Turbines Visible 1-20 Turbine Visible 20-40 Turbines Visible 40-60 Turbines Visible 60-80 Turbines Visible 80-95 Turbines Visible Total 7,974 6481 5,283 5,704 7,518 88,620 121,581 7 5 4 5 6 73 100 Vegetation and Topography Viewshed (see Figure 2) Acres Percent cover 43,161 16,572 9,593 8,703 9,717 33,829 121,574 35% 14% 8% 7% 8% 28% 100%

*Table 1 and Figure 1 on page 16, illustrate that one or more turbine highpoints (i.e. apex of blade rotation) is theoretically visible from approximately 97 percent of the five-mile study radius. However, as discussed above, this unrealistic treeless condition analysis is used only to identify the maximum potential geographic area within which further investigation is appropriate. This viewshed is not representative of the anticipated geographic extent of visibility and is not intended for public interpretation.

Table 1 and Figure 2 indicates that one or more of the proposed turbines will be theoretically visible from approximately 65 percent of the five-mile radius study area. Approximately 35 percent of the study area will likely have no visibility of any wind turbines due to intervening landform or vegetation. Turbine visibility is most common from inland agricultural areas where cleared lands provide long vistas in the direction of turbine groupings. Project visibility will also occur from unscreened coastal areas (primarily along the St. Lawrence River), Lake and River Islands, and from on-water vantage points throughout the five-mile radius study area.

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 14

000282

The area most directly affected by views of the Project will be central portion of the turbine area where multiple turbines will be visible up to 360-degrees around a vantage point. Viewers to the north and west of CR 6 (Rosiere Road) will encounter views of a large number of turbines (40 to 80, or more) at foreground and middleground distances (e.g., ½ to 3 miles); the distance where the visual contrast of the turbines will be greatest. Similar views of multiple turbines will occur along portions of NY Rte.12E, Deer Lick, Favret, Mason, McKeever, Sand Bay (CR 9), Johnny Cake, Gosier, Hell, Constance, Wilson, and Branche Roads. This high degree of Project visibility is the result of broad agricultural clearing and the lack of screening hills. While the viewshed map indicates theoretical visibility of multiple turbines within the Village of Cape Vincent, field observation determined the prevalence of mature street trees and site landscaping combined with one- and two-story residential and commercial structures (not included in the multispectral satellite imagery of the C-Cap dataset) will commonly block views in the direction of the Project from the downtown and waterfront area. Filtered or framed views of proposed turbines are likely through foreground vegetation and buildings from the perimeter of the Village. Direct views are more prevalent on the outskirts of the Village and hamlet where localized residential and commercial structures, street trees and site landscaping are less likely to provide a visual barrier. Similarly, viewshed mapping indicates a high degree of Project visibility from many shoreline areas northeast of the Village of Cape Vincent. Based on field observation, such visibility would likely be limited to some degree by existing clusters of localized (non-forest) vegetation that is not clearly distinguishable in the multi-spectral satellite imagery of the C-Cap dataset. Nonetheless, views of some portion of numerous turbines will occur from shoreline areas along the St. Lawrence River. Direct views of multiple turbines will also occur from near shore and offshore vantage points on the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. Views are also found on Lake and River islands from shoreline areas oriented toward the Project, as well as island hillsides with down slope vistas in the direction of the Project. Water and island views are found on both sides of the international border within the fivemile study area.

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 15

000283

5-MILE VIEWSHED: TOPOGRAPHY ONLY

Figure 1 Visual Resource Assessment St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project
M

i le

s

January 7, 2007

5

CLAYTON

KEY

1
94 90 95

PROPOSED TURBINE (425' BLADE TIP HEIGHT)

1 AND 5 MILE BUFFERS

AREA OF VISIBILITY
86 87 81 91 92 93 82 88

12E

1 - 20 TURBINES
12

20 - 40 TURBINES
75 76 83 89

40 - 60 TURBINES
69 70 71 63 64 72 73 78 79 80 77 84 85

1M
56 49 35 36 27 28 29 30 23 24 16 17 18 14 19 15 20 11 8 1 6 2 3 4 7 5 9 10 12 13 21 26 25 32 33 34 31 22 37 38 39 46 40 41 47 48 42 43 44 45 50 51 52 57

ile

60 - 80 TURBINES

80 - 95 TURBINES

60 61 62 58

65 66 67 68 53 54 55

74

CAPE VINCENT

PROJECT # 2006 - 06115.10P Copyright © 2006 Saratoga Associates. All Rights Reserved.

This map is com puter generated using data acquired by Sarato ga Associates from various sources and is intended only for reference, concep tual planning and presentation purpo ses. This map is not intended for and sho uld no t be used to establish boundaries, property lines, location of ob jects or to provide any other information typically needed for co nstruction or any other purpose when engineered plans or land surveys are required.

File Location: S:\GIS\06115\TopoOnlyV iewshed.mxd

LYME

12E

BROWNVILLE

0

0.5

1

2

3 Miles

000284

5-MILE VIEWSHED: TOPOGRAPHY AND VEGETATION

Figure 2 Visual Resource Assessment St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project

January 7, 2007

CLAYTON

KEY
94 90 95

1

PROPOSED TURBINE (425' BLADE TIP HEIGHT)

1 AND 5 MILE BUFFERS
86 87 91 92

AREA OF VISIBILITY - TOPOGRAPHY & VEGETATION
12
81 93

12E
82 75 76 69 70 71 63 64 60 56 49 35 36 27 28 29 30 23 24 16 17 18 14 19 15 20 11 8 1 6 2 3 4 7 5 9 10 12 21 26 25 32 33 34 31 22 37 38 39 46 40 41 47 48 42 55 43 44 45 50 51 52 53 54 57 58 61 62 67 68 65 66 72 73 77

1 - 20 TURBINES
88 83 84 85 78 79 74 80 89

20 - 40 TURBINES

40 - 60 TURBINES

60 - 80 TURBINES

80 - 95 TURBINES

CAPE VINCENT
13

PROJECT # 2006 - 06115.10P Copyright © 2006 Saratoga Associates. All Rights Reserved.

This map is com puter generated using data acquired by Sarato ga Associates from various sources and is intended only for reference, concep tual planning and presentation purpo ses. This map is not intended for and sho uld no t be used to establish boundaries, property lines, location of ob jects or to provide any other information typically needed for co nstruction or any other purpose when engineered plans or land surveys are required.

File Location: S:\GIS\06115\VegV iewshed.mxd

LYME

12E

BROWNVILLE

0

0.5

1

2

3 Miles

000285

3.2 INVENTORY OF VISUALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES
3.2.1 Inventory Criteria Because it is not practical to evaluate every conceivable location where the proposed Project might be visible, it is accepted visual assessment practice to limit detailed evaluation of aesthetic impact to locations generally considered by society, through regulatory designation or policy, to be of cultural and/or aesthetic importance. In rural areas where few resources of statewide significance are likely to be found, it is common practice to expand inventory criteria to include places of local sensitivity or high intensity of use. Resources of Statewide Significance - The DEC Visual Policy requires that all aesthetic resources of statewide significance be identified along with any potential adverse effects on those resources resulting from the proposed Project. Aesthetic resources of statewide significance may be derived from one or more of the following categories: A property on or eligible for inclusion in the National or State Register of Historic Places [16 U.S.C. § 470a et seq., Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Law Section 14.07]; State Parks [Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Law Section 3.09]; Urban Cultural Parks [Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Law Section 35.15]; The State Forest Preserve [NYS Constitution Article XIV], Adirondack and Catskill Parks; National Wildlife Refuges [16 U.S.C. 668dd], State Game Refuges, and State Wildlife Management Areas [ECL 11-2105]; National Natural Landmarks [36 CFR Part 62]; The National Park System, Recreation Areas, Seashores, and Forests [16 U.S.C. 1c]; Rivers designated as National or State Wild, Scenic, or Recreational [16 U.S.C. Chapter 28, ECL 15-2701 et seq.]; A site, area, lake, reservoir, or highway designated or eligible for designation as scenic [ECL Article 49 or NYDOT equivalent and Adirondack Park Agency], designated State Highway Roadside; Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance [of Article 42 of Executive Law]; A State or federally designated trail, or one proposed for designation [16 U.S.C. Chapter 27 or equivalent]; Adirondack Park Scenic Vistas [Adirondack Park Land Use and Development Map]; State Nature and Historic Preserve Areas [Section 4 of Article XIV of the State Constitution]; Palisades Park [Palisades Interstate Park Commission]; and Bond Act Properties purchased under Exceptional Scenic Beauty or Open Space category.

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 18

000286

Resources of Local Interest - Places of local sensitivity or high intensity of use (based on local context) were also inventoried, even though they may not meet the broader statewide threshold. Aesthetic resources of local interest were generally derived from the following general categories: Recreation areas including playgrounds, athletic fields, boat launches, fishing access, campgrounds, picnic areas, ski centers, and other recreational facilities/attractions; Areas devoted to the conservation or the preservation of natural environmental features (e.g., reforestation areas/forest preserves, wildlife management areas, open space preserves); A bicycling, hiking, ski touring, or snowmobiling trail designated as such by a governmental agency; Architectural structures and sites of traditional importance as designated by a governmental agency; Parkways, highways, or scenic overlooks and vistas designated as such by a governmental agency; Important urban landscape including visual corridors, monuments, sculptures, landscape plantings, and urban green space; Important architectural elements and structures representing community style and neighborhood character; An interstate highway or other high volume (relative to local conditions) road of regional importance; and A passenger railroad or other mass transit route; and A residential area greater than 50 contiguous acres and with a density of more than one dwelling unit per acre. Other Places for Analysis - Given the rural character of much of the study area, the inventory of aesthetic resources has been further expanded to be conservatively over-inclusive. In several cases, locations not rising to the threshold of statewide significance or local interest have been included to represent visibility along sparsely populated rural roadways; most selected based on field observation of open vistas. Although possibly of interest to local residents, such locations are not considered representative of any aesthetically significant place and carry little importance in the evaluation of aesthetic impact. Resources of statewide significance, resources of local interest and other places for analysis were identified though a review of published maps and other paper documents, online research, and windshield survey of publicly accessible locations.

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 19

000287

3.2.2 Summary Characteristics of Inventoried Resources Overall Population and Density of Development - This portion of New York State is quite rural with a very small year round population. Based on the 2000 census, the population of the Town of Cape Vincent was just 3,345, including 760 residing in the Village. The year round population density of the Town is just 59.2 persons per square mile (46 persons per square mile excluding the Village). This compares with a population density of 88 persons per square mile for Jefferson County and 402 persons per square mile for New York State as a whole. However, of the 2,825 housing units within the Town, 1,891 (67%) are classified as seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. Assuming a seasonally adjusted factor of 2.61 persons per seasonal housing unit (and all residences fully occupied), the seasonal population of the Town of Cape Vincent is estimated at approximately 8,281, including 1,060 residing in the Village of Cape Vincent. This is nearly 2.5 times the Town’s year round population. Similarly, the population density of the Town increases to 147 persons per square mile (128 persons per square mile excluding the Village) during the summer season. Table 2 summarizes these demographics for other municipalities within the study area.

Table 2
Municipality

Demographic Summary of Study Area Municipalities
Year Round Population Off-Season Population Density (offseason)
401.9 88 59 1,041 46 36 58 1,124 37 2,825 515 2,310 2,142 3,391 1,107 2,284 1,891 (67%) 115 (22%) 1,776 (77%) 1,234 (58%) 1,333 (39%) 199 (18%) 1,134 (50%)

(2000 Census)

Total Housing Units

Seasonal Housing Units (% of total)

Vacation Season Vacation Vacation Season Season Population Population Density

New York State Jefferson County Town of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent excluding Village Town of Lyme Town of Clayton Village of Clayton Town of Clayton excluding Village

18,976,457 111,738 3,345 760 2,585 2,015 4,817 1,821 2,996

8,281 1,060 7,220 5,236 8,296 2,340 5,956

147 1,452 128 93 100 1,445 72

Highway Corridors - Due to its rural, Table 3 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes for location, many highways within the Study Area Highways (NYSDOT 2004)7 study area are relatively lightly traveled. Primary roads include NY Rte.12E Route Section AADT Rte.12E CR 8 to CR 57 (at Three Mile Bay) 2,758 which travels north from Watertown to Rte.12E CR 57 to Village of Cape Vincent 1,355 the Village of Cape Vincent then Rte.12E Village of Cape Vincent to CR 9 1,301 Rte.12E CR 9 to NY Rte.12 (Village of Clayton) 3,477 northeast along the St. Lawrence River to the Village of Clayton. Table 3 summarizes the average annual daily traffic (AADT) for NY Rte.12E within the study area. These traffic volumes compare to over 19,844 vehicles per day (AADT) on I-81 in Watertown (NY Rte.382 to NY Rte.12), approximately 10 miles southeast of the study area, and 6,190 vehicles per day
7

http://www.dot.state.ny.us/tech_serv/high/tdr.html
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 20

000288

on NY Rte.12 at Alexandria Bay (Interstate 81 to NY Rte.26 in Alexandria Bay), approximately 20 miles to the northeast of the study area. All other roads within the study area are very lightly traveled County and local roads. Tourism – The scenic Thousand Islands region of New York State draws thousands of visitors yearround, although summertime is by far the most popular vacation season. The region has long been recognized as ideal for second homes, boating, and fishing and general enjoyment of the waterfront environment. Many visitors come to this region to experience the outdoors and enjoy the scenery of the riverfront and islands. The Villages of Clayton and Alexandria Bay have emerged as tourism centers offering a wide variety of food and lodging, marinas, shops and numerous cultural and recreational attractions. Available lodging includes hotels/motels, bed and breakfast establishments, summer rentals, rustic cottages and cabins, as well as private and public campgrounds; many with water views and guest access to the river or lakefront. Recreation and Open Space - Visitors traveling to this area enjoy numerous outdoor recreational activities including hiking, biking, golfing, and fishing and boating during the warmer months. Crosscountry skiing and snowmobile riding are popular during the winter months. Other passive outdoor pursuits, such as bird watching or a leisurely drive along the coastline are also common. There are a number of State designated recreational resources within the study area including: Burnham Point State Park (Town of Cape Vincent) – Located on the St. Lawrence River, Burnham Point State Park offers tent and trailer campsites, picnic facilities, boat launch and dockage. Cedar Point State Park (Town of Cape Vincent) – Also on the St. Lawrence River, Cedar Point State Park offers tent and trailer camping, picnic facilities, marina, fishing pier, swimming beach, and play fields. Ashland Flats Wildlife Management Area (Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme) – This 2,037 acre Wildlife management Area (WMA) provides public recreational activities including bird watching, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing, and limited hunting and trapping. French Creek Wildlife Management Area (Town of Clayton)– This 2,265 acre WMA provides public recreation activities including bird watching, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, hunting, fishing and trapping. Boat access is also available. Seaway Trail - The New York State Seaway Trail is a 454-mile scenic route paralleling Lake Erie, the Niagara River, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. The Seaway Trail has been selected as one of “America’s Byways” by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The Seaway Trail was chosen for its unique landscape which has been sculpted by the forces of

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 21

000289

nature and for its historical significance.8 Through the study area, the Seaway Trail follows NY Rte.12E from Clayton southeast to Sacketts Harbor. Tibbets Point Lighthouse - The Tibbetts Point Lighthouse (listed on the National Register of Historic Places) is open to the public seasonally, and provides scenic views of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. NYSDEC Cape Vincent Fisheries Aquarium – The aquarium includes five tanks with many of the fish species common to Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River and interpretive information about New York State's conservation programs in the Great Lakes. Long Point State Park (Town of Lyme) – Located on Point Peninsula overlooking Chaumont Bay, Long Point State Park offers tent and trailer camping, picnic facilities, boat launch, and playground. This recreational site is approximately 7.0 miles south of the nearest turbine.

Cultural Resources – The Project area includes many historic structures. Within the study area, 36 structures and two (2) historic districts listed on the State and National Register of Historic Places were identified9. These include: Village of Cape Vincent > Anthony, Levi Building > Aubertine Building > Borland, John, House > Broadway Historic District > Buckley, James, House > Burnham, E.K., House > Duvillard Mill > Gailband du Fort, Jean Philippe, House > Glen Building > Johnson House > LeRay, Vincent, House > Lewis House > Peugnet, Captain Louis, House > Roxy Hotel > Sacket, Cornelius, House > Sacket, General, House > Starkey, Otis, House > St. Johns Episcopal Church > St. Vincent of Paul Catholic Church > Tibbett’s Point Lighthouse

8 9

http://www.seawaytrail.com/05_index.asp http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/NY/Jefferson/state.html
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 22

000290

Town of Cape Vincent > Chevalier, Xavier, House > Cocaigne, Nicholas, House > Dezengremel, Remy, House > Docteur, Joseph, House > Dyer, Reuter, House > Fort Haldimand > Reynolds, George, House > Rogers Brothers Farmsted > Union Meeting House > Vautrin, Claude, House > Wilson, Warren, House Town of Lyme > District School No. 3 > Stone Shop, Old > Taft House > The Row > Taylor Boathouse > Three Mile Bay Historic District > Wheeler, Menzo, House There are no properties in the Town of Clayton, within the study area, that are listed on the State and National Register of Historic Places. 3.2.3 Visibility Evaluation of Inventoried Resources Each inventoried visual resource was evaluated to determine whether a visual impact might exist. This consisted of reviewing viewshed maps and field observation to determine whether or not individual resources would have a view of the proposed Project. Table 4 lists 67 visual resources located within the five-mile study area and identifies potential Project visibility. The location of these visual resources is referenced by numeric code within Figure 3. Of the 67 visual resources inventoried, 22 would likely be screened from the proposed Project by either intervening landform or vegetation/structures and are thus eliminated from further study.

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 23

000291

25 !! (( 24
( ! ( !

5 9.1 !! ((
( ! ( ! ( ! ( !

6 ! (
( !

! !! ( ((
( !

20 ! ( 17 19.1 10 15 ! ! ! 19 ! ( (( ( ! 21 ( 11

( ! ( !

( !

( !

! (
22 ! (

( !

( !

10.1

( !

18

( !

AESTHETIC RESOURCES
65 ! (

3 ! ( 2 ! (
( !

8 ! ( 7 ! (
( ! ( !

( !

!! ((
12.1 14 ! (
( ! ( !

13
( !

( !

4 ! (
( !

9 ! (
( !

! (
13.1

Figure 3 Visual Resource Assessment St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project

January 7, 2007

5M
26 ! (
( !

ile

s
61 ! (

KEY

! (
59.2

1

VISUAL RECEPTOR

! (
59.1 62 ! (

CLAYTON

63 ! (

1

PROPOSED TURBINE (425' BLADE TIP HEIGHT)

SEAWAY TRAIL SCENIC HIGHWAY

NATIONAL REGISTER SITE
94 " 95 ) 90 " ) " ) 91 " 92 ) 12E 86 " ) " ) 87 " ) 93 " ) 81 " ) 88 " ) 82 " ) 75 " ) 89 83 " ) ) 76 " 77 " " ) 45 84 ) 44 " ) !! 69 (( 40.1 " ) ile 70 85 " 71 ) " ) 1M " ) 78 " 79 ) 63 72 " ) " ) 41 "" )) ! ( 80 64 73 " ) " ) 40 ! ( 60 65 ) " ) 42 " 74 " ) 56 61 " ! ) ( " " ) ) 66 49 " 57 ) " ) 62 " 67 ) 50 43 " ) 58 " " ) ) 35 " ) " ) 44 51 36 68 " 45 ) 46 " ) " 37 " ) ) ! ( " ) " ) 38 52 27 " 53 ) 43 "" )) 28 " ) " ! ) ( 39 " ) 29 " 30 ) 46 " ) 54 22 " ) 40 " " ) ) "" )) 47 41 " ) 23 31 " 24 " ) 55 48 " ) " ) ) " ) 39 ! ( 16 " " ) ) 25 38 " ! ) ( 17 42 24 " ) ! ( 32 18 " ) " ) 15 20 22 5 33 ! !1!! ( ( (( 19 " 8 ) " ) 14 26 ( " ) " ) 8 ! 34 15 " 3 ) " ) 13 ! !! ( (( 20 9 " " ) ) 4 47 21 !! ! (( ( 26 11 12 ! ( " " ) ) 48 ! ( 49 ! ( 13 8 " ) " ) CAPE VINCENT 9 " ) 5 1 " " 6 ! " ) ) 10 "( ) ) 27 2 37 " )3 ! ( 7 " ) " )

STATE PARK

! (

12 ! (
59 ! (

STATE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA

1 AND 5 MILE BUFFERS

MAJOR ROAD

! (

ROAD

COUNTY BOUNDARY
58 ! (

TOWN BOUNDARY

SHORELINE

AREA OF VISIBILITY - TOPOGRAPHY & VEGETATION

1 - 20 TURBINES

20 - 40 TURBINES

40 - 60 TURBINES

60 - 80 TURBINES

80 - 95 TURBINES

28 ! (

PROJECT # 2006 - 06115.10P Copyright © 2006 Saratoga Associates. All Rights Reserved.

30 ! ( 31 ! (

4 " )

35 ! (

57 ! (

This map is computer generated using data acquired by Saratoga Associates from various sources and is intended only for reference, conceptual planning and presentation purposes. This map is not intended for and should not be used to establish boundaries, property lines, location of objects or to provide any other information typically needed for construction or any other purpose when engineered plans or land surveys are required.

File Location: S:\GIS\06115\CapeVincent_AestheticResources_PHOTOLOG.mxd
33 ! (

! (
35.1 32 ! (

LYME

! (
12E

36 ! (

51 !! (( 53

56 ! (

54 56 ! ( ( !
( ! ( !

50 ! (
( !

51 ! (
( !

55 ! (
( !

BROWNVILL
53 ! (
( !

0

0.5

1

2

3 Miles

¯

000292

Table 4
Key
Visibility Indicated No Visibility Indicated

Visual Resource Visibility Summary
Potential Visibility
Theoretical View Indicated by Viewshed Excluding Existing Vegetation (see Figure 1) Theoretical View Indicated by Viewshed Including Existing Vegetation (see Figure 2) Actual View Likely Based on Field Confirmation of Existing Line-of-sight10

Filtered view through trees or limited view through structures possible (field observed)

Map ID

Receptor Name

Municipality

Inventory Type

Cultural Resources
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.1 12.1 13 18 19 20 21 22 26 27 28 30 31 Broadway Historic District LeRay, Vincent, House St. Vincent of Paul Catholic Church Lewis House Roxy Hotel Borland, John, House Buckley, James, House St. John's Episcopal Church Sacket, Cornelius, House Starkey, Otis, House Galband du Fort, Jean Philippe, House Glen Building Burnham, E. K., House Duvillard Mill Aubertine Building Anthony, Levi, Building Sacket, General, House Cocaigne, Nicholas House Peugnet, Captain Louis, House Johnson House Tibbetts Point Lighthouse Village of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Vilage of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance View from top of lighthouse

10

Field confirmation of potential visibility was conducted on December 12, 2006. Refer 3.4.1for additional information.
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 25

000293

Table 4
Key
Visibility Indicated No Visibility Indicated

Visual Resource Visibility Summary
Potential Visibility
Theoretical View Indicated by Viewshed Excluding Existing Vegetation (see Figure 1) Theoretical View Indicated by Viewshed Including Existing Vegetation (see Figure 2) Actual View Likely Based on Field Confirmation of Existing Line-of-sight10

Filtered view through trees or limited view through structures possible (field observed)

Map ID
32 35 36 37 38 40.1 41 42 43 44 48 50 51 53 54 55 56

Receptor Name
Rogers Brothers Farmstead Dyer, Reuter, House District School No. 3 Dezengremel, Remy, House Wilson, Warren, House Fort Haldimand Site Reynolds, George, House Chevalier, Xavier, House Vautrin, Claude, House Union Meeting House Docteur, Joseph, House The Row Taft House Taylor Boathouse Three Mile Bay Historic District Wheeler, Menzo, House Stone Shop, Old

Municipality
Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Lyme Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Lyme Town of Lyme Town of Lyme Town of Lyme Town of Lyme Town of Lyme

Inventory Type
Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance

Not visited

Recreational and Tourist Resources
9.1 10 11 13.1 15 17 19.1 Village of Cape Vincent River Access Village of Cape Vincent Historical Museum Cape Vincent Village Green Cape Vincent Recreation Park Wolfe Island Ferry Landing Cape Vincent Public Dock NYS DEC Research Station & Aquarium Village of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Local Importance Local Importance Local Importance Local Importance Local Importance Statewide Significance

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 26

000294

Table 4
Key
Visibility Indicated No Visibility Indicated

Visual Resource Visibility Summary
Potential Visibility
Theoretical View Indicated by Viewshed Excluding Existing Vegetation (see Figure 1) Theoretical View Indicated by Viewshed Including Existing Vegetation (see Figure 2) Actual View Likely Based on Field Confirmation of Existing Line-of-sight10

Filtered view through trees or limited view through structures possible (field observed)

Map ID
24 25 36.1 40.2 49 59.2 62

Receptor Name
Village of Cape Vincent Boat Launch Village Waterfront Park Long Point State Park Burnham Point State Park Ashland Flats Wildlife Management Area Cedar Point State Park French Creek State Wildlife Management Area

Municipality
Village of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Town of Lyme Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Clayton

Inventory Type
Local Importance Local Importance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Local Importance

Highway Corridors/Roadside Receptors
33 35.1 39 40 45 46 47 57 58 59 59.1 61 63 65 Intersection Merchant Rd & CR6 NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail Near Bates Rd Intersection Favret Rd & Hell St. NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail at Burnham Point State Park NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail Near Millen Bay Intersection Millers Bay Rd & Rosiere Rd (CR4) Intersection Favret Rd & CR 4 Intersection CR5 & Millers Bay Rd Intersection Macomb Settlement Rd & St Lawrence Rd (CR9) Intersection Rosiere Rd (CR4) & St Lawrence Rd (CR9) NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail at Cedar Point State Park NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail Near Pelo Rd Intersection of Deferno Rd & Grant Rd NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail 1 Mile SE of Clayton Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Lyme Town of Clayton Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Clayton Town of Clayton Town of Clayton Other Statewide Significance Other Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Other Other Other Other Other Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Other Statewide Significance

Residential/Community Resources
14 Cape Vincent Elementary School Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 27

000295

3.3 FACTORS AFFECTING VISUAL IMPACT
To bring order to the consideration of visual resources, the inventory of visual resources is organized into several recognizable elements, as follows: 3.3.1 Landscape Units Landscape units are areas with common characteristics of landform, water resources, vegetation, land use, and land use intensity. While a regional landscape may possess diverse features and characteristics, a landscape unit is a relatively homogenous, unified landscape of visual character. Landscape units are established to provide a framework for comparing and prioritizing the differing visual quality and sensitivity of visual resources in the study area. Discrete landscape units were identified through field inventory and air photo interpretation, and divide the study area into zones of unique patterns and visual composition. Within the visual resources study area, four distinctive landscape units were defined. These landscape units, their general landscape character, and use are as follows: Rural Agricultural Landscape Unit - This landscape unit is predominantly a patchwork of open land, including working cropland/pastures and successional old-fields transected by property-line hedgerows, occasionally interspersed with woodlots. The terrain itself consists of relatively level topography with gentle low-lying hills and small rounded hillocks rising 60 to 100 feet above the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. Within this landscape unit, population densities are very low and structures are sparsely located. Uses are predominantly agricultural and very low-density residential. Minor areas of commercial use are occasionally found along the roadside. Building stock consists primarily of permanent homes and manufactured housing, along with accessory structures (barns, garages, sheds, etc.). Structures are of varying vintage and quality. Poorly maintained or dilapidated structures and properties are not uncommon sights. Roadside views are often constrained by foreground vegetation. However, distant vistas (½ mile or more) are common across the expansive agricultural plain. Straight stretches of road can provide long axial views. Narrow curving roads often provide an interesting series of short views of the rural landscape, but also force drivers to direct their attention to the road rather than the adjacent scenery. Vistas to the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario from the Rural Agricultural landscape unit are not common. Some local residents and visitors may regard the aesthetic character of this landscape unit as an attractive and pastoral setting; others may view it as a working landscape, similar in character with much of rural upstate New York. Although a component of the background landscape, this inland area is not widely associated with scenic quality of the adjacent waterfront landscape that is central to the Thousand Island region’s appeal as a vacation destination. Rural Hamlet – Rural hamlets are characterized by low to medium density clusters of older residential dwellings and very limited retail or commercial services. Rural hamlets are typically found at the crossroad of two or more rural highways that define the hamlet center. Such small population clusters
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 28

000296

may be focused on a place of worship, general store or other community building. Residential structures generally front main roads. Side streets, if any, are often limited to one or two blocks off the hamlet center. Roadside residences and street trees often reinforce axial views along the highway. Views are typically short distance and directed towards the main thoroughfare and adjacent structures. Structures and trees generally block most views, however, filtered or framed views beyond the hamlet may exist through foreground vegetation. Development density drops almost immediately as one moves away from the hamlet center; transitioning quickly to the character of the surrounding Rural Agricultural landscape unit The small hamlets of Three Mile Bay, Rosiere and Saint Lawrence are representative of this landscape unit. Village Center – The waterfront Village of Cape Vincent is the primary residential and commercial center in the study area. The Village is centered on a small downtown commercial area principally oriented along West and East Broadway (NY Rte.12E), two blocks south of the waterfront. A treelined National Register Historic District extends westward from the downtown along West Broadway and a village green fronts East Broadway at North Point Street. The presence of the nearby St. Lawrence River is not a significant visual focus in much of the Village. Private commercial establishments and single-family structures dominate the waterfront, which is visually separated from most other residential and commercial areas. Visual connectivity is afforded along West Market Street, North Point Street and Club Street that extend from Broadway to the waters edge. Public waterfront access is provided at a small park off of East Broadway at Murray Street and the Wolfe Island ferry landing is at the end of North Point Street. Built structures and streets dominate the visual landscape and trees line many residential streets. Most buildings are one to three stories tall, including brick and wood frame structures. Buildings styles are an interesting mix of older architectural styles (e.g. Federal, Late Victorian, Italianate) interspersed with conventional mid- to late-20th century residences. Some of the older buildings are very well maintained or restored while others are in various states of disrepair or alteration. Views are generally short distance and focused along streets (which are typically arranged in a grid/block pattern). Structures and trees generally block most views, however, filtered or framed views are possible through foreground vegetation and buildings from the perimeter of the Village. Development density drops sharply as one moves away from the central business district as the Village Center landscape unit transitions to the Rural Agricultural landscape unit. Waterfront – The scenic character of the Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River coastal area is the principal factor influencing current and historic residential development patterns along the shoreline. Many seasonal and year-round residents desire to live by the water and enjoy the views of the waterfront and islands the region is well known for. The scenic value of waterfront property has resulted in a nearly continuous pattern of residential development along the study area shoreline. Built structures include traditional single-family residences, cottages, camps and mobile homes; nearly all
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 29

000297

oriented to take best advantage of water views. Development density within this landscape unit is highly variable, ranging from large wooded estate lots set back from nearby roadways and neighboring properties, to neighborhood scale clusters of small wood frame camps and trailer homes of varying quality, vintage and size. Shoreline areas between the water’s edge and residential structures are commonly cleared, partly or often completely, to create unencumbered vistas. Along the St. Lawrence River, the Waterfront landscape unit is clearly defined by NY Rte.12E. Along Lake Ontario the boundary is less well-defined, but still clearly identifiable along roadways paralleling the lake front and at the end of lake access roads. Most waterfront homes are located within 200 yards of the water. Beyond this distance water views quickly diminish due to the lack of pronounced topographic rise inland from the shoreline. For this reason, throughout much of the coastal area, the Rural Agricultural landscape unit extends to within several hundred feet of the water’s edge. Nearly 67% of all residential structures in the Town of Cape Vincent and 40% of all residential structures in the Town of Clayton are classified as seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. It is a reasonable assumption that the vast majority of these second homes are either fronting or immediately proximate to Lake Ontario or the St. Lawrence River. Through much of the Waterfront landscape unit, residential properties directly front NY Rte.12E. Individual driveways, often appearing informal and unpaved, mark the water-side of the highway corridor. Occasional public and private roads lead to organized neighborhoods defined by closely spaced homes, camps or trailers clustered in a one or two block grid pattern paralleling the shoreline. Hundreds of individual docks, often-spaced only feet apart protrude from the shoreline providing private access for homeowners and vacation renters. In other areas, most commonly in sheltered bays, larger marinas offer seasonal dock rentals and off-water storage. Cedar Point and Burnham State Parks provide public access to the St. Lawrence River within this distinct landscape unit. While many waterfront properties are very well maintained and contribute to the overall beauty of the waterfront landscape, other private properties have fallen to some degree of disrepair and detract from the visual quality of the waterfront setting. Scenic views from the Waterfront landscape unit are focused primarily on the picturesque views of the St. Lawrence River, Lake Ontario and islands. From affected shoreline vantage points, multiple turbines will be visible above intervening landform and vegetation inland from the shoreline, directly away from the scenic coastal viewshed. 3.3.2 Viewer/User Groups Viewers engaged in different activities, while in the same landscape unit, are likely to perceive their surroundings differently. The description of viewer groups is provided to assist in understanding the sensitivity and probable reaction of potential observers to visual change resulting from the proposed Project. Local Residents - These individuals would view the proposed Project from homes, businesses, and local roads. Except when involved in local travel, such viewers are likely to be stationary and could
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 30

000298

have frequent and/or prolonged views of the Project. They know the local landscape and may be sensitive to changes in particular views that are important to them. Conversely, the sensitivity of an individual observer to a specific view may be diminished over time due to repeated exposure. Through Travelers - Commuters and through travelers would view the proposed Project from highways. These viewers are typically moving and focusing on the road in front of them. Consequently, their views of the proposed wind energy project may be peripheral, intermittent, and/or of relatively brief duration. Given a general unfamiliarity or infrequent exposure to the regional or local landscape, travelers are likely to have a lower degree of sensitivity to visual change than would local residents and workers. Recreational Users - This group generally includes year-round and seasonal residents involved in outdoor recreational activities, as well as visitors who come to the area specifically to enjoy the cultural, recreational, and scenic resources and open spaces of the Thousand Islands region. The sensitivity of recreational users to visual quality is variable; but to many, visual quality is an important and integral part of the recreational experience. The presence of wind turbines may diminish the aesthetic experience for those that believe the rural landscape should be preserved for agricultural, rural residential, open space and similar uses. Such viewers will likely have high sensitivity to the visual quality and landscape character, regardless of the frequency of duration of their exposure to the proposed Project. For those with strong utilitarian beliefs, the presence of the proposed Project will have little aesthetic impact on their recreational experience. While the scenic quality of the Thousand Islands landscape is an important aspect of the recreational experience for most visitors, viewers will also be cognizant of various foreground details, developments and other visually proximate activities. Visitors and recreational users currently view the existing working landscape, low to moderate-density roadside residential and commercial uses of varying aesthetic quality, as well as utility infrastructure. Greater numbers of recreational users will be present in the region when the weather is clear and warm as compared to overcast, rainy or cold days. In addition, more recreational users will be present on weekends and holidays than on weekdays. Tourists – The Thousand Islands region of New York State is a widely recognized vacation destination drawing thousands of visitors year-round. These individuals come to the area specifically to enjoy the historic, recreational, and scenic resources of the lake, river and islands. Most tourists and seasonal residents would have high sensitivity to the visual quality and landscape character, regardless of the frequency or duration of their exposure to the proposed Project. This group may view the proposed facility while boating on the river or lake, from coastal vantage points or while traveling local roadways for the purpose of enjoying the scenic waterfront landscape.

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 31

000299

3.3.3 Distance Zones Distance affects the apparent size and degree of contrast between an object and its surroundings. Distance can be discussed in terms of distance zones, e.g., foreground, middleground and background. Distance zones established by the U.S. Forest Service and reiterated by the NYSDEC Visual Policy are used in this VRA. A description of each distance zone is provided below to assist in understanding the effect of distance on potential visual impacts. Foreground (0-½ mile) - At a foreground distance, viewers typically have a very high recognition of detail. Cognitively, in the foreground zone, human scale is an important factor in judging spatial relationships and the relative size of objects. From this distance, the sense of form, line, color and textural contrast with the surrounding landscape is highest. The visual impact is likely to be considered the greatest at a foreground distance. Middleground (½ mile to 3 miles) - This is the distance where elements begin to visually merge or join. Colors and textures become somewhat muted by distance, but are still identifiable. Visual detail is reduced, although distinct patterns may still be evident. Viewers from middleground distances characteristically recognize surface features such as tree stands, building clusters and small landforms. Scale is perceived in terms of identifiable features of development patterns. From this distance, the contrast of color and texture are identified more in terms of the regional context than by the immediate surroundings. Background (3-5 miles to horizon) - At this distance, landscape elements lose detail and become less distinct. Atmospheric perspective11 changes colors to blue-grays, while surface characteristics are lost. Visual emphasis is on the outline or edge of one landmass or water resource against another with a strong skyline element. 3.3.4 Duration/Frequency/Circumstances of View The analysis of a viewer’s experience must include the distinction between stationary and moving observers. The length of time and the circumstances under which a view is encountered is influential in characterizing the importance of a particular view. Stationary Views - Stationary views are experienced from fixed viewpoints. Fixed viewpoints include residential neighborhoods, recreational facilities, historic resources and other culturally important locations. Characteristically, stationary views offer sufficient time, either from a single observation or repeated exposure, to interpret and understand the physical surroundings. For this reason, stationary viewers have a higher potential for understanding the elements of a view than do moving viewers. Stationary views can be further divided to consider the effect of short-term and long-term exposure. Sites of long-term exposure include any location where a stationary observer is likely to be visually
11

Atmospheric Perspective: Even on the clearest of days, the sky is not entirely transparent because of the presence of atmospheric particulate matter. The light scattering effect of these particles causes a reduction in the intensity of colors and the contrast between light and dark as the distance of objects from the observer increases. Contrast depends upon the position of the sun and the reflectance of the object, among other items. The net effect is that objects appear "washed out" over great distances.
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 32

000300

impacted on a regular basis, such as from a place of residence. Sites of short-term exposure include locations where a stationary observer is only visiting, such as recreational facilities. Although the duration of visual impact remains at the discretion of the individual observer, short-term impacts are less likely to be repeated for a single observer on a regular basis. Moving Views - Moving views are those experienced in passing, such as from moving vehicles, where the time available for a viewer to cognitively experience a particular view is limited. Such viewers are typically proceeding along a defined path through highly complex stimuli. As the tendency of automobile occupants is to focus down the road, the actual time a viewer is able to focus on individual elements of the surrounding landscape may be a fraction of the total available view time. Obviously, a driver is most affected by driving requirements. Conversely, the greater the contrast of an element within the existing landscape, the greater the potential for viewer attention, even if viewed for only a moment by a moving viewer. Billboards along a rural highway, designed to attract attention and recognition, are an example of this condition. Furthermore, an element is more likely to be perceived in greater detail by local residents to whom it is experienced on a daily basis than it is to passers-by. 3.3.5 Summary of Affected Resources As listed in Table 4, of the original 67 inventoried visual resources, 22 would likely be screened from the proposed Project by either intervening landform or vegetation/structures and are thus eliminated from further study. Table 5 summarizes the factors affecting visual impact (landscape unit, viewer group, distance zone and duration/frequency/circumstances of view) described above for each visual resource determined to have a potential view of the proposed Project.

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 33

000301

Table 5
Approximate Number of Turbines Visible (see Figure 2) 21

Visual Resource Impact Summary

Factors Affecting Visual Impact

Map ID Receptor Name
Broadway Historic District LeRay, Vincent, House St. Vincent of Paul Catholic Church Galband du Fort, Jean Philippe, House Cape Vincent Recreation Park Cape Vincent Elementary School Burnham, E. K., House NYS DEC Research Station & Aquarium Duvillard Mill Aubertine Building Anthony, Levi, Building Village of Cape Vincent Boat Launch Village Waterfront Park Sacket, General, House Cocaigne, Nicholas House Peugnet, Captain Louis, House Johnson House Rogers Brothers Farmstead Intersection Merchant Rd & CR6 Dyer, Reuter, House NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail Near Bates Rd Long Point State Park Dezengremel, Remy, House Wilson, Warren, House Intersection Favret Rd & Hell St. NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail at Burnham Point State Park Fort Haldimand Site Burnham Point State Park Chevalier, Xavier, House Vautrin, Claude, House Union Meeting House Village of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Lyme Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Vilage of Cape Vincent Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Local Importance Local Importance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Other Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Other Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance 18 93 37 89 89 92 87 89 74 84 5 2 2 27 35 79 95 9 95 57 58 24 58 91 75 31 Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance 27 Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 30 Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 77 Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 55 Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance

Municipality

Inventory Type

Landscape Unit
Village Center Village Center Village Center Village Center Village Center Village Center Village Center Village Center Village Center Village Center Village Center Village Center Village Center Village Center Rural Agricultural Waterfront Waterfront Waterfront Rural Agricultural Rural Agricultural Rural Agricultural Waterfront Rural Agricultural Rural Agricultural Rural Agricultural Waterfront Waterfront Waterfront Rural Agricultural Rural Agricultural Waterfront

Viewer/User Group(s)
local residents, tourists local residents local residents local residents local residents, recreational, tourists local residents local residents tourists local residents local residents local residents local residents, recreational, tourists local residents, recreational, tourists local residents local residents local residents local residents local residents travelers, local residents, workers local residents travelers, local residents. tourists recreational local residents local residents travelers, local residents travelers, local residents. tourists tourists recreational local residents local residents local residents

2 3 4 13 13.1 14 19 19.1 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 30 32 33 35 35.1 36.1 37 38 39 40 40.1 40.2 42 43 44

(nearest turbine) 1.0 / Foreground (T1)

Distance (miles) /Distance Zone

Moving/ Stationary

Stationary

1.0 / Middleground (T1)

Stationary

0.8 / Middleground (T1)

Stationary

0.9 / Middleground (T1)

Stationary

0.8 / Middleground (T1)

Stationary

0.8 / Middleground (T5)

Stationary

1.1 / Middleground (T1)

Stationary

1.1 / Middleground (T5)

Stationary

1.1 / Middleground (T5)

Stationary

1.1 / Middleground (T5)

Stationary

1.1 / Middleground (T8)

Stationary

1.0 / Middleground (T11)

Stationary

1.0 / Middleground (T11)

Stationary

0.6 / Middleground (T5)

Stationary

0.2 / Foreground (T6)

Stationary

1.0 / Middleground (T1)

Stationary

1.7 / Middleground (T1)

Stationary

2.0 / Middleground (T4)

Stationary

0.8 / Middleground (T4)

Moving

1.2 / Middleground (T13)

Stationary

1.9 / Foreground (T10)

Moving

7.0 / Background (T34)

Stationary

1.3 / Middleground (T34)

Stationary

0.3 / Foreground (T31)

Stationary

0.3 / Foreground (T42)

Moving

0.5 / Middleground (T49)

Moving

1.8 / Middleground (T35)

Stationary

0.5 / Middleground (T49)

Stationary

0.3 / Foreground (T56)

Stationary

0.4 / Foreground (T54)

Stationary

0.6 / Middleground (T69)

Stationary

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 34

000302

Table 5
Approximate Number of Turbines Visible (see Figure 2)

Visual Resource Impact Summary

Factors Affecting Visual Impact

Map ID Receptor Name
NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail Near Millen Bay Intersection Millers Bay Rd & Rosiere Rd (CR4) Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Lyme Town of Clayton Town of Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Town of Clayton Town of Clayton Town of Clayton Town of Clayton Other Statewide Significance Statewide Significance Local Importance Other Statewide Significance Other Other Statewide Significance 44 27 14 58 49 95 5 71 3 Statewide Significance 82 Other 92 Other 90 Intersection Favret Rd & CR 4 Docteur, Joseph, House Ashland Flats Wildlife Management Area Intersection CR5 & Millers Bay Rd Intersection Macomb Settlement Rd & St Lawrence Rd (CR9) Intersection Rosiere Rd (CR4) & St Lawrence Rd (CR9) NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail at Cedar Point State Park NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail Near Pelo Rd French Creek State Wildlife Management Area Intersection of Deferno Rd & Grant Rd NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail 1 Mile SE of Clayton Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 72 Waterfront

Municipality

Inventory Type

Landscape Unit

Viewer/User Group(s)
travelers, local residents. tourists travelers, local residents

Distance (miles) /Distance Zone

(nearest turbine)

Moving/ Stationary

45 46 47 48 49 57 58 59 59.1 61 62 63 65

0.5 / Middleground (T69)

Moving

Rural Agricultural Rural Agricultural Rural Agricultural Rural Agricultural Rural Agricultural Rural Agricultural Rural Agricultural Waterfront Waterfront Rural Agricultural Rural Agricultural Waterfront

0.8 / Middleground (T74) travelers, local residents local residents recreational travelers, local residents travelers, local residents travelers, local residents travelers, local residents. tourists travelers, local residents. tourists recreational travelers, local residents travelers, local residents. tourists

Moving

0.9 / Middleground (T55)

Moving

1.1 / Middleground (T55)

Stationary

1.5 / Middleground (T55)

Stationary

4.0 / Background (T55)

Moving

2.9 / Middleground (T93)

Moving

1.0 / Middleground (T93)

Moving

0.8 / Middleground (T94)

Moving

1.7 / Middleground (T94)

Moving

0.2 / Foreground (T95)

Stationary

4.0 / Background (T95)

Moving

4.6 / Background (T95)

Moving

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 35

000303

3.4 DEGREE OF PROJECT VISIBILITY
3.4.1 Field Observation and Photography On December 12 and December 31,2006 a field crew drove public roads and visited many of the potentially affected visual resources (as determined through viewshed mapping) to document existing visibility in the direction of proposed wind turbines. The weather on December 12, 2006 was partly to mostly cloudy with visibility greater than 10 miles. The weather on December 31, 2006 was partly cloudy with visibility greater than 10 miles. Photographs were taken from affected visual resources throughout the study area using an eight-mega pixel digital camera with a lens setting of approximately 50mm12 to simulate normal human eyesight relative to scale. The location selected for each photograph was judged by the field observer to be the most unobstructed line-of-sight to the turbine area from the subject visual resource. To the degree possible, photographs were taken at a time of day when the sun was to the back of the photographer to minimize the effect of glare within the camera’s field of view and to maximize visible contrast of the landscape being photographed. The precise coordinates of each photo location were recorded in the field using a handheld global positioning system (GPS) unit. To determine the direction of the proposed wind turbines from each photo location, the precise coordinates of all proposed turbines were pre-programmed into the GPS as a “waypoint.” The GPS waypoint direction indicator (arrow pointing along calculated bearing) was used to determine the appropriate bearing for the camera, so that a desired turbine, or grouping of turbines, would be generally centered in the field of view of each photograph. 3.4.2 Photo Simulations Selection of Key Receptors for Photo Simulation - To demonstrate how the actual turbines will appear within the study area from a variety of distances and locations, 16 representative photo simulations were prepared. The specific location of these Table 6 Key Receptors Selected for Photo Simulation simulations was chosen for their Map ID Receptor Name relevance to the factors affecting 2 Broadway Historic District 24 Village of Cape Vincent Boat Launch visual impact (viewer/user groups, 27 Cocaigne, Nicholas, House landscape units, distance zones and 33 Intersection Merchant Rd. & CR6 35 Dyer, Reuter, House duration/frequency and 38 Wilson, Warren, House 39 Intersection Favret Rd. & Hell St. circumstances of view discussed 40 NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail at Burnham Point State Park 43 Vautrin, Claude, House above (see section 3.3). These simulations do not include views from all potentially affected visual resources, but rather provide representative examples of how the
12

45 48 58 59 59.1 61 36.1

NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail Near Millen Bay Docteur, Joseph, House Intersection Macomb Settlement Rd & St Lawrence Rd (CR9) Intersection Rosiere Rd (CR4) & St Lawrence Rd (CR9) NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail at Cedar Point State Park NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail Near Pelo Rd Long Point State Park

A Canon EOS Rebel XT digital SLR with a 24-85milimeter (mm) zoom lens was used for all Project photography. This digital camera, similar to most digital SLR cameras, has a sensor that is approximately 1.6 times smaller than a comparable full frame 35mm film camera. Recognizing this differential, the zoom lens used was set to approximately 31mm to achieve a field-of-view comparable to a 50mm lens on a full frame 35mm camera (31mm x 1.6 = 50mm).
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 36

000304

proposed project will appear under varying circumstances of distance and landscape character. Table 6 lists the key receptors selected for photo simulation. The location of simulated views is included in Figure 4. Because the visibility of wind turbines will most commonly affect local residents from rural homes and during daily travel along local roads, and most open vistas of the Project typically occur in isolated locations along rural roadways, views selected for photo simulation favor such views even though the number of viewers will not be large. All photo simulations are presented in Appendix A. Photo Simulation Methodology - A photo simulation of the proposed Project was prepared from each key receptor location. Photo simulations were developed by superimposing a rendering of a threedimensional computer model of the proposed Project into the base photograph taken from each corresponding visual resource (see section 3.4.1). The three-dimensional computer model was developed in Autodesk Architectural Desktop, Land Development Desktop and Autodesk Viz (Viz) software. Simulated perspectives (camera views) were then matched to the corresponding base photograph for each simulated view by replicating the precise coordinates of the field camera position (as recorded by GPS) and the focal length of the camera lens used (50mm). Precisely matching these parameters assures scale accuracy between the base photograph and the subsequent simulated view. The camera’s target position was set to match the bearing of the corresponding existing condition photograph as recorded in the field. With the existing conditions photograph displayed as a “viewport background,” minor camera adjustments were made (horizontal and vertical positioning, and camera roll) to align the horizon in the background photograph with the corresponding features of the 3D model. As discussed above, the specific turbine type and model has not yet been selected for this Project. Turbine sizes ranging from 1.5 MW to 3.0 MW are currently under consideration. For the purpose of this VRA the specifications of the largest turbine being considered (3.0 MW) were used. Using this conservative worst-case protocol, turbine towers were modeled at 275 feet tall from ground to nacelle (hub). Each of the three turbine blades was modeled at 150 feet in length (300-foot rotor diameter) with the apex of blade rotation reaching approximately 425 feet above ground elevation. The proposed condition model was rendered using the base photograph as a “Viz background environment map.” The 3D model was rendered using sunlight settings approximating the date and time of day the base photograph was taken. To the extent practicable, and to the extent necessary to reveal impacts, design details of the proposed turbines were built into the 3D model and incorporated into the photo simulation. Consequently, the scale, alignment, elevations and location of the visible elements of the proposed facilities are true to the conceptual design. The rendered view was then opened using Adobe Photoshop 7.0 software for post-production editing (i.e., airbrush out portion of turbines that fall below foreground topography and vegetation).

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 37

000305

PHOTO SIMULATION LOCATION MAP

Figure 4 Visual Resource Assessment St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project
i le 5M

s
61 !
( !

January 7, 2007

!
59.1
( !

KEY

1

( !

VISUAL RECEPTOR

1
94 ) " 95 90 ) " ) " 91 ) " 92 12E 86 ) " ) " 87 ) " 93 ) " 81 ) " 88 ) " 82 ) " 75 ) " 89 83 ) " ) 76 ) 77 "" 45 84 ! 69 " " ) ) ) " 70 85 ) " 71 ) " ) " 78 ) " 79 63 72 ) " ) " )) "" 80 64 73 ) " ) " 60 65 ) " ) " 74 ) " 56 61 ) " 66 ) ) " " 57 ) " 62 ) ) " " 50 67 ) " 58 ) " 51 68 ) " ) " 52 ) ) 43 " " ! 53

PROPOSED TURBINE (425' BLADE TIP HEIGHT)

PHOTO SIMULATION LOCATION
12 ! (
59 !
( !

! (

1 AND 5 MILE BUFFERS

AREA OF VISIBILITY - TOPOGRAPHY & VEGETATION

1 - 20 TURBINES

( !

20 - 40 TURBINES

40 - 60 TURBINES
58 !
( !

60 - 80 TURBINES

40 !
( !

80 - 95 TURBINES

24 !
( !

16 ) ) " " 17 14 ) ) " " 15 11 12 ) ) " " 13 ) " 10 ) " 18 ) "

49 ) " 43 ) " 35 ) " 44 ) " 45 36 )) "" 37 ) " 27 )) "" 38 28 ) " 39 ) " 29 ) " 30 22 40 ) " ) " )) "" 41 31 24 ) ) " " 39 ! 25 ) 38 " ! 23 ) "
( ! ( !

( !

46 ) "

47 ) " 42 ) " 32 ) " 33 ) " 34 ) "

54 ) " 48 ) " 55 ) "

2 !
( !

19 ) " 26 ) " 20 ) ) " " 21

48 !
( !

5 1 ) ) " " 2 ) " 3 ) " 4 ) " 6 ) 27 "! 7 ) "
( !

8 ) " 9 ) "

PROJECT # 2006 - 06115.10P Copyright © 2006 Saratoga Associates. All Rights Reserved.

35 !
( !

This map is computer generated using data acquired by Saratoga Associates from various sources and is intended only for reference, conceptual planning and presentation purposes. This map is not intended for and should not be used to establish boundaries, property lines, location of objects or to provide any other information typically needed for construction or any other purpose when engineered plans or land surveys are required.
33 !
( !

File Location: S:\GIS\06115\CapeVincent_AestheticResources_PHOTOLOG.mxd

! (
12E

BROWNVILLE

0

0.5

1

2

3 Miles

¯

!
36.1
( !

000306

Arms Length Rule - The photo simulations included in Appendix A have been printed using an 11”x17” page format. At this image size, the page should be held at approximately arms length13 so that the scene will appear at the correct scale. Viewing the image closer would make the scene appear too large and viewing the image from greater distance would make the scene appear too small compared to what an observer would actually see in the field. For viewing photo simulations at other page sizes (i.e., computer monitor, projected image or other hard copy output) the viewing distance/page width ratio is approximately 1.5/1. For example, if the simulation were viewed on a 42-inch wide poster size enlargement, the correct viewing distance would be approximately 63 inches; or 5 ¼ feet. Field Viewing - The photo simulations present an accurate depiction of the appearance of proposed turbines suitable for general understanding of the degree and character of Project visibility. However, these images are a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional landscape. The human eye is capable of recognizing a greater level of detail than can be illustrated in a two-dimensional image. Agency decision-makers and interested parties may benefit from viewing the photo simulations in the field from any or all of the simulated vantage points. In this manner, observers can directly compare the level of detail visible in the base photograph with actual field observed conditions.

13

Viewing distance is calculated based a 39.6-degree field-of-view for the 50mm camera lens used, and the 15.5” wide image presented in Appendix A. “Arm’s length” is assumed to be approximately 22.5 inches from the eye. Arm’s length varies for individual viewers.
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 39

000307

3.4.3 Line-of-Sight Profiles To further illustrate the degree of project visibility and geographic scale, ten (10) line-of-sight profiles are provided in Appendix B. The study locations were selected to identify potential views from local population centers within and beyond the five-mile radius study area including the Village of Clayton, Three Mile Bay and Saint Lawrence, as well as several river and lake islands, and Long Point State Park on Chaumont Bay. Profiles were prepared at a horizontal scale of one-inch equals 2,000 or 3,000 feet (no vertical exaggeration) using a digital elevation model based on 1:24,000-scale USGS topographic maps (10foot contour intervals). The potential screening effect of intervening vegetation was added along each profile line using 1meter color Digital Orthophoto Quadrangle (DOQ) infrared aerial image (2003) of the Project region. For the purpose of this analysis, average tree height is assumed to be 40 feet. Based on field observation, most trees in forested portions of the study area are significantly taller than 40 feet. This height thus represents a conservative estimate of the effect of vegetative screening. Line-of-sight profiles include: > > > > > > > > > > > Line-of-Sight Profile A-A’ – Village of Clayton Looking to Turbine #93 Line-of-Sight Profile B-B’ – Wolfe Island North Looking to Turbine #86 Line-of-Sight Profile C-C’ – Hamlet of Saint Lawrence Looking to Turbine #77 Line-of-Sight Profile D-D’ – Wolf Island at Banford Point Looking to Turbine #65 Line-of-Sight Profile D-D’ – Wolf Island at Banford Point Looking to Turbine #65 Line-of-Sight Profile E-E’ – Carleton Island West Looking to Turbine #65 Line-of-Sight Profile F-F’ – Carleton Island East Looking to Turbine #33 Line-of-Sight Profile G-G’ – Wolfe Island South Looking to Turbine #9 Line-of-Sight Profile H-H’ – Grenadier Island Looking to Turbine #5 Line-of-Sight Profile I-I’ – Long Point State Park Looking to Turbine #18 Line-of-Sight Profile J-J’ – Hamlet of Three Mile Bay Looking to Turbine #34

3.5 CHARACTER OF PROJECT VISIBILITY
3.5.1 Compatibility with Regional Landscape Patterns The visual character of a landscape is defined by the patterns, forms and scale relationships created by lines, colors, and textures. Some patterns dominate while others are subordinate. The qualitative impact of a project is the effect the development has on these patterns, and by corollary, the visual character of the regional landscape. Existing Landscape - The visible patterns (form, line, color, and texture) found within the Project region can best be described as representative of the agricultural landscape typical of northern Jefferson County, NY. Given the rural nature of the study area, visible colors are natural, muted shades of green, brown, gray, and other earth tones. When viewed from a distance, the landscape
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 40

000308

maintains a rather uniform and unbroken blending of colors, which tend to fade with hazing of varying atmospheric conditions. The following describes the compatibility of the proposed Project with regional landscape patterns within which it is contained and viewed. This evaluation is graphically depicted in the photographic simulations provided in Appendix A. Form - The form of the regional landscape is essentially a planar landscape. The woodland edge of agricultural fields commonly creates a brief vertical offset of the prevailing planar form. The proposed wind energy project will be comprised of approximately 95 thin tapered vertical structures distributed throughout the landscape; topped with large rotating blades. The introduction of such clearly manmade and kinetic structures creates an obvious visual disruption of the agricultural landscape. Line – The existing landscape maintains a horizontal line formed by extended vistas over an agricultural plain that often forms the visible horizon. The well-defined vertical form of the approximately 95 turbines visible across this plain introduces a contrasting and distinct perpendicular element into the landscape. Views will commonly include multiple turbines at varying distances from the viewer. While the horizontal configuration of turbines across the landscape is an approximate grid pattern, turbine rows will most commonly be viewed off-axis creating the appearance of a rather random arrangement. Color – The neutral off-white color of the proposed turbine tower, nacelle and blades will be most often viewed against the background sky. Under these conditions the turbines would be highly compatible with the hue, saturation and brightness of the background sky and distant elements of the natural landscape. Color contrast will decrease with increasing distance and/or periods of increased atmospheric haze or precipitation. Texture – Tubular style monopole towers have been specifically selected, instead of skeletal (or lattice) frame towers, to minimize textural contrast and provide a more simple, visually appealing form. Scale/Spatial Dominance – The proposed wind turbines will be the tallest visible elements on the horizon and will be disproportionate to other elements commonly visible on the regional landscape. From most foreground and middleground vantage points the contrast of the proposed turbines with commonly recognizable features, such as structures and trees, will result in the proposed Project being perceived as a highly dominant visual element. 3.5.2 Visual Character during the Construction Period Construction of the proposed wind turbines will require use of large mobile cranes and other large construction vehicles. Turbine components will be delivered in sections via large semi-trucks. The construction period for each turbine is expected to be quite short. As such, construction related visual impacts will be brief and are not expected to result in adverse prolonged visual impact to area residents or visitors.

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 41

000309

3.6 SHADOW FLICKER ANALYSIS
Wind turbines can cause a flickering effect when the rotating turbine blades cast shadows that move rapidly across the ground and nearby structures. This can cause a disturbance within structures when the repeating pattern of light and shadow falls across the windows of buildings; particularly when occupants are trying to read or watch television. The effect, known as shadow flicker, is most conspicuous when windows face a rotating wind turbine and when the sun is low in the sky (e.g., shortly after sunrise or shortly before sunset). While the study of shadow flicker is a relatively new discipline, evidence from operational turbines suggests that the intensity of shadow flicker is only an issue at short distances. It is generally accepted that shadow flicker will have no affect on properties at a distance further than ten (10) turbine rotor diameters from the turbine (approximately 3,000 feet for this Project). 14 Shadow flicker will only occur when certain conditions coincide: Daylight hours (sunrise to sunset) – shadow flicker does not occur at night; Sunshine – flicker will not occur on overcast days when daylight is not sufficiently bright to cast shadows; Receptor is within ten (10) rotor diameters of the turbine – beyond this distance a person should not perceive a wind turbine to be chopping through sunlight, but rather as an object with the sun behind it.15 Windows face the turbine – turbine shadows can only enter a structure through unshaded windows; and Turbine is rotating – no flicker will occur when the turbine is shut down. Because of constantly changing solar aspect and azimuth, shadows will be cast on specific days of the year and will pass a stationary receptor relatively quickly. Flicker will not be an everyday event or be of extended duration when it does occur. For receptors located to the west of a turbine, a residence is more likely to fall within the shadow zone shortly after sunrise when affected residents are typically asleep with shades drawn. For receptors located to the east of a turbine, a residence is more likely to fall within the shadow zone shortly before sunset. When the rotor plane is in-line with the sun and receptor (as seen from the receptor), the cast shadows will be very narrow, of low intensity, and will move quickly past the stationary receptor. When the rotor plane is perpendicular to the sun-receptor “view line,” the cast shadow of the blades will move within a larger elliptical area. The distance between a wind turbine and a receptor affects the intensity of the shadows cast by the blades, and therefore the intensity of flickering. Shadows cast close to a turbine will be more intense, distinct and “focused.” This is because a greater proportion of the sun’s disc is intermittently blocked. Similarly, flickering is more intense if created by the area of a blade closer to the root and further from the tip. Beyond ten (10) turbine diameters (approximately 3,000 feet for this Project) the intensity of the blade shadow is considered negligible.
14 15

http://www.meridianenergy.co.nz/WindProjects/Project+west+wind/appendixcpage8690.pdf http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/renew_3.5.1.4.htm
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 42

000310

3.6.1 Shadow Flicker Methodology Shadow-flicker analysis was conducted using WindPRO 2.4 Basis software (WindPro), and associated shadow module, a widely accepted modeling software package developed specifically for the design and evaluation of wind power projects. Variables used for shadow calculations include: Sunshine probabilities (percentage of time from sunrise to sunset with sunshine) The WindPro model calculates shadow frequency based on monthly sunshine probabilities. The following sunshine probabilities were used for this analysis and are based on historic meteorological data for Syracuse, NY, approximately 70 miles south of the Project site. 16
Jan 0.33 Feb 0.39 Mar 0.46 Apr 0.49 May 0.55 Jun 0.59 Jul 0.63 Aug 0.59 Sep 0.53 Oct 0.44 Nov 0.26 Dec 0.25

Operational Time/Rotor Orientation – The WindPro model assumes there will be no shadow flicker during calm winds (when the blades are not turning). Moreover, the orientation of the rotor (e.g., determined by wind direction) affects the size of a shadow cast area. To more accurately calculate the amount of time a shadow will be over a specific location (based on rotor orientation), the WindPro model considers typical wind direction. The operational time (hours per year [hrs/yr]) of wind direction is based on meteorological data collected by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Buoy Data Center at the Galloo Island, NY monitoring station (approximately 15 miles southwest of the Village of Cape Vincent) over a one year period in 200017 as follows:
N 511 NNE 517 NE 739 ENE 352 E 187 ESE 215 SE 427 SSE 1008 S 658 SSW 499 SW 469 WSW 880 W 740 WNW 621 NW 423 NNW 445 Calm 94

Shadow flicker analysis has been undertaken for the 95-turbine layout using a turbine rotor 91 meters (m) (300 feet) in diameter and 84m (275 feet) hub height. The analysis has been completed for distances of up to 910m (3,000 feet) from each turbine location (ten times the rotor diameter of the proposed turbines). This analysis also includes the effect of topography on shadow area. The shadow flicker model incorporates the same digital elevation model (DEM) of the study area used for viewshed analysis (see section 3.1.1). Using these variables, WindPro was used to calculate the theoretical number of hours per year the shadow of a rotor would fall at any given location within the 3,000-foot turbine radius. This calculation includes the cumulative sum of shadow hours for all turbines and is accurate to a 10-meter grid cell resolution.

16 17

http://ggweather.com/ccd/avgsun.htm (data for Syracuse, NY) http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_history.php?station=GLLN6
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 43

000311

Figure C1, in Appendix C, illustrates the geographic area of cumulative shadow impact using the following increments: 0-1 hrs/yr; 2-10 hrs/yr; 11-20 hrs/yr; 21-30 hrs/yr; 31-40 hrs/yr; 41-50 hrs/yr; 51 or more hrs/yr; WindPro does not have the capability to incorporate the possible screening effect of existing vegetation. To account for this more realistic condition, a second shadow limit map was prepared excluding areas determined through viewshed analysis (see Figure 2) to be screened from turbine visibility by existing vegetation. This vegetated condition shadow limits map, although not considered absolutely definitive, acceptably identifies the geographic area within which one would expect to be substantially screened from turbine shadows by intervening forest vegetation. Figure C2, in Appendix C, illustrates the geographic area of cumulative shadow impact including the screening effect of existing vegetation. 3.6.2 Shadow Flicker Impact on Existing Structures Existing structures located within a 3,000-foot radius of a proposed turbine were identified through a combination of air-photo interpretation and field verification. Each existing structure was evaluated to determine potential shadow impact. Table C1, in Appendix C, summarizes the number of hours per year each inventoried structure would theoretically fall within the shadow zone of one or more proposed turbine. The location of inventoried structures is included in Figure C1 and Figure C2. Of 197 studied shadow receptors located within 10 rotor diameters: 22 (11.2%) will be impacted 0-1 hrs/yr; 89 (45.2%) will be impacted 2-10 hrs/yr; 29 (14.7%) will be impacted 11-20 hrs/yr; 22 (11.2%) will be impacted 21-30 hrs/yr; 21 (10.7%) will be impacted 31-40 hrs/yr; 11 (5.6%) will be impacted 41-50 hrs/yr; 3 (1.5%) will be impacted greater than 50 hrs/yr. The three (3) receptors that will theoretically be impacted more than 50 hours per year include structure #102 (94.8 hours), structure# 103 (81.5) hours) and structure #106 (72.5 hours). There are no regulations or guidelines that establish an acceptable degree of shadow-flicker impact on a potential receptor. Based on the limited number of hours any structure will be impacted, shadow flicker is not expected to create an adverse impact on most nearby residential dwellings. For residences where shadow flicker is greatest, this impact might be considered an annoyance by some, and unnoticed by others.

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 44

000312

4.0

MITIGATION PROGRAM
Wind turbine design is largely driven by aerodynamic efficiency. SLW is limited in selection of turbine styles to designs presently offered by wind turbine manufacturers. Proposed turbines will not be used for commercial advertising, or include conspicuous lettering or corporate logos identifying the Project owner or equipment manufacturer. Where Project access roads are to be constructed on hillsides through existing woodland, roads will be designed in a serpentine alignment to avoid long straight vegetative cuts. Roads will also be designed to generally follow topographic contours to minimize cut and fill.

Professional Design

Screening Considering the proposed Project includes approximately 95 wind turbines that will be visible over a wide viewshed area, traditional treatments such as fences, earthen berms and vegetative screening cannot be applied in an effective manner to screen these major structures. Perimeter screen plantings will be used to minimize visibility of the proposed substation and operations/maintenance buildings from the public right-of-way. Project Siting/Relocation The proposed Project is located in the Town of Cape Vincent for the following reasons: Favorable elevation and exposure of the Project area which is well suited for receiving prevailing winds; Reliable winds that meet the necessary criteria for a commercially viable wind energy project; The presence of an existing substation (in the Town of Lyme) which provides infrastructure necessary to deliver wind generated electricity to the grid; and

By their very nature, modern wind energy projects are large and highly visible facilities. The need to position wind turbines in areas of higher elevation cannot be readily avoided. Given the necessary scale of wind energy turbines and the number of turbines required for a sustainable project, there is no opportunity to relocate the wind energy project or any of its components to other sites in the Cape Vincent area where it would be substantially less visible. Proposed turbines will maintain a minimum setback from residential structures. Such separation of uses assures maximum screening benefit of existing woodland vegetation, where such exists, and minimizes the potential for extended duration shadow flicker on nearby residences.

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 45

000313

Camouflage/Disguise The color of the blades, nacelle, and tower will be a neutral off-white. While the FAA mandates this color for aviation safety, this color is well suited to minimize visual contrast with the background sky. Low Profile/Downsizing The proposed Project includes wind energy generating turbines in sufficient number to produce up to 136 MW of electricity. However, the specific turbine type and model has not yet been finalized for this Project. The profile of the wind turbines is dictated by operational efficiency. Because wind turbine power extraction is a function of the cube of wind speed (relatively large increases in power from small increases in wind speed), the height of a tower plays an important role in overall energy production. Reducing the height of the turbines to a meaningful degree would substantially reduce the amount of energy produced rendering the development of the wind energy project impractical or would require constructing a greater number of smaller units to be economically viable. Alternate Technologies Wind energy itself is an alternative to traditional energy sources. Meaningful development of renewable wind energy will reduce reliance on fossil fuel combustion and nuclear fission facilities and result in reduction in air pollutants and greenhouse gasses. A single 750-kilowatt (0.75MW) wind turbine, operated for one year at a site with Class 4 wind speeds (winds averaging 12.5-13.4 mph at 10 meters height), can be expected to displace a total of 1,179 tons (2.36 million pounds) of carbon dioxide, 6.9 tons of sulfur dioxide, and 4.3 tons of nitrogen oxides, based on the U.S. average utility generation fuel mix. More wind power means less smog, acid rain, and greenhouse gas emissions.18 Non-specular Materials Wind turbine towers will be painted metal structures and blades will be painted fiberglass composite. Where specifications permit, non-specular paint will be used on all outside surfaces to minimize reflected glare. Lighting Due to the height of the proposed turbines, the Federal Aviation Administration requires red flashing aviation obstruction lighting be placed atop the nacelle on approximately 50 of the 95 turbines to assure safe flight navigation in the vicinity of the Project. This federally mandated safety feature cannot be omitted or reduced.

18

American Wind Energy Association, Wind Energy Fact Sheet, Wind Energy – the Fuel of the Future is Ready Today (http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/wetoday.pdf)
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 46

000314

Maintenance How a landscape and structures in the landscape are maintained has aesthetic implications to the long-term visual character of a project. SLW places a high priority on facility maintenance, not only for operational purposes, but for aesthetic appearance as well. Recognizing that its public image will be directly linked to the outward appearance of its facilities and desiring to be a welcomed member of the community, SLW will implement a strict policy of maintenance, including materials and practices that ensure a clean and well-maintained appearance over the full life of the facility. Decommissioning As will be detailed in a formal decommissioning plan submitted by SLW, and as mandated in all landowner lease contracts, all of the towers will be removed at the end of the Project’s useful working life, and the Project area restored to as near its present condition as possible.

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 47

000315

5.0

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL VISUAL IMPACT

Visibility Summary Viewshed maps indicate that one or more turbine highpoints (i.e. apex of blade rotation) will be theoretically visible from approximately 65 percent of the five-mile radius study area. Approximately 35 percent of the study area will likely have no visibility of any wind turbines due to intervening landform or vegetation. Additionally: 20+ turbine highpoints will be visible from approximately 51 percent of the study area; 40+ turbine highpoints will be visible from approximately 42 percent of the study area; 60+ turbine highpoints will be visible from approximately 36 percent of the study area; and 80+ turbine highpoints will be visible from approximately 28 percent of the study area. Photo simulations provided in Appendix A illustrate that, when visible, a substantial portion of individual turbines will be seen above intervening landform and vegetation. From foreground vantage points (within ½ mile), all or most of the 275-foot tall turbine tower, nacelle and 300-foot diameter turbine rotor will commonly be visible above intervening vegetation. From background vantage points (3+ miles), foreground vegetation will often screen the lower portions of the turbine structure (tower and nacelle) limiting views to the upper portion of the rotor turning above the tree line. This high degree of Project visibility is attributed to the broad agricultural clearing and lack of screening hills typical throughout much of the five-mile radius study area. Turbine visibility is most common from inland areas where cleared agricultural lands provide long vistas in the direction of turbine groupings. The area most affected by views of the Project will be the central portion of the turbine area where multiple turbines will be visible up to 360-degrees around a vantage point. Multiple turbines will also be visible from portions of the St. Lawrence River coastal area northeast of the Village of Cape Vincent. Based on field observation, such visibility would likely be lessened to some degree by existing clusters of localized (non-forest) vegetation. Direct views of multiple turbines will occur from offshore vantage points on the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. Views are also found on lake and river islands from shoreline areas oriented toward the Project, as well as island hillsides with down slope vistas in the direction of the Project. Such views will occur on both sides of the international border within the five-mile radius study area. While the viewshed map indicates theoretical visibility of multiple turbines within the Village of Cape Vincent, field observation determined the prevalence of mature street trees and site landscaping combined with one- and two-story residential and commercial structures will commonly block views in the direction of the Project from the downtown and waterfront area. Filtered or framed views of proposed turbines are likely through foreground vegetation and buildings from the perimeter of the Village. Direct views are more prevalent on the outskirts of the Village and hamlet where localized residential and commercial structures, street trees and site landscaping are less likely to provide a visual barrier.

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 48

000316

Impact on Visual Resources Based on viewshed analysis, the highpoint of one or more of the proposed turbines will be visible from approximately 45 (67%) of the 67 inventoried visual resources. Photo simulations provided in Appendix A illustrate the degree and character of Project visibility from 16 representative visual resources impacted by the Project. The Project will be within view of 31 visual resources of Statewide Significance. Of these, 19 are private properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Considering these properties are not open to the general public, and the listed historic significance is not associated with the cultural sensitivity of the setting (e.g., the listed historic significance of the property is associated with a person, event, and/or architecture/engineering), the aesthetic impact of Project visibility on these resources is diminished. Affected resources of statewide significance, which are open to the public, include: > > > > > > > St. Johns Episcopal Church (place of worship); St. Vincent of Paul Catholic Church (place of worship); Tibbett’s Point Lighthouse (tourist attraction); Ashland Flats Wildlife Management Area (public open space); Burnham Point State Park (public park); NYSDEC Research Station & Aquarium (tourist attraction); and French Creek State Wildlife Management Area (public open space)

The proposed SLW Project will also be visible from much of the Seaway Trail Scenic Byway. Of the 23.6 miles of the Seaway Trail (NY Rte.12E) traversing the five-mile radius study area, the high point of one or more turbines will be visible from approximately 17.5 miles (74 percent). For much of the Seaway Trail, visibility will include a substantial portion (tower, nacelle and rotor) of multiple turbines. Figure A8, Figure A14, Figure A10, and Figure A15 in Appendix A illustrate the degree and character of the Project from representative roadside vantage points on the Seaway Trail. Character of View The proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project is located in the Thousand Islands region of New York State; a popular summertime waterfront vacation destination. The region is well known for the scenic beauty of its shoreline and over 1,800 islands and offers numerous cultural, recreational and entertainment attractions. The Thousand Island region has long been recognized as ideal for second homes, boating, and fishing and general enjoyment of the waterfront environment. While resorts, restaurants and tourist attractions are largely clustered around the Villages of Clayton and Alexandria Bay, recreational and tourism resources are found throughout the Thousand Islands coastal area, including the Village of Cape Vincent and much of the waterfront portion of the study area. Combined with a wide variety of passive and active recreational opportunities, the aesthetic quality of the waterfront landscape is central to the Thousand Island region’s appeal as a well-known and popular vacation destination. The scenic value of waterfront property has resulted in a nearly continuous pattern of residential development along the shoreline. Built structures include traditional single-family residences,
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 49

000317

cottages, camps and mobile homes; nearly all oriented to take best advantage of water views. Development density along the waterfront is highly variable, ranging from large wooded estate lots set back from nearby roadways and neighboring properties, to neighborhood scale clusters of small wood frame camps and trailer homes of varying quality, vintage and size. Shoreline areas between the water’s edge and residential structures are commonly cleared, partly or often completely, to create unencumbered vistas of the water. While many waterfront properties are very well maintained and contribute to the overall beauty of the waterfront landscape, other private properties have fallen to some degree of disrepair and detract from the visual quality of the waterfront setting. Scenic views from waterfront homes, camps and cottages, parks and recreational facilities along the shoreline are focused primarily on the picturesque views of the St. Lawrence River, Lake Ontario and Islands. From affected shoreline vantage points, multiple turbines will be visible above intervening landform and vegetation inland from the shoreline, directly away from the scenic coastal viewshed. Within the turbine area, typical views are characterized by a patchwork of working farms, old fields and successional woodlots over a relatively flat or gently sloping landscape. Building stock consists primarily of low-density permanent homes and manufactured housing, along with accessory structures (barns, garages, sheds, etc.). Structures are of varying vintage and quality. Poorly maintained or dilapidated structures and properties are not uncommon sights. Although a component of the background landscape, this inland area is not widely associated with scenic quality of the adjacent waterfront landscape that is central to the Thousand Island region’s appeal as a vacation destination. The introduction of large, clearly man-made structures creates an obvious disruption of the planar agricultural landscape. The well-defined vertical form of turbines on the horizon introduces a contrasting and distinct perpendicular element into the landscape. The proposed turbines will be the tallest visible elements within view and will be disproportionate to other elements on the regional landscape. The distribution of turbines across an extended area will result in the proposed Project being perceived as a highly dominant visual element. The moderately paced sweeping rotation of the turbine blades will heighten the conspicuity of the turbines no matter the degree of visibility.

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 50

000318

Affected Viewers This portion of New York State is quite rural with a very small year round population. The year-round population of the Town of Cape Vincent is just 3,345. However, with a large number of second homes, camps and cottages, along the waterfront the seasonal population of the Town is estimated at more than 8,000 during the summer vacation season. Highways within the study area are relatively lightly traveled. NY Rte.12E has an average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume of less than 1,400 vehicles at the Village of Cape Vincent. Seasonal visitors come to the area specifically to enjoy the historic, recreational, and scenic resources of the lake, river and islands. The sensitivity of these individuals to visual quality is variable; but to many, visual quality is an important and integral part of their outdoor experience. The presence of wind turbines may diminish the aesthetic experience for those that believe that the rural landscape should be preserved for agricultural, rural residential, open space and similar uses. Such viewers will likely have high sensitivity to the visual quality and landscape character, regardless of the frequency of duration of their exposure to the proposed Project. For those with strong utilitarian beliefs, the presence of the proposed Project may have little aesthetic impact on their recreational experience. While visitors will certainly enjoy the outstanding scenic quality of the waterfront, visitors and recreational users will also be cognizant of existing roadside and shoreline residential and commercial uses of varying aesthetic quality, as well as utility infrastructure. Other Project Components The proposed substation, located along lightly traveled Swamp Road, is a relatively minor component of the Project. Substation structures will not be visible from any designated resources and will be within readily visible by local residents or passers-by. The proposed operations and maintenance building, located along Hell Street, is also a relatively minor component of the Project. While red flashing aviation obstruction lighting on communications towers are commonly visible nighttime elements almost everywhere, the concentration of lights within the turbine area would be somewhat unique. The night lighting of the SLW project will be similar in character to lighting at the nearby Maple Ridge wind project in Lowville, Lewis County, approximately 50 miles southeast of the Village of Cape Vincent. The dark sky of the rural Jefferson County is highly valued. While aviation obstruction lighting is generally directed upward, relatively low intensity and will not create atmospheric illumination (sky glow), approximately 50 red lights flashing in unison at close range or in the distance from any given location will be conspicuous and somewhat discordant with the current dark nighttime conditions. Local residents quietly enjoying the rural nighttime setting will likely be more affected by this condition than would motorists traveling thorough the area after dark. These are federally mandated safety features and cannot be omitted or reduced. Daytime lighting of the turbines is not required.

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 51

000319

Shadow Flicker Based on Table C1 and Figure C2, in Appendix C, of 197 studied shadow receptors located within 10 rotor diameters: 22 (11.2%) will be impacted 0-1 hrs/yr; 89 (45.2%) will be impacted 2-10 hrs/yr; 29 (14.7%) will be impacted 11-20 hrs/yr; 22 (11.2%) will be impacted 21-30 hrs/yr; 21 (10.7%) will be impacted 31-40 hrs/yr; 11 (5.6%) will be impacted 41-50 hrs/yr; 3 (1.5%) will be impacted greater than 50 hrs/yr. The three (3) receptors that will theoretically be impacted more than 50 hours per year include structure #102 (94.8 hours), structure# 103 (81.5) hours and structure #106 (72.5 hours). There are no regulations or guidelines that establish an acceptable degree of shadow-flicker impact on a potential receptor. Based on the limited number of hours any structure will be impacted, shadow flicker is not expected to create an adverse impact on most nearby residential dwellings. For residences where shadow flicker is greatest, this impact might be considered an annoyance by some, and unnoticed by others. Visual Impact Conclusion The U.S. Department of Energy and New York State Public Service Commission have mandated that renewable energy sources, such as wind turbines, will provide an increasing percentage of the nation’s electricity in the coming years. Meaningful development of renewable wind energy will reduce the reliance on fossil fuel combustion and nuclear fission facilities and result in reduction in air pollutants and greenhouse gasses. This Project is proposed to meet, in small part, this ambitious federal and state objective to provide an environmentally friendly and renewable energy source to help meet the growing energy needs for New York State residents and business. By their very nature, modern wind energy projects are large and highly visible facilities. The need to position these tall moving structures in highly visible locations cannot be readily avoided. The siting of wind turbines within a rural agricultural area provides increased opportunity for potentially discordant views both near and far. While the use of mitigation techniques will help to minimize adverse visual impact, the construction of the St. Lawrence Windpower Project will be an undeniable visual presence on the landscape. However, unlike development projects such as housing complexes and commercial centers, the proposed wind energy facility can and will be decommissioned and removed at the end of its useful working life. All of the towers will be removed and the project area restored to as near its present condition as possible, thus restoring the landscape to its original condition.

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 52

000320

Glossary19
Aesthetic impact: Aesthetic impact occurs when there is a detrimental effect on the perceived beauty of a place or structure. Mere visibility, even startling visibility of a project proposal, should not be a threshold for decision-making. Instead a project, by virtue of its visibility, must clearly interfere with or reduce the public's enjoyment and/or appreciation of the appearance of an inventoried resource (e.g. cooling tower plume blocks a view from a State Park overlook). Aesthetically significant place: A formally designated place visited by recreationists and others for the express purpose of enjoying its beauty. For example, millions of people visit Niagara Falls on an annual basis. They come from around the country and even from around the world. By these measurements, one can make the case that Niagara Falls (a designated State Park) is an aesthetic resource of national significance. Similarly, a resource that is visited by large numbers who come from across the state probably has statewide significance. A place visited primarily by people whose place of origin is local generally is generally of local significance. Unvisited places either have no significance or are "no trespass" places. Aesthetic Quality: There is a difference between the quality of a resource and its significance level. The quality of the resource has to do with its component parts and their arrangement. The arrangement of the component parts is referred to as composition. The quality of the resource and the significance level are generally, though not always, correlated. Atmospheric perspective: Even on the clearest of days, the sky is not entirely transparent because of the presence of atmospheric particulate matter. The light scattering effect of these particles causes atmospheric or aerial perspective, the second important form of perspective. In this form of perspective there is a reduction in the intensity of colors and the contrast between light and dark as the distance of objects from the observer increases. Contrast depends upon the position of the sun and the reflectance of the object, among other items. The net effect is that objects appear "washed out" over great distances. Control Points: The two end points of a line-of-sight. One end is always the elevation of an observer’s eyes at a place of interest (e.g. a high point in a State Park) and the other end is always an elevation of a project component of interest (e.g. top of a stack of a combustion facility or the finished grade of a landfill). Line-of-sight profile: A profile is a graphic depiction of the depressions and elevations one would encounter walking along a straight path between two selected locations. A straight line depicting the path of light received by the eye of an imaginary viewer standing on the path and looking towards a predetermined spot along that path constitutes a line-of-sight. The locations along the path where the viewer stands and looks are the control points of the line-of-sight profile. Scientific Perspective: Scientific, linear, or size perspective is the reduction in the apparent size of objects as the distance from the observer increases. An object appears smaller and smaller as an observer moves further and further from it. At some distance, depending upon the size and degree of contrast between the object and its surroundings, the object may not be a point of interest for most people. At this hypothetical distance it can be argued that the object has little impact on the composition of the landscape of which it is a tiny part. Eventually, at even greater distances, the human eye is incapable of seeing the object at all. Viewshed: A map that shows the geographic area from which a proposed action may be seen is a viewshed.
19

NYSDEC Visual Policy (2000) pp. 9-11.
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 53

000321

Visual Assessments: Analytical techniques that employ viewsheds, and/or line-of-sight profiles, and descriptions of aesthetic resources, to determine the impact of development upon aesthetic resources; and potential mitigation strategies to avoid, eliminate or reduce impacts on those resources. Visual impact: Visual impact occurs when the mitigating effects of perspective do not reduce the visibility of an object to insignificant levels. Beauty plays no role in this concept. A visual impact may also be considered in the context of contrast. For instance, all other things being equal, a blue object seen against an orange background has greater visual impact than a blue object seen against the same colored blue background. Again, beauty plays no role in this concept.

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 54

000322

References
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), 1992. The SEQR Handbook. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Not dated. D.E.C. Aesthetics Handbook. NYSDEC. Albany, NY. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), July 31, 2000, Program Policy Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts, (DEP 00-2) NYSDEC, Albany, NY. New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). 1988. Engineering Instruction (EI) 88-43 – Visual Assessment. NYSDOT. Albany, NY. Smardon, R.C. and J.P. Karp. 1993. The Legal Landscape: Guidelines for Regulating Environmental and Aesthetic Quality. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsville Division (ACOE). Undated. Aesthetic Resources: Identification, Analysis, and Evaluation. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Forest Service. 1974. Forest Service Landscape Management: The Visual Management System, Handbook #462, Vol.2. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Forest Service, 1995. Landscape Aesthetics – A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agricultural Handbook No. 701. Washington, D.C. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1980. Visual Resource Management Program. U.S. Government Printing Office 1980 0-302-993. Washington, D.C. United States Department of Transportation, Federal highway Administration, 1981. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. Office of Environmental Policy. Washington, D.C. Microsoft Streets and Trips (11.00.18.1900), Microsoft Corporation, 1988-2003 NPS. 2003. National Natural Landmarks. New York State. National Park Service website: http://www.nature.nps.gov/nnl/Registry/USA_Map/States/NewYork/new_york.htm NYSDEC. 2000. Assessing and mitigating visual impacts. Issued by Division/Office of Environmental Permits, Albany, NY.

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project #06-115.10M

Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007 Page 55

000323

Appendix A Photographic Simulations

000324

Existing Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A1a Photo Simulation VP2 Broadway Historic District Village of Cape Vincent, NY 1.0 miles from nearest turbine (T1)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000325

Proposed Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A1b Photo Simulation VP2 Broadway Historic District Village of Cape Vincent, NY 1.0 miles from nearest turbine (T1)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000326

Existing Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A2a Photo Simulation VP#4 Village of Cape Vincent Boat Launch 2 Village of Cape Vincent, NY 1.0 miles from nearest turbine (T11)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000327

Proposed Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A2b Photo Simulation VP#4 Village of Cape Vincent Boat Launch 2 Village of Cape Vincent, NY 1.0 miles from nearest turbine (T11)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000328

Existing Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A3a Photo Simulation VP#27 Cocaigne, Nicholas, House Town of Cape Vincent, NY 0.2 miles from nearest turbine (T6)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000329

Proposed Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A3b Photo Simulation VP#27 Cocaigne, Nicholas, House Town of Cape Vincent, NY 0.2 miles from nearest turbine (T6)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000330

Existing Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A4a Photo Simulation VP# terstion erc ant RdC6 3 I n ec Mh .& R Town of Cape Vincent, NY 0.8 miles from nearest turbine (T4)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000331

Proposed Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A4b Photo Simulation VP# terstion erc ant RdC6 3 I n ec Mh .& R Town of Cape Vincent, NY 0.8 miles from nearest turbine (T4)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000332

Existing Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A5 a Photo Simulation VP#4 Der,Reuter,ous 2 y H e Town of Cape Vincent, NY 1.2 miles from nearest turbine (T13)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000333

Proposed Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A5 b Photo Simulation VP#4 Der,Reuter,ous 2 y H e Town of Cape Vincent, NY 1.2 miles from nearest turbine (T13)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000334

Existing Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A6 a Photo Simulation VP# ils n,arren,ous 8W W 3 o H e Town of Cape Vincent, NY 0.3 miles from nearest turbine (T31)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000335

Proposed Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A6 b Photo Simulation VP# ils n,arren,ous 8W W 3 o H e Town of Cape Vincent, NY 0.3 miles from nearest turbine (T31)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000336

Existing Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A7 a Photo Simulation VP# terstion Favet Rdell St. 9 3 n ec I r .& H Town of Cape Vincent, NY 0.3 miles from nearest turbine (T42)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000337

Proposed Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A7 b Photo Simulation VP# terstion Favet Rdell St. 9 3 n ec I r .& H Town of Cape Vincent, NY 0.3 miles from nearest turbine (T42)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000338

Existing Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A8a Photo Simulation VP40 NY Rte 12E-Seaway Trail at Burnham State Park Town of Cape Vincent, NY 0.5 miles from nearest turbine (T49)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000339

Proposed Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A8b Photo Simulation VP40 NY Rte 12E-Seaway Trail at Burnham State Park Town of Cape Vincent, NY 0.5 miles from nearest turbine (T49)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000340

Existing Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A9a Photo Simulation VP#43 Vautrin, Claude, House Town of Cape Vincent, NY 0.4 miles from nearest turbine (T54)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000341

Proposed Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A9b Photo Simulation VP#43 Vautrin, Claude, House Town of Cape Vincent, NY 0.4 miles from nearest turbine (T54)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000342

Existing Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A10a Photo Simulation VP#45 NY Rte. 12E-Seaway Trail Near Millen Bay Town of Clayton, NY 0.5 miles from nearest turbine (T69)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000343

Proposed Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A10b Photo Simulation VP#45 NY Rte. 12E-Seaway Trail Near Millen Bay Town of Clayton, NY 0.5 miles from nearest turbine (T69)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000344

Existing Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A11a Photo Simulation VP#48 Docteur, Joseph, House Town of Cape Vincent, NY 1.1 miles from nearest turbine (T55)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000345

Proposed Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A11a Photo Simulation VP#48 Docteur, Joseph, House Town of Cape Vincent, NY 1.1 miles from nearest turbine (T55)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000346

Existing Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A12a Photo Simulation VP#58 Intersection Macomb Settlement Rd. & St. Lawrence Rd. (CR9) Town of Cape Vincent, NY 2.8 miles from nearest turbine (T93)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000347

Proposed Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A12b Photo Simulation VP#58 Intersection Macomb Settlement Rd. & St. Lawrence Rd. (CR9) Town of Cape Vincent, NY 2.8 miles from nearest turbine (T93)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000348

Existing Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A13a Photo Simulation VP#59 Intersection Rosiere Rd. (CR4) & St. Lawrence Rd. (CR 9) Town of Cape Vincent, NY 1.0 miles from nearest turbine (T93)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000349

Proposed Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A13b Photo Simulation VP#59 Intersection Rosiere Rd. (CR4) & St. Lawrence Rd. (CR 9) Town of Cape Vincent, NY 1.0 miles from nearest turbine (T93)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000350

Existing Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A14a Photo Simulation VP#59.1 NY Rte. 12E-Seaway Trail at Cedar Point State Park Town of Cape Vincent, NY 0.8 miles from nearest turbine (T94)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000351

Proposed Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A14b Photo Simulation VP#59.1 NY Rte. 12E-Seaway Trail at Cedar Point State Park Town of Cape Vincent, NY 0.8 miles from nearest turbine (T94)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000352

Existing Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A15a Photo Simulation VP#61 NY Rte. 12E—Seaway Trail Near Pelo Rd. Town of Clayton, NY 1.7 miles from nearest turbine (T94)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000353

Proposed Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A15b Photo Simulation VP#61 NY Rte. 12E—Seaway Trail Near Pelo Rd. Town of Clayton, NY 1.7 miles from nearest turbine (T94)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000354

Existing Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A16a Photo Simulation VP#36.1 Long Point State Park Town of Lyme, NY 7.0 miles from nearest turbine (T34)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000355

Proposed Condition
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Wind Farm

Figure A16b Photo Simulation VP#36.1 Long Point State Park Town of Lyme, NY 7.0 miles from nearest turbine (T34)

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

000356

71 70 !! 8 ! 9 !

! !!
150 151

149

! !
146 147

! !
140 139

68 67 !!

! ! !
144

69 !

94 " )

90 " ) 91 " ) 87 " ) 81 " ) 82 " ) 83 " ) 88 " ) 89 " ) 84 " )
193 5 !! 4 !! 192

143

141

86 " )

!! ! !
152 196 197 154

95 " )

PROPOSED TURBINE SHADOW LIMITS TOPOGRAPHY ONLY
92 " ) 93 " )

! !
155 156

6 ! 10 158 !!

!
138 66 ! 64 ! 62 60 !! 58 ! 57 !

Figure C1 Visual Resource Assessment St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project

75 " ) 76 " ) 69 " ) 77 " ) 70 " ) 71 " )

December 2006

90 87 !! 91 92 !! 86 !

! !
190 191

KEY
85 " ) 78 " )

1 "
72 " ) 79 " ) 73 " )
81 !

EXISTING STRUCTURE LOCATION

!!
134 136 18 ! 95 ! 94 ! 93 !

19 !

1
85 ! 84 83 !!

63 " ) 64 " ) 60 " ) 61 " )
16 ! 15 !

PROPOSED TURBINE (425' BLADE TIP HEIGHT)
80 " )

!
133 56 ! 55 !

21 ! 22 !

3000 FT. BUFFER OF TURBINES
65 " ) 66 " )

!
110 23 !

!
108

!
159

EXPECTED HOUR OF SHADOW FLICKER PER YEAR

!
109 137

56 " ) 49 " )
103

!
57 " )

! 79 77 !!
78 80 !

74 " )

!
160

<1

!
132 111

!!!
114 113 112

!
43 " ) 50 " )

!

!
189

!
161

1 - 10
62 " )

11 - 20
58 " ) 67 " )
75 ! 76 ! 72 !

21 - 30

!
131

54 ! 104

35 " ) 36 " ) 44 " ) 37 " ) 28 " ) 29 " ) 39 " )
100

!
45 " )

!
163

31 - 40
68 " )
73 !

!!
129 130

!
105

51 " ) 52 " )

41 - 50
74 !

27 " ) 38 " )

!
106 99 !

> 50
53 " )

44 ! 41 !

!! !
127 46 1

53 ! 128 52 !! 49 47 !!

!
40 " )

22 " ) 23 " ) 31 " ) 24 " ) 41 " )

30 " )

46 " )

!
187

!
101 98 ! 96 !

54 " ) 47 " ) 48 " ) 55 " )

39 !

16 " ) 17 " )
2 !

!
125 115 118

!
25 " )

! ! !
117 116

18 " ) 19 " ) 15 " )

!!
123 119 124

!! !
121 122

97 !

32 " ) 33 " ) 26 " )

42 " )

!
184

!
186

3 !

14 " ) 20 " )

!
185

PROJECT # 2006 - 06115.10P Copyright © 2006 Saratoga Associates. All Rights Reserved.
34 " )
25 ! 26 !

32 ! 182

!
181

29 !

28 !! 176 36 ! 178 179

!
8 " ) 13 " ) 9 " )
35 !

! !
180

11 " ) 12 " )

!!
183

21 " )

This map is computer generated using data acquired by Saratoga Associates from various sources and is intended only for reference, conceptual planning and presentation purposes. This map is not intended for and should not be used to establish boundaries, property lines, location of objects or to provide any other information typically needed for construction or any other purpose when engineered plans or land surveys are required.

File Location: S:\GIS\06115\CapeVincent_Shadow_Flicker_Topo_Only.mxd

30 !

1 " ) 6 " )
167 34 !

5 " )

!
169

!
174

!
33 !

10 " )

2 " ) 3 " )

!
168

7 " )

!
164

31 ! 172

! !!
170

4 " )

171

0

0.5

1 Miles

¯

000357

71 70 !! 8 ! 9 !

!
149

! !
146 150 151 147

! !
140 139

68 67 !!

! ! !
144

69 !

!!
90 " ) 91 " ) 87 " )
152 196

94 " )

143

141

86 " )

!! ! !
197 154

95 " )

PROPOSED TURBINE SHADOW LIMITS VEGETATED*
92 " ) 93 " ) 88 " ) 89 " )

! !
155 156

*Assumes a uniform tree hieght of 40' (12.192 m) in forested areas.
6 ! 10 158 !!

!
138 66 !

81 " ) 82 " ) 83 " ) 77 " ) 70 " ) 71 " ) 78 " )
85 ! 84 83 !! 81 !

64 ! 62 60 !! 58 ! 57 !

Figure C2 Visual Resource Assessment St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project
84 " )
193 5 !! 4 !! 192

75 " ) 76 " ) 69 " )

December 2006

90 87 !! 91 92 !! 86 !

! !
190 191

85 " )

KEY
72 " ) 73 " ) 79 " ) 80 " )

!!
134 136 18 ! 95 ! 94 ! 93 !

19 !

" 1

EXISTING STRUCTURE LOCATION

63 " ) 64 " ) 60 " ) 61 " )
16 ! 15 !

1

PROPOSED TURBINE (425' BLADE TIP HEIGHT)

!
133 56 ! 55 !

21 ! 22 !

3000 FT. BUFFER OF TURBINES
65 " ) 66 " )

!
110 23 !

!
108

!
159

!
109 137

56 " ) 49 " )
103

!
57 " )

! 79 77 !!
78 80 !

74 " )

!
160

EXPECTED HOUR OF SHADOW FLICKER PER YEAR

<1

!
132 111

!!! !
114 113 112

!
50 " )

!
189

!
161

11 - 10
62 " )

11 - 20
58 " )
75 ! 76 ! 72 !

!
131

54 ! 104

35 " ) 36 " ) 44 " ) 37 " ) 28 " ) 29 " ) 39 " )
100

43 " )

!
45 " )

67 " ) 68 " )

!
163 73 ! 74 !

21 - 30

31 - 40

!!
129 130

!
105

51 " ) 52 " )

41 - 50
53 " )

27 " ) 38 " )

!
106 99 !

> 50

44 ! 41 !

!! !
127 46 1

53 ! 128 52 !! 49 47 !!

!
40 " )

22 " ) 23 " ) 31 " ) 24 " ) 41 " )

30 " )

46 " )

!
187

!
101 98 ! 96 !

54 " ) 47 " ) 48 " ) 55 " )

39 !

16 " ) 17 " )
2 !

!
125 115 118

!
25 " )

! ! !
117 116

18 " ) 19 " ) 15 " )

!!
123 119 124

!! !
121 122

97 !

32 " ) 33 " ) 26 " )

42 " )

!
184

!
186

3 !

14 " ) 20 " )

!
185

PROJECT # 2006 - 06115.10P Copyright © 2006 Saratoga Associates. All Rights Reserved.
34 " )
25 ! 26 !

32 ! 182

!
181

29 !

28 !! 176 36 ! 178 179

!
8 " ) 13 " ) 9 " )
35 !

! !
180

11 " ) 12 " )

!!
183

21 " )

This map is computer generated using data acquired by Saratoga Associates from various sources and is intended only for reference, conceptual planning and presentation purposes. This map is not intended for and should not be used to establish boundaries, property lines, location of objects or to provide any other information typically needed for construction or any other purpose when engineered plans or land surveys are required.

File Location: S:\GIS\06115\CapeVincent_Shadow_Flicker_Veg.mxd

30 !

1 " ) 6 " )
167 34 !

5 " )

!
169

!
174

!
33 !

10 " )

2 " ) 3 " )

!
168

7 " )

!
164

31 ! 172

! !!
170

4 " )

171

0

0.5

1 Miles

¯

000358

000359

000360

000361

000362

000363

000364

000365

000366

000367

000368

000369

TEC H

sc, INC.

Jun e 4, 2007

M r. To dd Hopper St. Lawrence Windp ower, LL C 122 South Point Street Cape Vi ncent, New York 1361 8

RE:

ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJ ECT SUPPLEMENTAL SHADOW FLICKER ANALYSIS REPORT

Dear Mr. Hopper: Enclosed please find twenty-five (25) cop ies of the St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Supplemental Shadow Flicker Analysis Re port prepared by Saratoga Associates for the Draft Enviro nmental Impact Statement (DEIS) . This report was amended to include evaluation of shadow flicker impact to structures with in an ex panded area of potential effec t. The revised area includes structures not only within a Y2 mile of the proposed tur bine locations, but also structures that lie within 910 meters or 3,000 feet (10 times the rotor d iamete r of the proposed turb ines) of the proposed turbine locati ons. In add ition, this amended report addresses modifications to turbin e locations implemented since submittal of the DEIS in January 2007. The shadow flicker mode l incorporates the same digital elevation model (DE M) of the study area used for views hed analysis in the Visual Reso urce Assessme nt prepared by Saratoga Assoc iates for the Janu ary 2007 DE IS. If you have any questions or co mments, please do not hesitate to contact me at (973) 630-8 162 or via email to ethan.proutts' tteci.corn. Sincerely, Te tra Tech EC, Inc.

r

!....-.

r ,.

.-

tJ'lr yJJ (\

r-;

,...

Ethan E. Prout, PG Project Manager

SGS

1 000 The American Road, Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Tel 973.630.8000 F:lX 973.630.8025 WWN.tteci.com

000370

ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL SHADOW FLICKER

ANALYSIS
Prepared for:

Tetra Tech EC, Inc. 1000 The American Road Morris Plains, New Jersey 07950 May 18, 2007

Landscape Architects, Architects, Engineers and Planners, P.C.

©Copyright All Rights Reserved Saratoga Associates #06-115

000371

Shadow Flicker Analysis
Wind turbines can cause a flickering effect when the rotating turbine blades cast shadows that move rapidly across the ground and nearby structures. This can cause a disturbance within structures when the repeating pattern of light and shadow falls across the windows of buildings; particularly when occupants are trying to read or watch television. The effect, known as shadow flicker, is most conspicuous when windows face a rotating wind turbine and when the sun is low in the sky (e.g., shortly after sunrise or shortly before sunset). While the study of shadow flicker is a relatively new discipline, evidence from operational turbines suggests that the intensity of shadow flicker is only an issue at short distances. It is generally accepted that shadow flicker will have no affect on properties at a distance further than ten (10) turbine rotor diameters from the turbine (approximately 3,000 feet for this Project). Shadow flicker will only occur when certain conditions coincide: Daylight hours (sunrise to sunset) – shadow flicker does not occur at night; Sunshine – flicker will not occur on overcast days when daylight is not sufficiently bright to cast shadows; Receptor is within ten (10) rotor diameters of the turbine – beyond this distance a person should not perceive a wind turbine to be chopping through sunlight, but rather as an object with the sun behind it.1 Windows face the turbine – turbine shadows can only enter a structure through unshaded windows; and Turbine is rotating – no flicker will occur when the turbine is shut down. Because of constantly changing solar aspect and azimuth, shadows will be cast on specific days of the year and will pass a stationary receptor relatively quickly. Flicker will not be an everyday event or be of extended duration when it does occur. For receptors located to the west of a turbine, a residence is more likely to fall within the shadow zone shortly after sunrise when affected residents are typically asleep with shades drawn. For receptors located to the east of a turbine, a residence is more likely to fall within the shadow zone shortly before sunset. When the rotor plane is in-line with the sun and receptor (as seen from the receptor), the cast shadows will be very narrow, of low intensity, and will move quickly past the stationary receptor. When the rotor plane is perpendicular to the sun-receptor “view line,” the cast shadow of the blades will move within a larger elliptical area. The distance between a wind turbine and a receptor affects the intensity of the shadows cast by the blades, and therefore the intensity of flickering. Shadows cast close to a turbine will be more intense, distinct and “focused.” This is because a greater proportion of the sun’s disc is intermittently blocked. Similarly, flickering is more intense if created by the area of a blade closer to the root and further from the tip. Beyond ten (10) turbine diameters (approximately 3,000 feet for this Project) the intensity of the blade shadow is minimal.
1

http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/sources/renewables/planning/onshore-wind/shadow-flicker/page18736.html
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Page 2 Supplemental Shadow Flicker Analysis – May 18, 2007

#06-115.10M

000372

Shadow Flicker Methodology
Shadow-flicker analysis was conducted using WindPRO 2.4 Basis software (WindPro), and associated shadow module, a widely accepted modeling software package developed specifically for the design and evaluation of wind power projects. Variables used for shadow calculations include: Sunshine probabilities (percentage of time from sunrise to sunset with sunshine). The WindPro model calculates shadow frequency based on monthly sunshine probabilities. The following sunshine probabilities were used for this analysis and are based on historic meteorological data for Syracuse, NY, approximately 70 miles south of the Project site.2
Jan 0.33 Feb 0.39 Mar 0.46 Apr 0.49 May 0.55 Jun 0.59 Jul 0.63 Aug 0.59 Sep 0.53 Oct 0.44 Nov 0.26 Dec 0.25

Operational Time/Rotor Orientation – The WindPro model assumes there will be no shadow flicker during calm winds (when the blades are not turning). Moreover, the orientation of the rotor (e.g., determined by wind direction) affects the size of a shadow cast area. To more accurately calculate the amount of time a shadow will be over a specific location (based on rotor orientation), the WindPro model considers typical wind direction. The operational time (hours per year [hrs/yr]) of wind direction is based on meteorological data collected by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Buoy Data Center at the Galloo Island, NY monitoring station3 (approximately 15 miles southwest of the Village of Cape Vincent) over a one year period in 20004 as follows:
N 511 NNE 517 NE 739 ENE 352 E 187 ESE 215 SE 427 SSE 1008 S 658 SSW 499 SW 469 WSW 880 W 740 WNW 621 NW 423 NNW 445 Calm 94

Shadow flicker analysis has been undertaken for the 96-turbine layout using a turbine rotor 91 meters (m) (300 feet) in diameter and 84 m (275 feet) hub height. The analysis has been completed for distances of up to 910 m (3,000 feet) from each turbine location (ten times the rotor diameter of the proposed turbines). This analysis also includes the effect of topography on shadow area. The shadow flicker model incorporates the same digital elevation model (DEM) of the study area used for viewshed analysis (see section 3.1.1 of the Visual Resource Assessment). Using these variables, WindPro was used to calculate the theoretical number of hours per year the shadow of a rotor would fall at any given location within the 3,000-foot turbine radius. This calculation includes the cumulative sum of shadow hours for all turbines and is accurate to a 10-meter grid cell resolution.

2 3

http://ggweather.com/ccd/avgsun.htm (data for Syracuse, NY) The Galloo Island is the closest weather monitoring station for which full year wind data is available. 4 http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_history.php?station=GLLN6
#06-115.10M St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Page 3 Supplemental Shadow Flicker Analysis – May 18, 2007

000373

Figure C1, illustrates the geographic area of cumulative shadow impact using the following increments: <1 hr/yr; 1-10 hrs/yr; 11-20 hrs/yr; 21-30 hrs/yr; 31-40 hrs/yr; 41-50 hrs/yr; and > 50 hrs/yr WindPro does not have the capability to incorporate the possible screening effect of existing vegetation. To account for this more realistic condition, a second shadow limit map was prepared excluding areas determined through viewshed analysis (see Figure 2 in the Visual Resource Assessment) to be screened from turbine visibility by existing vegetation. This vegetated condition shadow limits map, although not considered absolutely definitive, acceptably identifies the geographic area within which one would expect to be substantially screened from turbine shadows by intervening forest vegetation. Figure C2, illustrates the geographic area of cumulative shadow impact including the screening effect of existing vegetation.

Shadow Flicker Impact on Existing Structures
Existing structures generally located within a 2,000-foot radius of a proposed turbine were identified through a combination of air-photo interpretation and field verification. Structures generally located ½ mile to 3,000 feet from a proposed turbine were identified through air-photo interpretation only (i.e., these locations were not field verified)5. Each existing structure was evaluated to determine potential shadow impact. Table C1 summarizes the number of hours per year each inventoried structure would theoretically fall within the shadow zone of one or more proposed turbines. The location of inventoried structures is included in Figure C1 and C2. Of 873 studied shadow receptors located within 10 rotor diameters: 89 (10.2%) will be impacted less than 1 hr/yr; 661 (75.7%) will be impacted 1-10 hrs/yr; 59 (6.8%) will be impacted 11-20 hrs/yr; 25 (2.9%) will be impacted 21-30 hrs/yr; 19 (2.2%) will be impacted 31-40 hrs/yr; 12 (1.4%) will be impacted 41-50 hrs/yr; and 8 (0.9%) will be impacted greater than 50 hrs/yr.

5

NYS GIS Clearinghouse, Statewide Digital Orthoimagery Program. 2003 imagery.
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Page 4 Supplemental Shadow Flicker Analysis – May 18, 2007

#06-115.10M

000374

Figure C1, illustrates the geographic area of cumulative shadow impact using the following increments: <1 hr/yr; 1-10 hrs/yr; 11-20 hrs/yr; 21-30 hrs/yr; 31-40 hrs/yr; 41-50 hrs/yr; and > 50 hrs/yr WindPro does not have the capability to incorporate the possible screening effect of existing vegetation. To account for this more realistic condition, a second shadow limit map was prepared excluding areas determined through viewshed analysis (see Figure 2 in the Visual Resource Assessment) to be screened from turbine visibility by existing vegetation. This vegetated condition shadow limits map, although not considered absolutely definitive, acceptably identifies the geographic area within which one would expect to be substantially screened from turbine shadows by intervening forest vegetation. Figure C2, illustrates the geographic area of cumulative shadow impact including the screening effect of existing vegetation.

Shadow Flicker Impact on Existing Structures
Existing structures generally located within a 2,000-foot radius of a proposed turbine were identified through a combination of air-photo interpretation and field verification. Structures generally located ½ mile to 3,000 feet from a proposed turbine were identified through air-photo interpretation only (i.e., these locations were not field verified)5. Each existing structure was evaluated to determine potential shadow impact. Table C1 summarizes the number of hours per year each inventoried structure would theoretically fall within the shadow zone of one or more proposed turbines. The location of inventoried structures is included in Figure C1 and C2. Of 873 studied shadow receptors located within 10 rotor diameters: 89 (10.2%) will be impacted less than 1 hr/yr; 661 (75.7%) will be impacted 1-10 hrs/yr; 59 (6.8%) will be impacted 11-20 hrs/yr; 25 (2.9%) will be impacted 21-30 hrs/yr; 19 (2.2%) will be impacted 31-40 hrs/yr; 12 (1.4%) will be impacted 41-50 hrs/yr; and 8 (0.9%) will be impacted greater than 50 hrs/yr.

5

NYS GIS Clearinghouse, Statewide Digital Orthoimagery Program. 2003 imagery.
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Page 4 Supplemental Shadow Flicker Analysis – May 18, 2007

#06-115.10M

000375

The eight (8) receptors that will theoretically be impacted more than 50 hours per year include: Structure #24 Structure #98 Structure #102 Structure #103 Structure #106 Structure #860 Structure #861 Structure #862 54 hrs/yr 59 hrs/yr 93 hrs/yr 82 hrs/yr 67 hrs/yr 59 hrs/yr 66 hrs/yr 70 hrs/yr

There are no regulations or guidelines that establish an acceptable degree of shadow-flicker impact on a potential receptor. Based on the limited number of hours any structure will be impacted, shadow flicker is not expected to create an adverse impact on most nearby residential dwellings. For residences where shadow flicker is greatest, this impact might be considered an annoyance by some, and unnoticed by others.

#06-115.10M

St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Page 5

Supplemental Shadow Flicker Analysis – May 18, 2007

000376

Table C1
Shadow Hrs/Year Excluding Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C1)

Shadow Impact on Existing Structures
Shadow Hrs/Year Excluding Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C1) Shadow Hrs/Year Including Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C2)

Existing Structure #

Shadow Hrs/Year Including Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C2)

Existing Structure #

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
#06-115.10M

10.1 25.8 2.0 37.9 38.5 3.1 0.6 0.6 1.9 9.7 6.6 8.6 9.0 15.8 44.4 36.2 9.2 8.7 4.5 2.7 4.5 6.6 9.0 53.8 3.4 3.5 6.3 5.8 2.3 28.0 0.8 11.8 5.5 21.3 25.5 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 9.6 9.4 9.1 8.0 10.7 9.4 9.5 12.8 4.8

10.1 25.8 2.0 37.9 38.5 3.1 0.6 0.6 1.9 9.7 6.6 8.6 9.0 15.8 44.4 36.2 9.2 8.7 4.5 2.7 4.5 6.6 9.0 53.8 3.4 3.5 6.3 5.8 2.3 28.0 0.8 0.0 5.5 21.3 25.5 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 9.6 9.4 9.1 8.0 10.7 9.4 9.5 12.8 4.8
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Page 6

55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108

1.2 3.3 12.0 5.4 6.2 5.4 8.9 8.9 8.3 7.8 11.4 11.8 7.9 8.5 6.6 0.6 1.2 15.8 8.6 8.3 42.4 11.6 28.0 29.0 22.3 34.6 45.9 47.0 49.1 36.7 31.9 19.1 10.4 11.4 9.8 8.6 8.1 7.6 32.7 31.9 9.0 43.3 22.3 58.5 44.5 32.1 43.9 93.0 81.5 46.1 38.9 67.2 6.9 6.5

1.2 3.3 12.0 5.4 6.2 5.4 8.9 8.9 8.3 7.8 11.4 11.8 7.9 8.5 6.6 0.6 1.2 15.8 8.6 8.3 42.4 11.6 28.0 29.0 22.3 34.6 45.9 47.0 49.1 36.7 31.9 19.1 10.4 11.4 9.8 8.6 8.1 7.6 32.7 31.9 9.0 43.3 22.3 58.5 44.5 32.1 43.9 93.0 81.5 46.1 38.9 67.2 6.9 6.5

Supplemental Shadow Flicker Analysis – May 18, 2007

000377

Table C1
Shadow Hrs/Year Excluding Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C1)

Shadow Impact on Existing Structures
Shadow Hrs/Year Excluding Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C1) Shadow Hrs/Year Including Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C2)

Existing Structure #

Shadow Hrs/Year Including Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C2)

Existing Structure #

109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163
#06-115.10M

3.4 6.7 6.3 2.8 2.8 1.8 14.8 9.0 41.0 15.4 18.0 38.0 21.6 21.8 17.1 16.4 16.2 4.5 7.7 10.7 4.7 9.5 12.2 7.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 0.9 36.9 5.5 3.9 7.2 6.2 4.4 3.7 3.1 1.3 1.2 2.7 0.6 1.3 21.0 22.9 25.7 34.5 32.2 15.0 17.7 8.7 7.9 5.5 0.7 1.7 0.7 0.6

3.4 6.7 6.3 2.8 2.8 1.8 14.8 9.0 41.0 15.4 18.0 38.0 21.6 21.8 17.1 16.4 16.2 4.5 7.7 10.7 4.7 9.5 12.2 7.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 0.9 36.9 5.5 3.9 7.2 6.2 4.4 3.7 3.1 1.3 1.2 2.7 0.6 1.3 21.0 22.9 25.7 34.5 32.2 15.0 17.7 8.7 7.9 5.5 0.7 1.7 0.7 0.0
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Page 7

164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218

6.4 9.6 20.1 30.7 34.7 20.2 22.6 27.6 23.0 11.8 11.8 7.6 1.4 4.6 3.6 11.4 5.0 44.9 13.4 15.8 34.2 6.0 5.0 29.3 6.1 5.6 20.7 20.8 17.5 37.4 25.0 28.9 25.0 28.9 3.7 3.4 2.1 2.1 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 4.3 3.1 5.3 5.3 3.8 3.4 3.4 3.4 2.8

6.4 9.6 20.1 0.0 34.7 20.2 22.6 27.6 23.0 11.8 11.8 7.6 0.0 4.6 3.6 11.4 5.0 44.9 13.4 15.8 34.2 6.0 5.0 29.3 6.1 5.6 20.7 20.8 17.5 37.4 25.0 28.9 25.0 28.9 3.7 3.4 2.1 2.1 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 4.3 3.1 5.3 5.3 3.8 3.4 3.4 3.4 2.8

Supplemental Shadow Flicker Analysis – May 18, 2007

000378

Table C1
Shadow Hrs/Year Excluding Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C1)

Shadow Impact on Existing Structures
Shadow Hrs/Year Excluding Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C1) Shadow Hrs/Year Including Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C2)

Existing Structure #

Shadow Hrs/Year Including Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C2)

Existing Structure #

219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273
#06-115.10M

2.8 2.8 4.0 4.0 4.6 3.6 4.3 4.3 5.4 5.3 4.6 3.4 3.4 3.4 4.1 4.1 4.7 2.8 5.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.3 4.3 4.3 5.3 5.9 4.6 4.0 5.1 5.0 8.2 9.3 12.2 13.3 11.1 11.1 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 11.5 11.5 14.9 14.9 14.0 12.1 12.1 12.1 11.7 10.4 10.4 2.0 4.7 4.6

2.8 2.8 4.0 4.0 4.6 3.6 4.3 4.3 5.4 5.3 4.6 3.4 3.4 3.4 4.1 4.1 4.7 2.8 5.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.3 4.3 4.3 5.3 5.9 4.6 4.0 5.1 5.0 8.2 9.3 12.2 13.3 11.1 11.1 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 11.5 11.5 14.9 14.9 14.0 12.1 12.1 12.1 11.7 10.4 10.4 2.0 4.7 4.6
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Page 8

274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328

4.6 5.3 4.7 5.4 4.1 5.2 5.2 4.6 5.0 5.0 5.4 3.8 3.8 4.7 5.3 5.3 5.3 9.8 4.6 4.6 6.0 6.0 5.2 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 6.0 5.7 7.6 7.9 6.3 6.1 6.2 6.2 7.4 7.7 6.8 6.8 7.5 7.1 7.1 6.1 7.3 6.8 7.2 7.4 7.5 6.8 6.3 5.9 5.9 5.8

4.6 5.3 4.7 5.4 4.1 5.2 5.2 4.6 5.0 5.0 5.4 3.8 3.8 4.7 5.3 5.3 5.3 9.8 4.6 4.6 6.0 6.0 5.2 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 6.0 5.7 7.6 7.9 6.3 6.1 6.2 6.2 7.4 7.7 6.8 6.8 7.5 7.1 7.1 6.1 7.3 6.8 7.2 7.4 7.5 6.8 6.3 5.9 5.9 5.8

Supplemental Shadow Flicker Analysis – May 18, 2007

000379

Table C1
Shadow Hrs/Year Excluding Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C1)

Shadow Impact on Existing Structures
Shadow Hrs/Year Excluding Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C1) Shadow Hrs/Year Including Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C2)

Existing Structure #

Shadow Hrs/Year Including Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C2)

Existing Structure #

329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383
#06-115.10M

5.5 4.2 5.5 5.9 4.4 3.6 4.4 0.6 2.1 4.3 3.3 3.4 2.1 1.2 4.3 2.1 2.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.9 1.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.7 1.2 1.2 1.7 2.5 2.5 3.1 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5.5 4.2 5.5 5.9 4.4 3.6 4.4 0.6 2.1 4.3 3.3 3.4 2.1 1.2 4.3 2.1 2.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.9 1.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.7 1.2 1.2 1.7 2.5 2.5 3.1 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Page 9

384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438

0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.3 2.1 1.8 2.1 4.7 1.2 2.6 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 1.6 1.2 0.6 7.2 7.1 5.1 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 2.7 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 2.3 1.7 2.5 2.1 2.2 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.8 3.8 4.6 6.3

0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.3 2.1 1.8 2.1 4.7 1.2 2.6 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 1.2 0.6 7.2 7.1 5.1 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 2.7 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 2.3 1.7 2.5 2.1 2.2 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.8 3.8 4.6 6.3

Supplemental Shadow Flicker Analysis – May 18, 2007

000380

Table C1
Shadow Hrs/Year Excluding Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C1)

Shadow Impact on Existing Structures
Shadow Hrs/Year Excluding Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C1) Shadow Hrs/Year Including Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C2)

Existing Structure #

Shadow Hrs/Year Including Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C2)

Existing Structure #

439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493
#06-115.10M

6.3 6.6 3.7 3.6 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.6 3.7 1.9 4.6 4.6 2.1 2.1 1.0 3.6 1.9 0.6 1.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.3 0.8 2.9 0.0 0.0 6.4 5.1 4.2 4.9 0.0 2.7 2.7 3.8

6.3 6.6 3.7 3.6 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.6 3.7 1.9 4.6 4.6 2.1 2.1 1.0 3.6 1.9 0.6 1.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.3 0.8 2.9 0.0 0.0 6.4 5.1 4.2 4.9 0.0 2.7 2.7 3.8
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Page 10

494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548

3.3 3.5 3.8 4.8 0.0 8.1 7.7 6.8 6.2 2.0 3.3 2.7 4.0 3.4 4.9 4.6 4.1 4.5 5.9 6.1 4.7 5.9 5.1 5.5 6.5 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.6 0.0 6.2 6.2 6.7 5.6 5.6 6.4 5.2 5.8 6.3 6.3 6.6 6.6 8.1 5.2 3.7 3.0 2.4 3.0 3.0 4.2 1.9 1.3 1.9 1.1 1.2

3.3 3.5 3.8 4.8 0.0 8.1 7.7 6.8 6.2 2.0 3.3 0.0 4.0 3.4 4.9 4.6 4.1 4.5 5.9 6.1 4.7 5.9 5.1 5.5 6.5 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.6 0.0 6.2 6.2 6.7 5.6 5.6 6.4 5.2 5.8 6.3 6.3 6.6 6.6 8.1 5.2 3.7 3.0 2.4 3.0 3.0 4.2 1.9 1.3 1.9 1.1 1.2

Supplemental Shadow Flicker Analysis – May 18, 2007

000381

Table C1
Shadow Hrs/Year Excluding Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C1)

Shadow Impact on Existing Structures
Shadow Hrs/Year Excluding Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C1) Shadow Hrs/Year Including Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C2)

Existing Structure #

Shadow Hrs/Year Including Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C2)

Existing Structure #

549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603
#06-115.10M

1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 2.3 2.2 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.3 0.0 2.1 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.2 0.6 0.0 0.6 1.2 0.6 1.2 0.6 0.8 1.2 0.0 1.7 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4

1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 2.3 2.2 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.3 0.0 2.1 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.2 0.6 0.0 0.6 1.2 0.6 1.2 0.6 0.8 1.2 0.0 1.7 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Page 11

604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658

0.0 4.8 9.4 7.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 9.5 3.0 20.5 42.1 37.3 4.3 5.8 4.2 3.4 2.2 0.0 1.3 0.7 1.4 1.4 2.1 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.4 0.0 3.7 3.8 2.8 3.3 2.8 3.5 2.8 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.9 4.9 5.0 3.8 1.7 1.7 3.3 1.8 1.7 1.7 4.1 3.9 6.3 6.9 2.5 2.5

0.0 4.8 9.4 7.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 9.5 3.0 20.5 42.1 37.3 0.0 5.8 4.2 3.4 2.2 0.0 1.3 0.7 1.4 1.4 2.1 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.4 0.0 3.7 3.8 2.8 3.3 2.8 3.5 2.8 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.9 4.9 5.0 3.8 1.7 1.7 3.3 1.8 1.7 1.7 4.1 3.9 6.3 6.9 2.5 2.5

Supplemental Shadow Flicker Analysis – May 18, 2007

000382

Table C1
Shadow Hrs/Year Excluding Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C1)

Shadow Impact on Existing Structures
Shadow Hrs/Year Excluding Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C1) Shadow Hrs/Year Including Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C2)

Existing Structure #

Shadow Hrs/Year Including Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C2)

Existing Structure #

659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713
#06-115.10M

2.5 1.8 1.3 2.1 2.1 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.7 7.4 4.6 0.0 7.4 7.0 10.3 8.2 5.0 8.2 9.0 8.0 11.4 11.6 10.7 12.1 10.8 7.8 9.1 6.3 15.4 8.7 6.3 6.3 7.8 8.7 7.8 6.3 6.9 6.9 8.8 7.8

2.5 1.8 1.3 2.1 2.1 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.7 7.4 4.6 0.0 7.4 7.0 10.3 8.2 5.0 8.2 9.0 8.0 11.4 11.6 10.7 12.1 10.8 7.8 9.1 6.3 15.4 8.7 6.3 6.3 7.8 8.7 7.8 6.3 6.9 6.9 8.8 7.8
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Page 12

714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768

10.1 10.1 8.8 7.8 7.3 6.9 6.9 8.3 8.3 8.4 11.6 9.0 9.0 7.8 8.2 8.2 11.3 11.3 11.6 9.0 9.0 10.1 10.1 9.9 11.5 11.1 10.2 11.1 9.2 9.9 9.9 9.7 9.7 9.7 8.5 7.5 8.6 8.6 7.2 7.5 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.2 5.2 4.3 4.3 4.3 3.4 4.3 5.4 4.3 5.0 4.1 5.4

10.1 10.1 8.8 7.8 7.3 6.9 6.9 8.3 8.3 8.4 11.6 9.0 9.0 7.8 8.2 8.2 11.3 11.3 11.6 9.0 9.0 10.1 10.1 9.9 11.5 11.1 10.2 11.1 9.2 9.9 9.9 9.7 9.7 9.7 8.5 7.5 8.6 8.6 7.2 7.5 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.2 5.2 4.3 4.3 4.3 3.4 4.3 5.4 4.3 5.0 4.1 5.4

Supplemental Shadow Flicker Analysis – May 18, 2007

000383

Table C1
Shadow Hrs/Year Excluding Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C1)

Shadow Impact on Existing Structures
Shadow Hrs/Year Excluding Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C1) Shadow Hrs/Year Including Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C2)

Existing Structure #

Shadow Hrs/Year Including Screening Effect of Existing Forest Vegetation (see Figure C2)

Existing Structure #

769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823
#06-115.10M

4.8 4.7 4.1 4.1 4.8 4.8 3.4 4.1 4.7 4.8 4.7 6.7 4.7 4.7 4.1 4.7 4.1 4.1 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.8 5.8 5.8 6.1 4.7 3.9 3.9 3.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 5.1 3.2 5.0 5.1 5.6 5.0 3.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.7 6.2 6.6 6.6 6.6 4.9 3.6 3.6 5.0 4.7 3.6 4.9

4.8 4.7 4.1 4.1 4.8 4.8 3.4 4.1 4.7 4.8 4.7 6.7 4.7 4.7 4.1 4.7 4.1 4.1 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.8 5.8 5.8 6.1 4.7 3.9 3.9 3.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 5.1 3.2 5.0 5.1 5.6 5.0 3.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.7 6.2 6.6 6.6 6.6 4.9 3.6 3.6 5.0 4.7 3.6 4.9
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Page 13

824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873

5.6 5.6 5.6 6.0 5.4 4.9 6.7 6.7 7.7 7.2 5.8 8.2 6.8 6.8 7.6 7.6 6.9 6.9 7.4 7.4 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.5 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.7 25.9 14.7 59.3 65.8 70.1 36.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 2.3 8.5 8.5 0.6 0.6 1.1 5.3

5.6 5.6 5.6 6.0 5.4 4.9 6.7 6.7 7.7 7.2 5.8 8.2 6.8 6.8 7.6 7.6 6.9 6.9 7.4 7.4 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.5 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.7 25.9 14.7 59.3 65.8 70.1 36.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 2.3 8.5 8.5 0.6 0.6 1.1 0.0

Supplemental Shadow Flicker Analysis – May 18, 2007

000384

213 212 211 229 210 228 209 227 245 208 244 226 207

383385 384

380 381 382

377

386

399

375

376

378 379

387 388

374
600 599

397 398 390 401 400

243 206 225 242 284 224 241 223 240 204 205 282 222 283 203 239 281 299 238 280 202 220 221 201 298 279 237 297 278 200 219 236 218 296 277 235 199 217 198 216 234 247 276 294 295 215 233 275 293 214 232 274 249 292 273 248 230 231 290 272 250 289 271 389 391 392
602

251 395 372 405 416
587 590 588 596 601 598 597

402

246 369 370 404 409 414 415
585 595 589 586 591 592 593

287 288 286 285 371 417 418 396 393 373

" " " "
410 420
582 581 580 149 584 594 583

291 366 394 403 407 421 406 419 364 365 362 367 352 413 408
564 563

54

"" " "" " " " " "" "" "" " " " " " " "" " " " " " """ " " " "
""" " " "
574 569570 71 568 576 571 573 575 567 70 579 572 577 578 565 566 7 8 148

253 350 351 353 368

"" " """ "" "
" "
9

" " "" " " " " " " "" " "" "

PROPOSED TURBINE SHADOW LIMITS TOPOGRAPHY ONLY
603

131 348 349 354 357 363

" " "
412
556 562 557 558 549 553 555 559 560 552 561 548 867 554 550 551

355

361

347

356

344
604 547 545 146 150 145 151 546 147

358

""
411

"" " "" "" " "" " " "" """ " "" "" " "
94 ! (

254 255 270 269 256 268 252 257 267 266 258 265 259 260 264 261 262 263 856 855 854 853 852 851 857 850 849 843 848 842 847 841 846 840 845 839 838 844 837 836 834 345 346 359

"

835 340
544

343

336

" " "
152

820 341
543 69

330

339

338 113 112
542 144 541

342

" "" " "" """" " "" " " " " "" "
90 ! (

819 337 331 334 329 333 360 335 114
143 142

829 821 828 827 831 833 826 825 830 824 823 822 332

818 328
194 196

832

" "
" " "" "
153195 197

" " " ""
95 ! ( 96 ! (

Figure C1 Visual Resource Assessment St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project May 2007

327

325

324

114

"
111
506 507 154 155

130 320

326

323

319
508 510 509 516 68 513 512514 511 67 536

321

"
91 ! (

540 538 539 523 524 530 522525531 532 521 533 520 534 519 527 526 535 537 518 141 517 528 529 515

" " "
6

318
140 156

322

86 ! ( 92 ! (

132

" " " " " "" " "" " """" "" " "" "" " "" " " " " " "" " " " " """ "" " "
157158 10 503 139 502

317
504 505

315
501 500 499

87 ! (

754 756 307
138 496 497 66

807 810 809 808 811 803 806805 817 812 816 804 815 802 801 796 814 797 795 813 794 798 800 786 787 788 775 785 799 784 790 793 774 783 789 792 782 773 791 776 772 781 777 780 770 771 129 779 769 762 767 778 761 760 766 759 763 758 765 755 768 764 757 308 311 313 316 314

93 ! (

" ""

312
494 498 495 65

304

310 309

81 ! (

748 753 747 749 752 746 750 303
493

" " " " " " "
213 212 211 229 210 228 209

"" " " " " "" " " "" " " " "" " " " " "" " " " " "" " " "" " " " "" " " " " " "" " " " " "" " " " "" "" "" "" " " " "
88 ! (
492 491 64 63 62 61

757 754 756

82 ! ( 75 89 ! (
193

490

60

748 753 747 749 752 750 744 746 751 743 745
58 59

" " " " " " " " " " "" " " "" " " " " " " " " " "" ! (
83 ! (
5

Key
17 ! (

742
57

740

"
76 ! (
4 192

741

53

" " " "
84 ! (

IDENTIFIED EXISTING STRUCTURE ** PROPOSED TURBINE (425 FOOT BLADE TIP HEIGHT) 3,000 FOOT BUFFER OF TURBINES EXPECTED HOURS OF SHADOW FLICKER PER YEAR

77 ! ( 69 ! (

489 488 487 11 486 88 87 485 12 13 90 484 868 89 869

"
190 191

723 724 739 722 725 721 731 726 730 720 732 719 727 729 733 738 718 717 728 734 737 716 735 711 712 715736 710 709 713 714 705 706 708 707 704 703 701
91

702
92 86

128

700

" "" " "" " " " " """ " " " " " ! (
71 70 ! ( 85 ! (

"

10 " 1 ! (

698

699

52

693

51

692
135 18 85 136

697

50

49

696

"
19

78 ! (

691

48

695

"
134 17

"" ""
63 ! ( 72 ! ( 79 ! (
83 84 82

690
20

694

" " " " " " " " " " " "" " " "" " " "" " "" " " "" "" "" " " " "" " " " " " "" " " """ " " " " " " "" " " " " " "" "" "" " "" " " " " "" "" "" " " " " " " "" " " "" " "" " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " "" "" " "" "" "" "" " " "" " " """ " " " "" " " " "" " " " " """ " "" " " " "" " " """ " " " " "" " "" " "" " " " """ " " " " " "" "" " " " " """ " " " " "" " "" " " " " " " "" " "" " " " " "" "" " " "" " " " " " "" " " "" " """"" " """ " " "" " " """ " " "" " " """ "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
"
95

" " " "
80 ! ( 73 ! ( 64 ! (

<1 1 - 10
159 606 605

47 "
482 483 22 21 56 133 864 94 481

"" "
872

46 "

"
108 93 81 107 383 384 385 377 380 381 382 386 399 23 78

45

"
55

" " " " " "
60 ! ( 65 ! ( 74 ! (
608 160

" " " " " "
607

689
395 79 376 379 388 397 375 378 387 398 390 400 389 392401 374 391 402 372 393396 370 369 371 373 77 422

480 475 479 474 473 478 469 477 468 476 467 472 871 466 470 471 465 462 464 461 463 460459 870 453 452 458 451 456 450 455 449 454457 442 443 444 448 436 446 445 447 434 441 433 438 440 432 431 430 435 437 110 429 439 428 426 425 424 427 423

" " "
609

11 - 20
" "" "

127
404 405 409 137 394 403 406 407 413

" " """ """ " " """ " "" "" """" " """ """ " " """ """ " """ " " " "" " " " " "" " "" "" "" "
56 ! (

687
408 109

416 415 418 414 417 410 419 420 421

" "" "
366 365 364 362 367 352 351 350 353 368 349 363 348 354 361 347 355 357 356

688
411 412

"
61 ! ( 66 ! (

" " "
161

21 - 30
""
610

" "
16 15 80 188 189 103 113 112 114

1

126
111 102

44 "

"
49 ! ( 57 ! ( 62 ! (

" " ""

31 - 40 41 - 50

43 "

684

"
"
862

683

" "

42 "

685

41 "

40 "
863 75

" " "
50 ! (
162

> 50

686

58 ! (

67 ! (

" "
163

44 ! (
76

" "
104

"

45 ! (
72 861

"
105 14

51 ! (

" " "
73

"

68 ! (

""
106

52 ! (

"
74

"
482 133

16 ! (
99 24

483 872

53 ! (

"
611

" "
481

" " "
480 475 474 473 479 469 478 477 468 467 472 466 471 476 470 462 465 460 464 461 463 453 459 452 458 456 451 455 450 449 454

56 "

** Structure locations obtained from NYS GIS Clearinghouse, Statewide Digital Orthoimagery Program. 2003 imagery, and field verification as discussed in the report.

" ""
100

"
187

46 ! (
860

"
864 871 55 " 870

344 346 359 358 345 343 340 336 339 330338 341 342 337 331 334 360 333 329 328 332 335 327 324 325 326 323 320 319 321 322 318 132 317 315 313 311314316 308 307 213 304 312 310 212 211 229 309 210 209 228 208 227245303 306 207 226 244 305 206 225 243284 224 242 205 222 240 282 301 223241 283 302 204 203 221 239 281 300 202 220 238 280 299 201 219 237 279 298 200 218 236 278 297 199 217 235 277296 198 216234 276 295 247 215 233 275 294 249 214 232 273 292 274 293 231272290 250 248 230 271 289 288 251 246 287 286 285 254 54 291 255 270 252 269 256 268 257 267 258 266 259 265 856 260 264 253 131 261 262 263 855 854 853 852 851 850 857 849 848843 847842 846841 845840 839 844 836 838 837 834 821 828 829 827 833 835 820 825830 826 831 824 819 823 822 818 807 832 810 806 811 808 803809 816 805 804 815 802 812 817 796 797 814 795 801 813 787 786 785 794798 788793 800 130 775 790 774 784 789 782 773 783 792 799 776 772 777 791 780 771 770 781 779 769 129 762 761767 778 760 766 763 759 758 765 755 764 757 754 756 753 748 768 749 747 746 752 744 750 743 751 742745 740 741 724 723 722 739 53 721 731 720 725 732 719 726 733 727730 718 728 717 729 738 734 711 735 716 737 715 712 736 710 713 709 714 705708 706 707 704 703 701 128 702 700 699 52 698 693 51 697 692 50 696 49 695 691 48 690 694 47 46 45 689 127 687

688

1

40 ! (
101

" "
47 ! ( 54 ! ( 41 ! (
98

" " "" " " " " " "" "" """" " " "" " """ """" " " "" " " " "" " " " " """"" " " "" "" " "" " " "" " " " "" " " " " " "" " "" "" " " " " """" " " "" " " """" " " " " "" "" " " " "" " " "" " " " "" " " "" " " "" " "" "" " """" """"" """"" " """"" " "" """"" " """"" "" "" """""" 43 """"""" " ! ( "" """""" """ " """" " " " """ 35 ! ( "" " """" " " " "" " "" "" " " "" " " " " 36 "" ! ( "" " """ " " "" " "" """"" " " "" """ " " "" "" " " """ " "" """ " """ " "" """"" " "" 37 """ ! ( """ " " """" "" " "" "" " 27 "" " ! ( "" "" "" 38 "" ! ( "" " "" " 28 " ! ( "" """ """ """ "" "" " "" " """ " """ " "" " " "" " " " 39 ! ( "" " 29 ! ( "" " " """ " " " "" " " " 30 22 ! ( " ! ( " " " " "" " " " " 23 ! ( " " " " 31 ! (
126 44 43 684 42 685 41 686 40 96 683 117 116

" "
446 434 442 443 444 445 457 448 447 441

" "
48 ! ( 55 ! (

PROJECT # 2006 - 06115.10P Copyright © 2007 Saratoga Associates. All Rights Reserved.
438 440 110 433 435 436 432 431 430 429 437 439

24 ! (
858

" " "
115

" " "
39 38 37

"
125 118

" " "
859

25 ! (
2 120

" " " "
121 122

"
97

424

426428 425 427

42 ! ( 32 ! (

423

422

"
123 184 3

679

"
186

" " "" " " " " "" " " "" " " "" " " " " " " " " "" " " " "" " " " " " " " " " "" " "" " " "" " "" "" " " "

18 ! (
119

" " " "
185

" "
124

This map is computer generated using data acquired by Saratoga Associates from various sources and is intended only for reference, conceptual planning and presentation purposes. This map is not intended for and should not be used to establish boundaries, property lines, location of objects or to provide any other information typically needed for construction or any other purpose when engineered plans or land surveys are required.
File Location: S:\GIS\06115\CapeVincent_Shadow_Flicker_Topo051707.mxd

19 ! ( 26 ! ( 34 ! (

33 ! (

"" "" " " "" " " " " " " "" " "" "" " " "" " " " " " " " "" " " " " " "" " " " " "" " " ! (
14 15 ! ( 20 ! (

680 677 676 668 678 667 666 669 681 665 670 671 651 672 652 682 664 673 663 647650 675 662 648 660 649 661 659 674 654 658 653 645 657 638 639 655 637 656 635 636 633 646 634 640 641 642 643 644

"
181

21 ! (
26

25

" "
183

32

59 ! (

"
182

" "

624

625

620 619

11 ! ( 12 ! (

"
679 680 677 676

618

180

" " "" " " " " " "" "

622 621

632 629 630 631 627 626 623 628

617

" "

179

178

177

873

" ""
13 ! (

28 27

"

176

" " " " ""

36

175

668

678

"

29

""

667

666

616

8 ! (

669

670

"
9 ! (

681

665

671

652 651

682

664

672

169

"

650

647

663

673

30

5 ! (

"
10 ! (

1 ! (

648

662

675

660

674

649

35

661

" "
167

6 ! (

"
614

659

654

658

645

653

657

615

174 166 613 34

" " " "

638

173

" "

637

639

655

2 ! (

635

656

633 636

" ""
165 33

168

3 ! (

7 ! (

634

646

640 641

"
164 612

"

642

643

4 ! (

" " " " " "" " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " "" " " "" " " "
644

170

"

31

"

172

" "

171

0

0.5

1

2 Miles

"

865

¯

"

866

000385

213 212 211 229 210 228 209 227 245 208 244 226 207

383385 384

380 381 382

377

386

399

375

376

378 379

387 388

374

397 398 390 401 400

243 206 225 242 284 224 241 223 240 204 205 282 222 283 203 239 281 299 238 280 202 220 221 201 298 279 237 297 278 200 219 236 218 296 277 235 199 217 198 216 234 247 276 294 295 215 233 275 293 214 232 274 249 292 273 248 230 231 290 272 250 289 271 389 391 392 402 405 416
600 599 602 601 598 597

251 395 372 404 409 414 415
587 590 588 596

246 369 370 417 418 371 393 373

287 288 286 285 396

" " " "
410
585 595 589 592

291 366 394 420
586 591 593 582 581 580 149 584 594

54 364 406 421 419 403 407 365 362 367

253 350 351 413
583

352

"" " "" " " " " "" "" "" " " " " " " "" " " " " " """ " " " "
""" " " " " "
408

131 368 348 349 354 357 363

353

" " "
412
564 563 9 574 569570 71 568 576 571 573 575 567 572 70 577 579 578 565 566 7 8 148

"" " """ "" "
" " "" " " " " " " "" " "" "

PROPOSED TURBINE SHADOW LIMITS VEGETATED *
604 603

355

361

347

356

344

358

""
411
556 562 557 558 549 553 555 559 552 561560 867 554 550 548 551 547

254 255 270 269 256 268 252 257 267 266 258 265 259 260 264 261 262 263 856 855 854 853 852 851 857 850 849 843 848 842 847 841 846 840 845 839 838 844 837 836 834 345 346 359

"" " "" "" " "" " " " "" "" " "" "" " " "
150

835 340
545 146 145 546 151 147

343

336

820 341
544 543

330

339

" " "
152

338 113 112
542 144 69

342

819 337 331 334 329 333 360 335 114
541

829 821 828 827 831 833 826 825 830 824 823 822 94 ( ! 332 90 ( !

" "" " "" """ "" "" " " " " "" " " "
194 196 153195 197

818 328

832

" "
95 ( !
143 142

327

325

324

114

"
"" "
96 ( !
154 155

" " " ""

Figure C2 Visual Resource Assessment St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project May 2007

130 320 111
506 507

326

323

319
508 510 509

321 86 ( !

"
91 ( !

318

322
516 68 513 512514 511 67 536

540 538 539 523 524530 522525531 532 521 533 520 534 519 527 526 535 537 518 141 517 528 529 515

" " "
6

132
140 156

317
503 139 502

" " " " " "" " " "" """" "" " "" "" " "" " " " " " "" " " " " "" " "" "
92 ( !

" " ""
157158 10

315
504 505 501 500

754 756 307
499 138 66

807 810 809 808 811 803 806805 817 812 816 804 815 802 801 796 814 797 795 813 794 798 800 786 787 788 775 785 799 784 790 793 774 783 789 792 782 773 791 776 772 781 777 780 770 771 129 779 769 762 767 778 761 760 766 759 763 758 765 755 768 764 757 308 93 ( ! 81 ( ! 311 313 316 314 87 ( ! 312
496 497

304
494 498 495 65

310 309

748 753 747 749 752 746 750 303
493

" " " " " " "
213 212 211 229 210 228 209 88 ( !
492 491 64 63 62 61

"" " " " " "" " " "" " " " "" " " " " "" " " " " "" " " "" " " " "" " " " " " "" " " " " "" " " " "" "" "" "" " " " "
82 ( !
490 60

757 754 756

748 753 747 749 752 750 744 746 751 743 745
58 59

" " " " " " " " " " "" " " "" " " " " "" " " " ""
75 ( ! 89 ( !
193

Key
17 ( !

"
57

83 ( !
5

53
4 192

76 ( ! 84 ( !

" " " "

IDENTIFIED EXISTING STRUCTURE ** PROPOSED TURBINE (425 FOOT BLADE TIP HEIGHT) 3,000 FOOT BUFFER OF TURBINES EXPECTED HOURS OF SHADOW FLICKER PER YEAR <1

77 ( ! 69 ( !

489 488 487 11 486 88 87 485 12 13 90 484 868 89 869

742 740 741 723 724 739 722 725 721 731 726 730 720 732 719 727 729 733 738 718 717 728 734 737 716 735 711 736 712 715 710 709 713 714 705 706 708 707 704 703 701

702
191 91 86 92

"
190

10 " 1 ! (

128

700

698

" "" " "" " " " """" " " " " "
71 ( ! 70 ( ! 85 ( !

"

699

52

693

51

692

697

50
19 135 18 85 136

49

696

"
78 ( !

691

48
134 17

695

690
20 83 82

694

"
72 ( ! 79 ( !

"" ""
63 ( !

" " " " " " " " " " " "" " " "" " " "" " "" " " "" "" "" " " " "" " " " " " "" " " """ " " " " " " "" " " " " " "" "" "" " "" " " " " "" "" "" " " " " " " "" " " "" " "" " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " "" "" " "" "" "" "" " " "" " " """ " " " "" " " " "" " " " " """ " "" " " " "" " " """ " " " " "" " "" " "" " " " """ " " " " " "" "" " " " " """ " " " " "" " "" " " " " " " "" " "" " " " " "" "" " " "" " " " " " "" " " "" " """"" " """ " " "" " " """ " " "" " " """ "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
"
95 84

47 "
482 21 22 133 483 481 864 94 872 56

" "
64 ( ! 73 ( !
81 159

46 "
55 108 93

"
"
60 ( ! 65 ( ! 74
78 107 383 384 385 377 380 381 382 386 23 399 422 79

45

"" " "" " "
80 ( !

" " " " " " "
606

1 - 10
" " "
605

689

11 - 20
607 160

480 475 479 474 473 469 478 468 476 467 472 871 466 470 477 471 465 462 464 461 463 460459 870 453 452 458 451 456 450 455 449 454 442 457 444 448 436 446443447 445 434 441 433 438 440 432 431 430 435 437 110 429 439 428 426 425 424 427 423

127
77

687
109

" " """ """ " " """ " " "" """" " """ """ " " """ """ " """ " " " "" " " " " "" " "" "" "" " " " "
( !

""
608

" "
609

" "" "
56 ( !

688
137

"
61 ( ! 66 ( !

" " "
610

21 - 30 31 - 40

"
"
16 189 15 80 103

1

""
161

44 "
102

"
49 ( ! 57 ( ! 62 ( !

126

" " "
188

"

43 "

684

"
"
862

683

" "

41 - 50
162

42 " 50 ( ! 58 ( !
163 75

685

41 "
863

> 50

40 " 44 ( !

" " "
67 ( !

686

" "

" "
104

"

45 ( !
72 861

"
105 14

51 ( !

" "
76

" "
73

68 ( !

""
106

52 ( !

* Assumes a uniform tree height of 40 feet (12.192 meters) in forested areas.

16 ( !
99 24

"
74

"
482 133

53 ( !

"
611

"
481

"
483 872

376 379 388 398 375 378 387 397 390 400 389 392401 374 391 402 395 372 416 393396 370 369 371 373 404 405 415 418 409 414 417 366 365 364 362 410 406 419 403 394 367 420 421 352 407 351 350 353 368 413 349 363 408 348 354 361 347 355 357 356 411 412 344 359 358 345 346 343 340 336 339 330338 341 342 337 331 334 360 333 329 113 112 328 332 335 114 325 327 324 326 323 320 111 319 321 322 318 132 317 315 311314316 308 313 307 213 304 312 310 212229 211 309 210 228 209 227245 208 226 244 303 306 207 225 243 305 206 224 242 284 205 223241 283 302 204 222240 282 301 203 221 239 281 300 202 220 238 280 299 201 219 237 279 298 200 218 236 278 297 199 217 235 277296 198 216234 276 295 247 215 233 275 294 249 214 232 273 292 274 293 231272290 250 248 230 271289 288 251 246 287 286 285 35 254 291 255 54 270 252 269 256 268 257 267 258 266 259 856 260 265 253 131 261 264 262 263 855 854 853 852 851 850 857 849 848843 36 847842 846841 845840 839 844 836 838 837 834 821 828 829 827 833 835 820 825830 826 831 824 819823 822 818 807 832 810 806 811 808 803809 816 805 804 815 802 812 817 796 795 801 814 787 797 813 786 788 130 785 794798 775784 793 800 790 774 782 789 773783 792 799 776 772 777 791 37 780 771 770 781 779 769 129 762 761767 778 760 766 763 759 765 758 755 764 757 27 754 756 753 748 768 749 747 746 752 744 750 743 751 742745 740 741 724 28 723 722 739 53 721 731 720 725 732 719 726 733 727730 718 728 717729 738 734 711 735 716 737 712 736 710 715 709 714 713 705708 706 707 704 703 701 128 702 700

" ""
100

" "
480

56 "

"
187

864

690

699 52 693 51 698 697 692 50 696 49 695 691 48 694 47

46 ( !
860

"

"
871 55 " 870

** Structure locations obtained from NYS GIS Clearinghouse, Statewide Digital Orthoimagery Program. 2003 imagery, and field verification as discussed in the report.

46 45 689 127 687

688

1

40 ( !
101

" "
47 ( ! 54 ( ! 41 ( !
98

" " "" " " " " " "" "" """ "" "" " " """ """" " " "" " " "" " " " " """"" "" "" " " "" " "" " " "" " " " "" " " " " "" " "" "" " " " " """" " " "" " " "" "" " " " " "" "" " " " "" " " " """ " "" " " "" " " "" " "" "" " """" """"" """"" " """"" " "" """"" " """"" "" "" """""" 43 """"""" " ( ! """""" """ " " """" " " " """ ( ! "" "" " """" " "" "" " "" " " "" " " " "" "" ( ! "" " "" " " "" " " """"" " "" " """ " " "" " " "" """ " "" " "" " " """ " "" """"" " """ ( ! """ " """" " "" "" " "" " ( ! "" "" """ " 38 "" ( ! "" " """ ( ! "" "" """ """ "" """ " "" """ " " "" "" "" " " "" " " " 39 ( ! "" " 29 " ( ! "" " "" " """ " " " " " 30 22 ( ! " ( ! " " " " " "" " " " 23 ( ! " " " " 31 ( !
126 44 43 684 42 685 41 686 40 683 117

" "
446 434 442 443 444 445 457 448 447 441

" "
96

475 474 473 479 469 478 477 468 467 472 466 471 476 470 462 465 460 464 461 463 453 459 452 458 456 451 455 450 449 454

PROJECT # 2006 - 06115.10P Copyright © 2007 Saratoga Associates. All Rights Reserved.
438 440 110 433 435 436 432 431 430 429 437 439

24 ( !
858

" " "
116

48 ( !

55 ( !

"
125 115 118

" " "
39 38 37

" " "
859

25 ( !

"
2 120

"
97

424

426428 425 427

" " "
121 122

42 ( ! 32 ( !
186

423

422

"
123 184 119

679

" " "
3

18 ( !

" "
124

"
33 ( !

" " "" " " " " "" " " "" " " "" " " " " " " " " "" " " " "" " " " " " " " " " "" " "" " " "" " "" "" " " "

This map is computer generated using data acquired by Saratoga Associates from various sources and is intended only for reference, conceptual planning and presentation purposes. This map is not intended for and should not be used to establish boundaries, property lines, location of objects or to provide any other information typically needed for construction or any other purpose when engineered plans or land surveys are required.
File Location: S:\GIS\06115\CapeVincent_Shadow_Flicker_Veg051707.mxd

680 677 676 678 668 667 666 669 681 665 670 671 651 672 652 682 664 673 663 647650 675 662 648 660 649 661 659 674 654 658 653 645 657 638 639 655 637 656 635 636 633 646 634 640 641

14 ( ! 26 ( ! 34 ( !

19 ( !

"
185

"" "" " " "" " " " " " " "" " "" " " " "" " " "" " " " " "" " " " " " "" "" " " " " " "
15 ( ! 20 ( !

642 643 644

"
181

21 ( !
26

25

" "
183

32

59 ( !

"
182

" "
679

624

625

11 ( ! 12 ( !

623

626

620 619 618

180

"
680 677 676

" " "" " " " " " "" "

622 621

632 629 630 631 627 628

617

" "

179

178

177

873

" ""
13 ( !

28 27

"

176

" " " " ""

36

175

"

29

""

668

678

667

"
9 ( !

616

8 ( !

666

669

670

681

665

671

"
10 ( !

169

652 651

682

664

672

" "
167

30

5 ( !

650

647

663

673

1 ( !
614

648

662

675

660

35

674

" " "
615

649

661

6 ( !

659

654

658

174 166 613 34

645

653

657

173

638

" " " " "

( !

2

637

639

655

635

656

" ""
165 33

168

7 ( !

633 636

3 ( !

634

646

"
164 612

"

640 641

642

4 ( !

643

170

"

31

"

172

" "

171

" " " " " "" " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " "" " " "" " " "
644

0

0.5

1

2 Miles

"

865

¯

"

866

000386

94

95 90 96

91 86 92 87 93 81 88 82 75 83 76 84 77 69 89 17

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project
85

FIGURE 2-1
70 71 78 63 72

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project over 7.5 Minute USGS Topographic Maps
79 80

64 73

Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme Jefferson County, NY

60

65 74

JANUARY, 2007

56 66

61

53

49 57 62 50 43 35 44 36 51 45 37 52 38 28 53 16 27 58 67

Turbine Locations with 200 foot Temporary Radius Laydown Area

Existing Temporary Meteorological Tower

O&M Building

Proposed Temporary Meteorological Tower 68

Buried Interconnect

Access Roads and Temporary Construction Turnarounds

Temporary Construction Area 39 29 46 30 40 47 41 23 31 24 48 55 54

Operations and Maintenance Building (To Be Determined)

22

Proposed Substation

Existing Substation

25 42 32 18 33 19 14 26 34 15 20 21 59 11 12

New York State

Overhead Transmission Route To Be Determined

Jefferson County

13 8

9 5 1 10 6

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project

2 7 3

4

0

Feet 1,000

2,000

0

Miles 0.25

0.5

NOTES: REVISION 1 JANUARY, 2007

Sources: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangles: Cape Vincent N & S, Chaumont, St.Lawrence, Clayton and Dexter, 1958.

Overhead Transmission Route To Be Determined

Projection: State Plane New York Central (feet) NAD 83

P:\Cape Vincent Wind Farm\GIS\Spatial\MXD\ DEIS_Figures\REV1\SLW_Topo_REV1.mxd

000387

56
40.00-1-9 McNeill, Douglas M. 42.3 acres 40.00-1-11 Lawrence, Richard J. 51.2 acres

61

40.00-1-21 Bates, Alta J. 53.2 acres

40.00-1-22.2 May, John Milton (Milt) 111.63 acres

40.00-1-25.1 Docteur, Donald H. 210.2 acres

40.00-1-8 Radley, James G. 116.8 acres 40.00-1-8 Radley, James G. 116.8 acres

40.00-1-10.2 VanVliet, Andrew G. 106.6 acres

49
40.00-1-12 Lawrence, Richard J. 74.8 acres 40.00-1-8 Radley, James G. 116.8 acres

40.00-1-10.1 Bell, Michael R. 42.4 acres

57

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

40.09-1-47 Radley, Jarvis 71.7 acres

40.00-1-23.1 Mason, Ennis L. 185.54 acres

62

50 43
40.09-1-49.111 Radley, Lionel 96.2 acres 40.00-1-13 Lawrence, Richard J. 24.72 acres

58

35

40.00-1-23.3 Mason, Troy 2 acres

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project
44
40.00-1-7 Giaquinto, Frank J. 217.76 acres

36

40.00-1-7 Giaquinto, Frank J. 217.76 acres

O&M Building
40.00-1-7 Giaquinto, Frank J. 217.76 acres

40.00-1-20 Mason, Ennis L. 244.9 acres

FIGURE 2-2 Turbines 1-55
51

40.09-1-49.117 Radley, Lionel A. 123.2 acres

40.00-1-36 Ruggieri, Thomas J. 108.1 acres

45
40.00-1-14 Lawrence, Richard J. 141.3 acres

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project with Turbine Buffers over 7.5 Minute USGS Topographic Maps

37
40.00-1-7 Giaquinto, Frank J. 217.76 acres

40.00-1-37.2 Hanrahan, Kim 10 acres

52

40.00-1-20 Mason, Ennis L. 244.9 acres

40.00-1-37.1 Mason, Gary E. 40 acres

Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme Jefferson County, NY
16 38

27

JANUARY, 2007

53 28
39.16-1-17.1 Docteur, Michael J. 64.2 acres 40.00-1-6 Lawrence, Richard J. 125.3 acres 39.16-1-16 Burns, Rockne E. 189.6 acres

53

Turbine Locations

39

39.16-1-14.2 Radley, Gerald M. 64.2 acres

29

40.00-1-15.2 Lawrence, Rick J. 24.72 acres

0 acres

75 foot Buffer

46
40.00-1-15.1 Giaquinto, Frank J. 50.92 acres

615 foot Buffer

0 acres

30 22
40.00-1-3.1 Bourcy, Mary Lou 219.5 acres 40.00-1-4.2 Aubertine, Darrel 24.8 acres

40.00-1-15.3 Giaquinto, Frank J. 68.6 acres

40
40.00-1-5 Aubertine, Darrel J. 24.8 acres

54
39.16-1-19.1 Parkinson, Stewart E. 100.7 acres

1200 foot Buffer 47 41 31
40.00-1-16 Aubertine, Darrel 50 acres

23

40.00-1-19 Mason, Marty 53.27 acres

Existing Temporary Meteorological Tower
40.00-1-4.1 Aubertine, Paul 47.54 acres

40.00-1-2 Bourcy, Wesley A. 135.62 acres

55 24
40.00-1-4.3 Aubertine, Patrick J. 2.38 acres 40.00-1-17 Aubertine, Darrel J. 50.54 acres

48

Proposed Temporary Meteorological Tower

39.20-1-11.1 Docteur, Robert 103 acres

40.00-1-40 Mason, Marty 33.52 acres 40.00-1-42.2 Aubertine, Gene L. 5.11 acres

40.00-1-18 Aubertine, Darrel J. 40.42 acres

40.00-1-39 Mason, Ennis L. 67.83 acres

Buried Interconnect

40.00-1-47 Doctore, Wayne J. 71.42 acres

Access Roads and Temporary Construction Turnarounds
40.00-1-1.1 Votra, Donald 137.46 acres

25

39.20-1-12.21 Napier, Roger P. 72 acres

40.00-1-41.2 Carson, Neal 0 acres

40.00-1-40 Mason, Marty 33.52 acres

Temporary Construction Area 42
40.00-1-1.2 Florek, Robert J. 5.51 acres

32
39.20-1-12.1 Constance, James T. 60.9 acres 49.00-1-11.3 Bourcy, Mary Lou 65.91 acres 40.00-1-42.1 Aubertine, Terry L. 192.1 acres

40.00-1-41.1 Aubertine, Paul 174.34 acres

40.00-1-46 Brown, James L. 76.79 acres

Operations and Maintenance Building (To Be Determined)

Proposed Substation

18

10.00-4 Smith, John 1.5 acres

Parcels Within Project Area
40.00-1-43 Mason, Donald J. 184.5 acres

49.00-1-10.2 Kyle Thomas M, 239.63 acres

33 19
49.00-1-11.1 Bourcy, Wesley A. 15.08 acres 49.00-1-12 Burke, Patrick B. 2 acres

14

40.00-1-1.1 Votra, Donald 137.46 acres

26

Structures
50.00-1-18 Aubertine, Terry L. 23.9 acres 49.00-1-13 Cape Vincent Town Of, 7 acres

34

15
49.00-1-9 Votra, Donald 133.4 acres

RESIDENCE
49.00-1-14 Cape Vincent, Town Of 3.1 acres 50.00-1-1 Aubertine, Terry L. 53.5 acres 50.00-1-17 Aubertine, Darrel 42.71 acres

BUSINESS
20
50.07-1-7 Mason Marty T & Annette M, 27.9 acres 49.00-1-10.1 Votra, Marvin F. 8.14 acres 49.00-1-15.1 Bourcy, Mary Lou 163.3 acres

SCHOOL
40.00-1-44 Mason, Donald J. 9.5 acres

BARN
21
50.00-1-16 Aubertine, Darrel J. 20.6 acres

SHED/GARAGE

NON EXTANT HOUSE

59

ABANDONED HOUSE

49.07-1-11.1 Jacobs, Ronald 166.2 acres

11

12
49.00-1-18 Gonzales, John Sheila 14.73 acres

49.00-1-10.2 Kyle Thomas M, 239.63 acres

49.00-1-15.2 Bourcy, Wesley A. 12 acres

Overhead Transmission Route To Be Determined
50.00-1-3.4 Mason, Marty 25 acres

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project

49.07-1-15.21 Iron Horse Farms Inc, 55.5 acres 49.07-1-15.21 Iron Horse Farms Inc, 55.5 acres 49.00-1-7 White Farms LLC, 135.13 acres

49.07-1-22 Cape Vincent Town Of, 18.9 acres

13 8
49.00-1-6.1 White Farms LLC, 16.8 acres 49.00-1-57 Blodgett, James E. 35.27 acres 49.00-1-6.2 Cape Vincent Mini Storage Inc, 3 acres 49.00-1-8.1 White Farms LLC, 100.97 acres

49.00-1-17 White Farms LLC, 105.15 acres

49.00-1-27.3 White, Kenneth J. 301.8 acres

49.06-1-39 Brennan, Donald M. 5.3 acres 49.06-1-30.1 Barnard, Robert R. 49.06-1-30.3 39 acres Border Intl Broadcasting Inc, 11.77 acres

9
49.00-1-19.1 Maloney, Michael W. 187.45 acres

Turbines 1-55

5
49.00-1-56 Benvenuto, James Jr 72.67 acres

1 10
49.00-1-8.2 White, Harvey 0 acres 49.00-1-20.2 Stumpf, Willard J. 132.57 acres

6

49.00-1-7 White Farms LLC, 135.13 acres

49.00-1-5.3 Kieff, Michael L. 310.17 acres 49.00-1-2.24 Liparula, Frank 83.41 acres

49.00-1-19.2 Maloney, Matthew P. 2.22 acres

49.00-1-25 Stumpf, Willard Jr 190.6 acres

0

Feet 500

1,000

2

0

Miles 0.125

0.25

49.00-1-4 Wiley, Harold 93.46 acres

3

49.00-1-5.3 Kieff, Michael L. 310.17 acres

7
49.00-1-19.1 Maloney, Michael W. 187.45 acres

49.00-1-5.1 Fralick, David B. 88.42 acres

4
49.00-1-5.1 Fralick, David B. 88.42 acres

49.00-1-20.2 Stumpf, Willard J. 132.57 acres

NOTES: REVISION 1 JANUARY, 2007

49.00-1-5.2 Mortensen, Peter V. 245.69 acres

Sources: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangles: Cape Vincent N & S, Chaumont, St.Lawrence,Clayton and Dexter, 1958. Tax Parcel Data: Jefferson County Planning Department

Projection: State Plane New York Central (feet) NAD 83

P:\Cape Vincent Wind Farm\GIS\Spatial\MXD\ DEIS_Figures\REV1\SLW_Buffers1_REV1.mxd

000388

30.09-1-88.1 Maloney, Ina 46 acres

30.00-1-9.1 Wood, Henry 359.2 acres 30.00-1-23.2 Wood, Henry 19.9 acres

30.00-1-21.1 Aubertine, Francis 90.6 acres

94

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC
95

30.00-1-8.2 Wood, Gary H. 3.7 acres

30.00-1-23.31 Wood, Henry 152.2 acres

90
30.00-1-12.3 Docteur, Mildred As Trste 10 acres 30.00-1-19 Wood, Gary 0 acres

30.00-1-9.1 Wood, Henry 359.2 acres

30.00-1-23.1 Lennox, Mark S. 7.36 acres

96
30.00-1-20.1 Wood, Henry 96.1 acres

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project

FIGURE 2-3 Turbines 56-96
30.00-1-23.322 Wood, Alan N. 0 acres 30.00-1-20.2 Garnsey, Robert 0 acres 30.00-1-21.1 Aubertine, Francis 90.6 acres

91

30.00-1-7 Mason, Paul C. 173.6 acres

86

92

0 acres

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project with Turbine Buffers over 7.5 Minute USGS Topographic Maps

87

30.00-1-23.31 Wood, Henry 152.2 acres

30.00-1-21.3 Aubertine, Keith A. 31.66 acres

Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme Jefferson County, NY
93

30.00-1-6 Mason, Elaine 213.7 acres

JANUARY, 2007

81
30.00-1-2 Lamora, David 38.1 acres 30.00-1-23.31 Wood, Henry 152.2 acres 30.00-1-22.1 Wood, Joseph H. 69.7 acres

53

Turbine Locations

75 foot Buffer 88
30.00-1-21.2 Estelle, Douglas 124.5 acres

30.00-1-1 Boss, Sarah F. 70.7 acres

82

615 foot Buffer

75

40.00-1-31.1 Boss, Sarah F. 35.9 acres

89
30.00-1-24.1 Wood, Henry 93.78 acres

1200 foot Buffer
30.00-1-24.2 Hubbard, Brock T. 3.52 acres

83
0 acres

17

40.00-1-29.2 Trottier, Ronald J. 1.4 acres

76
41.00-1-5.1 Gisel, Robert J. Jr 4.35 acres 41.00-1-5.2 Wood, Henry 176.4 acres

Existing Temporary Meteorological Tower

84

Proposed Temporary Meteorological Tower
30.00-1-26 Wood, Henry 47.77 acres 30.00-1-25 Bourcy, Donald 2.23 acres 41.00-1-4.1 Mckeever, Audrey 1.1 acres

40.00-1-28 Wood Farms LLC, 130.6 acres

77

Buried Interconnect

69

40.00-1-29.1 Laun Trust, H Thomas 26.06 acres

Access Roads and Temporary Construction Turnarounds

Temporary Construction Area 85

70
40.00-1-32 Brown, Seldon L. Jr 26.37 acres

Operations and Maintenance Building (To Be Determined)
41.00-1-4.3 Wood, Henry 94.4 acres

40.00-1-27.2 Docteur, Dennis C. 192.6 acres

71

Proposed Substation

78

Existing Substation

40.25-1-63 Kusse, Ronald 23.7 acres

63

40.00-1-27.1 Docteur, Mary 6.08 acres

72

30.00-1-27 Hubbard, Sandra 232.5 acres 41.00-1-1.1 Mcdowell, Wallace 148.27 acres 40.00-1-33.2 Wood Farms LLC, 72.91 acres

79

41.00-1-3 Wood, Henry 36.06 acres

10.00-4 Smith, John 1.5 acres

Parcels Within Project Area

40.00-1-25.1 Docteur, Donald H. 210.2 acres 40.06-1-7.1 Robinson, Rick E. 15.5 acres 40.00-1-24 Boyle, Timothy John 0 acres

80 73
30.00-1-27 Hubbard, Sandra 232.5 acres 41.00-1-13 Cape Vincent, Town Of 13.8 acres

64

Structures

40.00-1-21 Bates, Alta J. 53.2 acres 40.00-1-22.2 May, John Milton (Milt) 111.63 acres

40.00-1-23.2 Priestly, Frederick 15.16 acres

41.00-1-15.2 Ricco, Sigrid E. 21.68 acres

RESIDENCE

BUSINESS

60

65 74
40.00-1-33.1 Wood Farms LLC, 1.47 acres 41.00-1-16 St Lawrence Un Cemetery Assoc, 22.5 acres

SCHOOL

BARN

SHED/GARAGE

NON EXTANT HOUSE
40.00-1-9 McNeill, Douglas M. 42.3 acres 40.00-1-11 Lawrence, Richard J. 51.2 acres

56

40.00-1-21 Bates, Alta J. 53.2 acres

61 66
41.00-1-1.1 Mcdowell, Wallace 148.27 acres 41.00-1-1.2 Switzer, Richard A. 2.53 acres 40.00-1-34.2 Mason, Ennis 94.87 acres 40.00-1-35 Henchy, Christopher J. 53 acres

ABANDONED HOUSE
41.00-1-2.2 Pacific, Bruno 69.4 acres

40.00-1-8 Radley, James G. 116.8 acres

40.00-1-10.2 VanVliet, Andrew G. 106.6 acres

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project

49
40.00-1-8 Radley, James G. 116.8 acres

40.00-1-10.1 Bell, Michael R. 42.4 acres

57
40.00-1-8 Radley, James G. 116.8 acres 40.00-1-12 Lawrence, Richard J. 74.8 acres 40.00-1-23.1 Mason, Ennis L. 185.54 acres

62

40.09-1-47 Radley, Jarvis 71.7 acres

50 58
40.00-1-13 Lawrence, Richard J. 24.72 acres 40.00-1-23.3 Mason, Troy 2 acres

67

40.00-1-80 Mcdowell, Wallace 93.08 acres

44
40.00-1-7 Giaquinto, Frank J. 217.76 acres 40.00-1-7 Giaquinto, Frank J. 217.76 acres

O&M Building
51

40.00-1-7 Giaquinto, Frank J. 217.76 acres

40.00-1-20 Mason, Ennis L. 244.9 acres

68

Turbines 56-96

45
40.00-1-14 Lawrence, Richard J. 141.3 acres 40.00-1-37.2 Hanrahan, Kim 10 acres

40.00-1-3.1 Bourcy, Mary Lou 219.5 acres

40.00-1-7 Giaquinto, Frank J. 217.76 acres

52

40.00-1-20 Mason, Ennis L. 244.9 acres

40.00-1-36 Ruggieri, Thomas J. 108.1 acres

16 53
40.00-1-37.1 Mason, Gary E. 40 acres

0

Feet 500

1,000

40.00-1-6 Lawrence, Richard J. 125.3 acres

0
40.00-1-15.2 Lawrence, Rick J. 24.72 acres

Miles 0.125

0.25

39

0 acres

46
40.00-1-15.1 Giaquinto, Frank J. 50.92 acres

40.00-1-15.3 Giaquinto, Frank J. 68.6 acres

0 acres

40 54
40.00-1-5 Aubertine, Darrel J. 24.8 acres 40.00-1-4.2 Aubertine, Darrel 24.8 acres

47
40.00-1-16 Aubertine, Darrel 50 acres 40.00-1-19 Mason, Marty 53.27 acres 40.00-1-39 Mason, Ennis L. 67.83 acres

41

NOTES: REVISION 1 JANUARY, 2007

40.00-1-4.3 Aubertine, Patrick J. 2.38 acres 40.00-1-42.2 Aubertine, Gene L. 5.11 acres 40.00-1-42.1 Aubertine, Terry L. 192.1 acres

40.00-1-4.1 Aubertine, Paul 47.54 acres

55
40.00-1-17 Aubertine, Darrel J. 50.54 acres 40.00-1-41.1 Aubertine, Paul 174.34 acres

48
40.00-1-40 Mason, Marty 33.52 acres 40.00-1-47 Doctore, Wayne J. 71.42 acres 40.00-1-18 Aubertine, Darrel J. 40.42 acres 40.00-1-46 Brown, James L. 76.79 acres

Sources: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangles: Cape Vincent N & S, Chaumont, St.Lawrence, Clayton and Dexter, 1958. Tax Parcel Data: Jefferson County Planning Department

Projection: State Plane New York Central (feet) NAD 83

P:\Cape Vincent Wind Farm\GIS\Spatial\MXD\ DEIS_Figures\REV1\SLW_Buffers2_REV1.mxd

000389

k
94 95 90 96

al

lsc

pm

91 86 92 87 93 81

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

lsc
88 82 75 83 76 84 77 69 89 17

t r

k

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project

FIGURE 3-1

pm
85

al
70

sf

Proposed St.Lawrence Wind Energy Project with Surficial Geological Data over 7.5 Minute USGS Topographic Maps

71 78 63 72

Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme Jefferson County, NY
79 80

JANUARY, 2007

64 73

53

Turbine Locations with 200 foot Temporary Radius Laydown Area

60

65 74

Existing Temporary Meteorological Tower

56 66

61

Proposed Temporary Meteorological Tower

Buried Interconnect 49 57 62 50 43 35 44 36 51 45 37 52 38 28 53 16 27 58 67

Access Roads and Temporary Construction Turnarounds

O&M Building
68

Temporary Construction Area

Operations and Maintenance Building (To Be Determined)

Proposed Substation

Existing Substation 39 29 46 30 40 47 41 54

Surficial Geology

MATERIAL
22

al: Recent alluvium

k: Kame deposits

23 31 24 48

55

lsc: Lacustrine silt and clay

pm: Swamp deposits

r: Bedrock
25 42 32 18

sf: Subaqueous fan

t: Till

New York State

14

pm
19 26 15 20 21

33

34

r
59 11 12

Overhead Transmission Route To Be Determined

lsc

Jefferson County

pm
13 8

9 5 1 10 6

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project

2 7 3

4

0

Feet 1,000

2,000

0

Miles 0.25

0.5

pm

al

NOTES: REVISION 1 JANUARY, 2007

Sources: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangles: Cape Vincent N & S, Chaumont, St.Lawrence, Clayton and Dexter, 1958. Surfical Geological Data: NYS Museum / NYS Geological Survey, http://www.nysm.nysed.gov, 1999

r

r

Overhead Transmission Route To Be Determined

Projection: State Plane New York Central (feet) NAD 83

P:\Cape Vincent Wind Farm\GIS\Spatial\MXD\ DEIS_Figures\REV1\SLW_Surfical_REV1.mxd

000390

94

95 90 96

91 86 92 87 93

OCth

Obr
88 82 75 83 76 84 77 69 89 17

81

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project

FIGURE 3-2
70 85

71 78 63 72

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project with Bedrock Geological Data over 7.5 Minute USGS Topographic Maps
79 80

Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme Jefferson County, NY

64 73

JANUARY, 2007

60

65 74

53

Turbine Locations with 200 foot Temporary Radius Laydown Area

56 66

61

Existing Temporary Meteorological Tower

49 57 62 50 43 35 44 36 51 45 37 52 38 28 53 16 27 58 67

Proposed Temporary Meteorological Tower

Obr
68

Buried Interconnect

Access Roads and Temporary Construction Turnarounds

O&M Building

Temporary Construction Area

Operations and Maintenance Building (To Be Determined)

Proposed Substation 39 29 46 30 40 47 41 23 31 24 48 55 54

Existing Substation

22

Bedrock Geology

MATERIAL

OCth: Theresa Formation

Obr: Black River Group

25 42 32 18 33 19 14 26 34 15 20 21 59 11 12

Ot: Trenton Group

New York State

Overhead Transmission Route To Be Determined

Jefferson County

13 8

9 5 1 10 6

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project

2 7 3

4

Ot

0

Feet 1,000

2,000

0

Miles 0.25

0.5

NOTES: REVISION 1 JANUARY, 2007

Ot

Overhead Transmission Route To Be Determined

Sources: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangles: Cape Vincent N & S, Chaumont, St.Lawrence,Clayton and Dexter, 1958. Bedrock Geological Data: NYS Museum / NYS Geological Survey, http://www.nysm.nysed.gov, 1999

Projection: State Plane New York Central (feet) NAD 83

P:\Cape Vincent Wind Farm\GIS\Spatial\MXD\ DEIS_Figures\REV1\SLW_Bedrock_REV1.mxd

000391

94

95 90 96

91 86 92 87 93 81 88 82 75 83 76 84 77 69 89 17

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project
85

70

FIGURE 3-3

71 78 63 72

79 80

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project over 7.5 Minute USGS Topographic Maps and Aerial Photography

64 73

Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme Jefferson County, NY
74

60

65

JANUARY, 2007

56 66

61

53

49 57 62 50 43 35 44 36 45 37 52 38 28 53 16 27 O&M Building 51 68 58 67

Turbine Locations with 200 foot Temporary Radius Laydown Area

Existing Temporary Meteorological Tower

Proposed Temporary Meteorological Tower

Buried Interconnect

Access Roads and Temporary Construction Turnarounds

39 29 46 30 40 47 41 23 31 24 48 55 54

Temporary Construction Area

22

Operations and Maintenance Building (To Be Determined)

Proposed Substation

Existing Substation

25 42 32 18 33 19 14 26 34 15 20 21 59 11 12

New York State

Overhead Transmission Route To Be Determined

Jefferson County

13 8

9 5 1 10 6

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project

2 7 3

4

0

Feet 1,000

2,000

0

Miles 0.25

0.5

NOTES: REVISION 1 JANUARY, 2007

Sources: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangles: Cape Vincent N & S, Chaumont, St.Lawrence,Clayton and Dexter, 1958. Jefferson County 24-inch Resolution Color Infrared Orthoimagery: April, 2003 http://www.nysgis.state.ny.us

Overhead Transmission Route To Be Determined

Projection: State Plane New York Central (feet) NAD 83

P:\Cape Vincent Wind Farm\GIS\Spatial\MXD\ DEIS_Figures\REV1\SLW_Aerial_REV1.mxd

000392

RhA RhA RhB RhB HuB RhB RhB 95 CmB RhA 96 GaB ChB 92 Ma GaB HuB HuB 93 CmB Ma RhA ClA BgB ClA 83 RhB Ma RhB 84 77 CmB ElB Ma Ma RhA 85 Ma 71 ElA 63 RhA HuB RhB 64 73 HuB RhB 74 ClA 66 RhA HuB VeB VeB 49 HuB 62 50 KgA 35 Lc Lc VeB WmB Cp 52 KgB 16 53 BgB VeB KgB Gv 29 46 FaB 30 FaB 40 Gv BgB ClB Nn KgB 48 RhA FaB ClA ClA 41 Cp VeB 55 HuB RhA NoA ClA 25 ClA GlB 42 KgA ClB 18 ClB WnB ClB 19 WnB FaB Lc WnB Dp ClB BgB KgB Lc Cp Cp 21 Lc WnB KgB Fu Cp Lc Ma Lc KgB Ld KgA 59 GbB 11 12 KgA NoB KgB 15 BgB KgA 26 ClB RhB 34 14 KgA Lc FaB 33 RhA ClA Lc KgA Cp ClA FaB 32 FaB ClB Ma Lc ClB WnB VeB Lc CnB Ma WnB 47 ClB ClA 23 HuB FaB 31 Gv ClB 24 WnC ClA ClA 54 Nn RhA Ma 22 WnB WnC ClA ClA HuB FaB 39 KgA Lc KgA ClA ClA 45 VeC ClB 44 51 BgB FaB Cp KgB KgA WnB Cp WnB Cp KgA KgA 43 ClB VeB 58 67 KgB 57 HuB RhB CnB 72 RhB 79 RhB 80 78 Ma RhA CnB NoA Nn HuB 69 76 CnB CmB 17 89 GbB RhA 88 HuB RhA RhB Ma RhA 86 Cp HuB Lc Gv HuB 87 HuB CnB RhB 81 Ma WnB GbB HuB BgB WnB 82 CnC CnB CnB 75 NoA 91 Lc 90 HuB RhA HuB Cp HuB HuC Lc HuB

HuB

Soils Within Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Area
Unit BgB ChB ClA ClB CmB CnB CnC Cp Dp ElA ElB FaB Fu GaB GbB GlB GmC Gv HuB HuC HyE3 KgA KgB Lc Ld Ma Nn NoA NoB RhA RhB Sa VeB VeC W WmB WnB WnC

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

Soil Series Description

RhB Cp RhA

70

HuB RhB KgB HuB Cp Cp VeB 56 61 HuB 60 HuB 65

68

Cp

O&M Building

VeB Nn ClB 38 KgA 28 WmB HuB RhB ClB Lc

Gv

Benson-Galoo complex, very rocky, 0 to 8 percent slopes Chatfield loam, rocky, 0 to 8 percent slopes Chaumont silty clay, 0 to 3 percent slopes Chaumont silty clay, 3 to 8 percent slopes Claverack loamy fine sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes Collamer silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Collamer silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Covington silty clay Dumps Elmridge fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Elmridge fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Farmington loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Fluvaquents-Udifluvents complex, frequently flooded Galen fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Galoo-Rock outcrop complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes Galway silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Galway very stony silt loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes Guffin clay Hudson silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Hudson silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Hudson and Vergennes soils, 15 to 35 percent slopes, severely eroded Kingsbury silty clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes Kingsbury silty clay, 2 to 6 percent slopes Livingston mucky silty clay Livingston silty clay loam, frequently flooded M adalin silt loam Newstead silt loam Niagara silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Niagara silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Rhinebeck silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Rhinebeck silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Saprists and Aquents, ponded Vergennes silty clay loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Vergennes silty clay loam 8 to 15 percent slopes Water Williamson silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Wilpoint silty clay loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Wilpoint silty clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project

FIGURE 3-4

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Over Soil Data

Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme Jefferson County, NY

JANUARY, 2007

53

Turbine Locations with 200 foot Temporary Radius Laydown Area

Existing Temporary Meteorological Tower

Proposed Temporary Meteorological Tower

Buried Interconnect

Access Roads and Temporary Construction Turnarounds

Temporary Construction Area

Operations and Maintenance Building (To Be Determined)

Proposed Substation

ClB KgB

Existing Substation

New York State

Overhead Transmission Route To Be Determined
Ld

Jefferson County

BgB 13 8 GbB KgB KgA VeB 9 Ma

VeB

Gv 1 WnB FaB 6 HuB ClB KgB 2 ClA Gv ClB ClA 3 Cp VeB KgA VeB WnB Gv 4 ClB 7 Gv 10 BgB ClA ClB

5

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project

Gv VeB

Gv

BgB

0

Feet 1,000

2,000

0

Miles 0.25

0.5

NOTES: REVISION 1 JANUARY, 2007

Overhead Transmission Route To Be Determined

Sources: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangles: Cape Vincent N & S, Chaumont, St.Lawrence, Clayton and Dexter, 1958. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Jefferson County: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 7/11/2006

Projection: State Plane New York Central (feet) NAD 83

P:\Cape Vincent Wind Farm\GIS\Spatial\MXD\ DEIS_Figures\REV1\SLW_Soils_REV1.mxd

000393

94

CL-1
95

CL-1

90 96

91 86 92 87 93 81 88 82 75 83 76 84 77 89 17

CL-1 ST-6 CL-1

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

CL-1

ST-14

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project

ST-1
69

ST-14

FIGURE 3-5
85

70

71 78 63 72

ST-7 ST-6

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project with New York State DEC Wetlands and Streams over 7.5 Minute USGS Topographic Maps
79 80

64 73

Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme Jefferson County, NY

60

65 74

JANUARY, 2007

ST-13

56 66

61

ST-13

ST-15

53

49 57 62 50 43 35 44 36 51 45 37 52 38 28 53 16 27 58 67

ST-8

Turbine Locations with 200 foot Temporary Radius Laydown Area

Existing Temporary Meteorological Tower

O&M Building

ST-6
68

Proposed Temporary Meteorological Tower

Buried Interconnect

ST-9

Access Roads and Temporary Construction Turnarounds

Temporary Construction Area 39 29 46 30 40 47 41 54

Operations and Maintenance Building (To Be Determined)

22

Proposed Substation

23 31 24 48

55

ST-11

Existing Substation

NYSDEC Wetlands

CV-2
25 42 32

ST-10 ST-10

NYSDEC Classified Streams

New York State

CV-2
18 33 19 14 26 34 15 20 21 59 11 12

CV-1 U-1 U-2

V-1

Overhead Transmission Route To Be Determined

X-9

X-9

Jefferson County

V-1 V-1
13 8

9 5 1 10 6

X-2

U-3 U-4

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project

2 7 3

U-11

4

V-2

U-5

V-3

0

Feet 1,000

2,000

V-2

V-3 V-3

0

Miles 0.25

0.5

X-5

U-6

V-3

NOTES: REVISION 1 JANUARY, 2007

V-3

Sources: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangles: Cape Vincent N & S, Chaumont, St.Lawrence, Clayton and Dexter, 1958. NYS Regulatory Freshwater Wetlands and Streams For Jefferson County: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,1999

Overhead Transmission Route To Be Determined
V-4 V-5 U-6 U-6

Projection: State Plane New York Central (feet) NAD 83

P:\Cape Vincent Wind Farm\GIS\Spatial\MXD\ DEIS_Figures\REV1\SLW_DEC_REV1.mxd

000394

94
PFO1A PSS1/EM1C PFO1A

95
PEM1E

90
PEM1A

96
PSS1E PSS1E PEM1F PFO1/SS1E PFO1/SS1B R2RBH PEM1/UBF PUBFx PUBHhx

R2RBH

91 86 92 87
PFO1A

PUB/FO5H PEM1/FO5F PUBHx PFO1A

PEM1/UBF PEM1/UBF PEM1E PEM1/UBF PEM1/UBF PSS1A PUBHh PFO1A PFO1A PUBH PSS1/EM1E

93 81 88
PSS1/EM1E PFO1A PFO1A

PFO1E

PEM1A PUBHx PEM1A

PUB/FO5Hb

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

82
PEM1B PEM1Ad PFO1A PFO1A PFO1A

75 83
PFO1A PUBFx

89 17

76
PEM1E

PEM1E

84 77 69
PEM1E PFO1B

PFO1/4E

PEM1E

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project
PFO1E PFO1A PFO1B

FIGURE 3-6
85

PFO1E R2ABH PEM5/1C R2RSA R2UBH PFO1E

70
PFO1E

71 78 63 72

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project with National Wetlands Inventory over 7.5 Minute USGS Topographic Maps
79 80
PUBHh PUBHx

PSS1/EM1Cx PUBHx

PUBHx

64 73
PUBHx Pf Pf PEM1C

PFO4E PEM1Ed PFO1A PFO4B Pf

Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme Jefferson County, NY

PSS1/EM1E PUBFhx PUBHx PUBFx PEM1E PSS1/EM1E PUBFx

60

65 74

JANUARY, 2007 PSS1A Pf PSS1B PFO1/4B PEM1/SS1E

56
PSS1E PUBHhx

61 66
PEM1E

R2RSC R2RSC PEM1C PUBHx PEM1A PUBHh PUBFx PEM1E PFO1A

PEM1E

PUBF

PUBF PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E

PFO4B PFO5Fb

PFO1/EM1E Pf PEM1/SS1E

53 PFO1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1EPEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PSS1/EM1C PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PSS1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PSS1B PSS1Ad PSS1A PSS1E PEM1E PFO4B PFO4/1E

49 57 62 50 43 58
PEM1E

Turbine Locations with 200 foot Temporary Radius Laydown Area

67

PFO1B PSS1C PUBFx PEM1E

Existing Temporary Meteorological Tower

PEM1B PUBHx PEM1A PUBHx PUBHx PUBHx PUBHx

35 44 51 45
PUBFx

PUBFx

36

68

Proposed Temporary Meteorological Tower
PSS1C PFO1C PSS1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PSS1C PEM1C PFO1C PUBFx PUBHx PFO1C PEM1B PUBHx PUBFx PEM1A PSS1C PEM1A

O&M Building
52 16
PUBHx

Buried Interconnect

37 38

PUBFx

27 28
PFO1C

Access Roads and Temporary Construction Turnarounds

53

PUBFh

Temporary Construction Area

39
PUBHx PUBHx PFO1/SS1E PFO1/SS1E PUBFx PUBFx PUBHx PEM1C

46

PEM1A

29 22
PUBFx PEM1A PUBHx PFO1E

PUBF PEM1E PEM1E PEM1A PFO1E PEM1E PSS1Ed PFO1B PSS1E PEM1E PEM1/SS1C

30 40 47 41

Operations and Maintenance Building (To Be Determined)

Proposed Substation

23 31
PEM1A

24

48

55

Existing Substation
PFO4/1A PSS1A PFO1E PEM1C

PEM1E PEM1A PEM1E

PUBHx

National Wetlands Inventory
PSS1A PUBHx PUBHx PUBHh PSS1E PUBHh PFO1A PFO1A

25
PUBHx PEM1A

PFO1E PFO1/SS1E PUBFx PEM1Bd PUBHx PEM1Bd PFO1/SS1E PEM1E PEM1Bd PEM1A PUSCx PUBFx R2UBHx PFO1/SS1E PUBHx

PEM1E

42 32

PEM1A PUBHx PSS1A PEM1/SS1A

PUBHh PFO1A

New York State
PSS1/EM1E PSS1A PSS1A PUBFx PFO1A PFO1A PEM1Ad

33 19
PEM1E PSS1/EM1E PSS1E PFO1/EM1E PFO1E PFO1/SS1E PEM1B PEM1E PEM1A PFO1/SS1E PSS1/EM1E PFO1/SS1E PEM1E

PSS1/EM1E

PFO1/SS1E PEM1Ad PUBFx PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PUBKHh PEM1E PUBHh PEM1Bd PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PUBKHh PEM1E

26

PSS1E

14 15 20 21
PSS1/EM1E PFO1/SS1E PSS1/EM1Fb PSS1/EM1C

34

PFO1E PFO1E PFO1E PFO1E PSS1/EM1A PFO1Bd PUBHx

PEM1E PFO1/SS1A PEM1E

PEM1Ed

PFO1A

PUBKHh

PFO1A PFO1E PEM1E PFO1B PFO1E PFO1E PFO1E PFO1E PFO1E PFO1B PFO1E PEM1E PEM1/UBHh PUBFx PEM1Bd PFO1Ed PFO1B PUB/EM1F PSS1/5Fh PUBHx PEM1Bd PEM1E PUBHx PFO1E PUBHx PSS1C PSS1A PFO4/SS1C PUBHx

59
PUBHx PEM1E

11
PEM1E PFO1C PUBFx PUBFx PFO1E PSS1E PUBHx Pf PUBFh PFO1/SS1C PUBFh PEM1B PEM1Ad PSS1E PEM1/SS1E PFO1E

12

Jefferson County

13 8
PEM1A PFO1E PSS1/EM1C

PUBFx

9

Overhead Transmission Route To Be Determined

PEM1E PEM1E

PEM1E PEM1E

PSS1Ch PUBHx PFO1Ed PUBHx Pf PUBHx PSS1Eb PEM1Ad PUBHx PEM1Ed PUBHx PUBHx PUBHx PUBHx PUBHx PUBHx PUBHx PUBHx PUBHx PFO1/SS1Ed PUBHx PUBHx PUBHx PUBHh PUBFx PUBFh PEM1A PUBFx PEM1A PUBHx PEM1/UBFx PEM1E PEM1E PUBHx PUBHx PUBH PEM1E PSS1E PFO1/SS1Ed PUBHx PFO1E PFO1E PUBH PUBHx PUBHx PUBHx PEM1A PEM1/SS1C PSS1/EM1C

PFO1C PSS1E

5
PFO1/SS1B PEM1A

1 10
PUBFx PEM1A

PEM1/SS1Bd

6

PUBHx PEM1Ad

PEM1A PUBHh

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project

2
PUBFh PUBFh PUBFh PUBFh

7 3
PUBHx PUBHh PUBFx PEM1E PUBHx PUBFh PUBFh Pf PSS1/EM1E PUBHh PEM1E PFO1E PUBHh PUBHh PSS1/EM1E PUBHx PUBHh PUBHhx PSS1/EM1E PFO1E PUBFx PUBHx PFO1E PFO1E PFO1E PUBFh PSS1/EM1E PFO1/SS1E PUBFh PEM1/FO5Hh PUBFh PUBHx PUBFh PUBFh PEM1E PEM1A Pf PSS1A PEM1A Pf PUBHh PUBFx PUBHx PUBHx PEM1F PUSCx PSS1B PFO1E PUBFh PUBHx PUBFh PEM1C PEM1C PUBHx PUBFx PSS1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PEM1F PFO1/SS1C PUBFh PUBFx

PSS1/EM1Ed PEM1E PEM1E PUBHx PFO1/SS1A PFO1Ed PUBHh PSS1Ed PUBFh PEM1Ad PEM1/SS1Cd PUBH PUBH PEM1C PUBHx PUBHx PSS1/EM1Ed PFO1C PFO1C PEM1E PFO1/SS1E PFO1A PUBFx PFO1B PFO1E PUBHx PUBFx PSS1/EM1C PSS1/EM1Bd PEM1E PSS1/FO1C PSS1Ed PUBHx PEM1A PUBFx PUBHx PEM1A PUBHx PFO1/SS1Ed

4
PUBFh

PUBFh

0

Feet 1,000

2,000

0

Miles 0.25

0.5

R2UBH PUBFx PUBFx

PEM1Ad

PSS1Ed PEM1/SS1C PUBHx

PEM1E PUBFh PUBFh PEM1F PUBFh PSS1A PFO1/EM1Bd PEM5/1C PUBHx PEM1Ad PUBHx PEM1F Pf PEM1F PEM1E PEM1F PFO1/SS1B PEM1E PEM1A PFO1/4B PSS1A PSS1A PFO1Ed PSS1/EM1E PEM1E PUBFx PUBFx PUBFx PUSC PSS1E PUBFx PFO1A PEM1F PUBHx PUBFh PUBHx PUBHx PFO1A PUBHx PUBHx PUBHx PUBFx PUBFx PUBFx PUBFx PEM1A PUBHx PSS1E PFO1E PEM1E

NOTES: REVISION 1 JANUARY, 2007

Sources: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangles: Cape Vincent N & S, Chaumont, St.Lawrence,Clayton and Dexter, 1958. NWI Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979

Overhead Transmission Route To Be Determined

Projection: State Plane New York Central (feet) NAD 83

P:\Cape Vincent Wind Farm\GIS\Spatial\MXD\ DEIS_Figures\REV1\SLW_NWI_REV1.mxd

000395

94

95 90 96

91 86 92 87 93 81 88 82 75 83 76 84 77 69 89 17

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project

FIGURE 3-7

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project with National Land Cover Data over 7.5 Minute USGS Topographic Maps
85

70

Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme Jefferson County, NY

71 78 63 72

JANUARY, 2007

53

79 80

Turbine Locations with 200 foot Temporary Radius Laydown Area

64 73

Existing Temporary Meteorological Tower

60

65 74

Proposed Temporary Meteorological Tower

56 66

61

Buried Interconnect

Access Roads and Temporary Construction Turnarounds 49 57 62 50 43 35 44 36 51 45 37 52 38 28 53 16 27 58 67

Temporary Construction Area

O&M Building
68

Operations and Maintenance Building (To Be Determined)

Proposed Substation

Existing Substation

National Land Cover Data

Open Water

39 29 46 30 40 47 41 23 31 24 48 55 54

Low Intensity Residential

High Intensity Residential

Commercial/Industrial/Transportation

22

Quarries/Strip Mines/Gravel Pits

Deciduous Forest

Evergreen Forest

Mixed Forest

Pasture/Hay

Row Crops

Urban/Recreational Grasses

Woody Wetlands

25 42 32 18 33 19 14 26 34 15 20 21 59 11 12

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands

New York State

Overhead Transmission Route To Be Determined

Jefferson County

13 8

9 5 1 10 6

2 7 3

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project

4

0

Feet 1,000

2,000

0

Miles 0.25

0.5

NOTES: REVISION 1 JANUARY, 2007

Sources: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangles: Cape Vincent N & S, Chaumont, St.Lawrence, Clayton and Dexter, 1958. National Land Cover Data: U.S. Geological Survey, 1992.

Overhead Transmission Route To Be Determined

Projection: State Plane New York Central (feet) NAD 83

P:\Cape Vincent Wind Farm\GIS\Spatial\MXD\ DEIS_Figures\REV1\SLW_LandUse_REV1.mxd

000396

000397

000398

000399

000400

000401

000402

000403

000404

000405

000406

000407

000408

000409

000410

000411

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION (1-MILE RING AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS) ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT AND CLAYTON JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

1.0 1.1

INTRODUCTION Project Description

The St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project (the Project) is proposed in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Clayton, Jefferson County, New York (Figure 1). The Project will encompass approximately 676 acres (273.8 hectares) on leased private land near the outlet of Lake Ontario in northwestern New York State. As currently conceived, the proposed Project includes a wind-powered generating facility consisting of approximately 96 turbines with a combined capacity of approximately 136 megawatts (MW). The Project anticipates using 2.0 MW Gamesa G87 turbines (or equivalent) with a maximum blade tip height of 425 feet (129.54 meters) and a rotor width diameter of 300 feet (91.44 meters). Each turbine will include an equipment laydown area within a temporary 200-foot radius (2.9 acres or 1.2 hectares) area of potential effects (APE) for each turbine. The Project will also include construction of approximately 29.6 miles (47.6 kilometers) of gravel access roads within a temporary right-of-way (ROW) width of 44 feet (13.4 meters). The total APE for new access road construction includes approximately 144.2 acres (58.4 hectares). Underground interconnect electrical lines will require a 25-foot (7.6 meter) wide area of temporary construction disturbance. The APE for underground interconnect electrical lines will be approximately 111.3 acres (45.1 hectares). A new substation is proposed to occupy approximately 4.1 acres (5.8 hectares). During construction, a temporary construction area will be located on approximately 15.1 acres (6.2 hectares) also proposed is an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) building to be constructed on 0.3 acre (0.1 hectare) and a new 115 kilovolt (kV) aboveground, overhead transmission line that will extend approximately 8.4 miles (13.4 kilometers). Tetra Tech EC, Inc. (TtEC), under contract to St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC (St. Lawrence), is assisting in permitting the Project. St. Lawrence anticipates that it will apply for a Nationwide Section 10/404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, the Project will be reviewed under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Town of Cape Vincent is the Lead Reviewing Agency. This report presents the results of an aboveground historic resource survey of those resources with a view of the wind turbines and within 1-mile of them (1-mile ring APE) and follows the New York State Historic Preservation Office Guidelines for Wind Farm Development Cultural Resources Survey Work (OPRHP, 2006) (SHPO Guidelines). The report describes the field methods and analytical criteria used to inventory aboveground resources approximately 50 years of age or older, and analyzes which of those resources may be potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Data gathered for inventoried structures are presented within Appendix A. A map showing locations of inventoried structures is contained within Appendix B. All work was performed by TtEC architectural historians James Sexton, Ph.D. and Caleb W. Christopher, AICP, whose qualifications and experience exceed the Department of the Interior National Park Services Professional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR 61). Dr. Sexton is the

1

000412

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION (1-MILE RING AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS) ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT AND CLAYTON JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

senior author of this report. Sydne Marshall PhD, RPA served as Project Director. Dr. Sexton was assisted in the field by Ms. Marija Mahac. Resumes for the key members of TtEC’s team are included within Appendix C. 1.2 Definition of Project Positive Visual APE

The positive visual APE for the Project was defined by TtEC’s subcontractor, Saratoga Associates, Landscape Architects, Architects, Engineers, and Planners, P.C. (Saratoga Associates). Saratoga Associates conducted a thorough and detailed Visual Resource Assessment (VRA) of the Project (Saratoga Associates, 2007). Following standard VRA practices, and adhering to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Program Policy “Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts” (NYSDEC, 2000), Saratoga Associates evaluated the potential visibility of the Project for the area within five miles of it and plotted their findings on a viewshed map. This map forms the basis for the visual APE of the Project (Figure 2). For this phase of the Project, the APE for aboveground resources is defined as a subset of the Project’s total visual APE. It includes all areas within a 1-mile ring of the proposed wind turbines that have a view of the Project (positive visual APE). Given the low relief, limited built environment, and agricultural character of portions of the area, the Project’s positive visual APE includes the entire 1-mile ring area (Figure 2) (Saratoga Associates, 2007). This 1-mile ring APE thus defined the study area for the historic architectural survey reported herein. 2.0 ARCHITECTURAL INVESTIGATION METHODS

The field methods implemented for this Project were designed to collect information consistent with the SHPO’s Guidelines. The SHPO Guidelines set forth the following steps: Establish a 5-mile Area of Potential Effect (APE) around the Project site, using a topographic survey to determine the viewshed. Establish a “1-mile ring of study area” within the 5-mile APE. Conduct a field survey within the 1-mile ring APE to identify aboveground resources (buildings and sites) already listed (or previously determined eligible) or otherwise previously identified. The field survey will also include aboveground resources not previously identified (and generally 50 years of age or older). The field survey will record information within a geographic information system (GIS). Following consultation with the SHPO regarding the interim field survey report, the survey will be completed for the entire 5-mile APE. This report presents the results of the 1-mile ring survey. Following consultation with the SHPO a second phase of the survey will be performed that will focus on the remaining unsurveyed

2

000413

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION (1-MILE RING AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS) ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT AND CLAYTON JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

senior author of this report. Sydne Marshall PhD, RPA served as Project Director. Dr. Sexton was assisted in the field by Ms. Marija Mahac. Resumes for the key members of TtEC’s team are included within Appendix C. 1.2 Definition of Project Positive Visual APE

The positive visual APE for the Project was defined by TtEC’s subcontractor, Saratoga Associates, Landscape Architects, Architects, Engineers, and Planners, P.C. (Saratoga Associates). Saratoga Associates conducted a thorough and detailed Visual Resource Assessment (VRA) of the Project (Saratoga Associates, 2007). Following standard VRA practices, and adhering to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Program Policy “Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts” (NYSDEC, 2000), Saratoga Associates evaluated the potential visibility of the Project for the area within five miles of it and plotted their findings on a viewshed map. This map forms the basis for the visual APE of the Project (Figure 2). For this phase of the Project, the APE for aboveground resources is defined as a subset of the Project’s total visual APE. It includes all areas within a 1-mile ring of the proposed wind turbines that have a view of the Project (positive visual APE). Given the low relief, limited built environment, and agricultural character of portions of the area, the Project’s positive visual APE includes the entire 1-mile ring area (Figure 2) (Saratoga Associates, 2007). This 1-mile ring APE thus defined the study area for the historic architectural survey reported herein. 2.0 ARCHITECTURAL INVESTIGATION METHODS

The field methods implemented for this Project were designed to collect information consistent with the SHPO’s Guidelines. The SHPO Guidelines set forth the following steps: Establish a 5-mile Area of Potential Effect (APE) around the Project site, using a topographic survey to determine the viewshed. Establish a “1-mile ring of study area” within the 5-mile APE. Conduct a field survey within the 1-mile ring APE to identify aboveground resources (buildings and sites) already listed (or previously determined eligible) or otherwise previously identified. The field survey will also include aboveground resources not previously identified (and generally 50 years of age or older). The field survey will record information within a geographic information system (GIS). Following consultation with the SHPO regarding the interim field survey report, the survey will be completed for the entire 5-mile APE. This report presents the results of the 1-mile ring survey. Following consultation with the SHPO a second phase of the survey will be performed that will focus on the remaining unsurveyed

2

000414

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION (1-MILE RING AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS) ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT AND CLAYTON JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

areas within the 5-mile ring around the Project. An additional report will be written to describe the results and conclusions of the 5-mile ring survey. In the field, TtEC’s architectural historians used historic maps, published histories, and visual indicators (such as style, form or foundation materials) to identify and approximately date aboveground resources 50 years of age or older. The TtEC team performed a comprehensive survey of all public streets within the 1-mile ring APE, observing and recording historic structures. The team implemented a field data collection system in which data categories (based upon the SHPO “blue form” inventory categories) were recorded directly into a Trimble© Geo XT™ Global Positioning System (GPS) handheld unit. GPS locational data were collected at approximately the mid-point of street frontage wherever possible; however, field conditions and access resulted in some locational variations. Wherever field conditions permitted, reasonable efforts were taken to record the precise street address for each property inventoried; however, geographic locator coordinates and mapping was provided for all inventoried resources. Resources were generally recorded from the public right-of-way; at the discretion of field survey staff, permission for additional access may have been sought in limited circumstances. Field notes included in this report provide details where survey staff was unable to access resources due either to unique site geography, seasonal road closures or personal safety. Twenty-seven buildings do not have associated GPS readings due to technical malfunction experienced during fieldwork. When mapped, these buildings will appear in map section C1. This information will be collected and reported following mobilization for the second phase of fieldwork. High-resolution digital photographs, generally one or two, were taken for each property. These photographs exceed the National Park Service photograph quality standards of 1600 x 1200 pixels contained in the March 2005 “National Register of Historic Places and National Historic Landmarks Survey Photo Policy Expansion.” For report production purposes, resolution was reduced for printed photographs. Digitized versions of these photographs permit greater, “zoom in” examination and will be provided to SHPO on CD. Field data also included descriptive data for each property, including primary exterior materials, style or building type, associated natural features, setting, individual architectural elements, and alterations. In addition, field data also included notation of observations related to the NRHP’s criteria for evaluation (36 CFR 60.4). These criteria are paralleled by the criteria for eligibility to the New York State Register of Historic Places (NYSRHP). The NRHP criteria for evaluation are as follows: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

3

000415

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION (1-MILE RING AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS) ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT AND CLAYTON JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Finally, the data collected included observations about the structures relative to NRHP’s seven aspects of integrity (NRHP Staff, 2002). To be listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP, the observer must be able to understand both why any given resource was significant or when it was significant. A NRHP-eligible property need not possess all of the integrity criteria; rather these criteria may be used as tools in determining if a property meets a sufficient threshold of significance. The responses of the TtEC architectural historians to these criteria are included so that the process of evaluating the structures may be made as clear to the SHPO staff as possible. These criteria include: Location Design Setting Materials Workmanship Feeling Association Based on the application of all of the above criteria to the collected field data, TtEC architectural historians made recommendations about the potential for each resource to meet the criteria for eligibility to the NRHP. Field data were transformed into both Microsoft (MS) Access database and GIS. A single GPS coordinate or data point was recorded for each inventoried resource (including both newly and previously identified properties). Each GPS point includes all of the inventoried attributes included in the MS Access database. Field identification and subsequent analysis utilized National Park Service technical guidance and primary source historic documents wherever available. These data are presented in Appendix A.

4

000416

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION (1-MILE RING AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS) ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT AND CLAYTON JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

3.0 RESULTS OF ARCHITECTURAL INVESTIGATION 3.1 Historic Context

European contacts with Native peoples began in 1534 when French explorer Jacques Cartier traded with Iroquoians along the Bay of Gaspe in Canada (Trigger, 1978). While European traders, trappers and missionaries traversed the area for the next two and a half centuries, no architectural evidence remains of this period within the APE. Town of Cape Vincent In 1791, the northern part of Jefferson County was sold as Tract Number 4 to Alexander McComb. The Town of Lyden was created soon afterward, including all lands north of the Black River. Among the investors in McComb’s purchase was James LeRay de Chaumont, son of a French financier and military supplier for the American Revolution, and former protégé of Benjamin Franklin and Robert Morris. In 1801, LeRay acquired vast properties from the St. Lawrence River east to the Town of LeRay (now the Town of Wilna), including LeRay’s home, the Hermitage, now located at Fort Drum. A year later, in 1802, the village of Chaumont was settled at the Chaumont River outlet (Emerson, 1898:702-703). The Town of Brownville was formed in 1802, including lands later forming the Town of Clayton (organized in 1818), and the Town of Cape Vincent (organized in 1849). The first settler in the vicinity of Cape Vincent was Abijah Putnam in 1801, who settled at Port Putnam (Casler, 1906:146). Port Putnam is now Millen Bay, east of the current Village of Cape Vincent. In 1803, The Great Black River State Road (now County Road 8) was extended from Brownville to Chaumont and Port Putnam. Putnam established a ferry to Kingston. In 1808 LeRay established a land office in Port Putnam to sell off property in Cape Vincent. By 1809 public buildings and a wharf had been created in Cape Vincent and the first permanent settlers had come to the area (Harwood, 1985a). No aboveground resources remain from this period in the town’s development. James LeRay attracted many French expatriates, especially supporters of Napoleon Bonaparte. Among the leading French settlers was Comte Pierre Francois Real, member of the French Council of State, who conspired to free Napoleon from St. Helena and bring him to Cape Vincent. Fellow Cape Vincent Bonapartistes included Field Marshal Grouchy, General Rollard, Camille Arnaud Paul Carboneau, and the Peugnet brothers (Clarke, 1967:141-143). Many French and German émigrés built substantial stone houses that reflect their European origins (Bonney, 1991). In 1852, the Cape Vincent & Rome Railroad was completed to Cape Vincent (Hough, 1854). The railroad carried freight and passengers to and from a ferry to Kingston, Canada. This not only made Cape Vincent the hub of several new trade routes linking the Midwest, Canada, and the east coast but also opened the area up to more sportsmen and tourists (Harwood, 1985a). The combined rail and shipping links provided a strong economic stimulus, spurring development of the community’s commercial center along Broadway.

5

000417

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION (1-MILE RING AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS) ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT AND CLAYTON JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

By the end of the nineteenth century the Thousand Islands and shoreline communities along the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario had become flourishing vacation retreats, leading to the construction of hotels and seasonal homes along the waterfront. In agricultural districts, the end of the century brought little change. New farmhouses and barns continued to be built very close to roads and dairying remained a primary agricultural activity, with large fields utilized for pasture or for growing hay, alfalfa and corn. The Great Depression during the 1930s had serious impacts on the local economy. Passenger service was discontinued in 1936 along the Cape Vincent Line, and freight service ceased in 1952. Car and truck transportation increased during the late twentieth century bringing people and products to local communities. The greatest change in the post World War II landscape was the result of the introduction of trailer homes. This building type now appears in the landscape as seasonal housing in the recreational zone along the waterfront as well as infill housing in both the rural and more densely populated portions of the study area. In a number of cases trailer parks now fill land that was agricultural well into the twentieth century. Cape Vincent’s history can be followed through its buildings within the APE. The period of settlement and agricultural development in the first half of the nineteenth century, along with the commercial expansion and burgeoning vacation trade of the century’s second half, are visible in the landscape. Finally, the twentieth century is represented by the buildings erected to meet the needs of more recent vacationers as well as year-round residents of the area. Town of Clayton Clayton, located to the east of Cape Vincent on the St. Lawrence River, has a similar history. It was laid out and properties offered for sale by James LeRay in 1822. The town’s location along the river, enhanced by the natural harbor of French Creek Bay, and the completion of the road to Watertown in 1824, contributed to the rapid early growth of the community. This growth was also fueled by the town’s abundant timber supplies, leading it to become a regional center for lumbering, lumber rafting and shipbuilding. By the middle of the century, summer visitors were arriving in town by steamboat. As with Cape Vincent, the tourist trade was boosted by the arrival of the railroad, in this case Clayton & Theresa Railroad in 1873. By the end of the century frequent trains and boats brought enough tourists and seasonal residents to double the town’s year round population. This booming industry helped to offset a decline in the timber supplies and those industries dependent on this resource. The economy was also supported at this time by area farms, cheese factories, and small factories (Harwood, 1985b). As with Cape Vincent, the Great Depression during the 1930s had serious impacts on the local economy. Passenger service to Clayton ended in 1951 (http://www.rivergatewheelers.com/). Car and truck transportation increased during the late twentieth century bringing people and products to local communities. The greatest change in the post World War II landscape was the result of the introduction of trailer homes. This building type now appears in the landscape as seasonal

6

000418

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION (1-MILE RING AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS) ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT AND CLAYTON JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

housing in the recreational zone along the waterfront as well as infill housing in both the rural and more densely populated portions of the study area. In a number of cases trailer parks now fill land that was agricultural well into the twentieth century. While the Town of Clayton has both a vibrant history and significant architectural resources, only the extreme western edge of the town is within the 1-mile ring. Very few resources are found within this part of the town. A number of buildings along Sawmill Bay are the seasonal dwellings that reflect the recreational use of the area. Further inland, the buildings demonstrate the agricultural use of the land. 3.2 Observed Trends Within the 1-Mile Ring APE

Survey within the 1-mile ring APE revealed three cultural contexts. These cultural contexts include villages, rural/agricultural areas, and seasonal/recreation use areas. Villages The APE includes several areas that are densely settled all year long; these are the cultural contexts described as villages. The largest is the Village of Cape Vincent, where nearly 300 domestic and commercial structures are situated on a grid of streets surrounding the commercial center of Broadway. Two smaller villages, Rosiere and St. Lawrence, repeat the settlement density and mix of residential and commercial (or formerly commercial) buildings of the Village of Cape Vincent without the large numbers of structures or streets. In all three villages, a mix of buildings from different eras provides a heterogeneous architectural picture. In no case, other than the already established Broadway Historic District in the Village of Cape Vincent, did the groupings of structures appear to form a cohesive enough grouping without the intrusion of altered or non-historic structures to suggest a National Register Historic District. Agricultural Areas The majority of the area within the 1-mile ring is now agricultural or rural. In these areas widely scattered buildings, usually agricultural outbuildings or evidence of these buildings, dot the landscape. While buildings have been replaced or abandoned, infill structures added, and some of the land is no longer under cultivation, the area outside the villages and away from the waterfront gives a clear indication of its long history of use for agriculture. Seasonal/Recreational Use Areas The final cultural context is the area of seasonal use located along the St. Lawrence River. Here buildings in a variety of styles and from different eras have been constructed, or in some cases adapted, for seasonal use taking advantage of the recreational opportunities provided by the river. These buildings are located in a variety of settings: within the Village of Cape Vincent, in groupings of seasonal buildings (often as clusters of cottages, cabins, trailers, or a mix of these types) or, least frequently, as individual buildings within the landscape. These buildings reflect the long history of the area as a vacation destination.

7

000419

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION (1-MILE RING AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS) ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT AND CLAYTON JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Within the 1-mile ring APE, a number of architectural styles were observed, including Federal (ca. 1790-1830), Greek Revival (ca. 1830-1860), Italianate (ca. 1840-1885), Gothic Revival (ca. 1845-1880), Second Empire (ca. 1860-1880), Stick (ca. 1860-1890), Queen Anne (ca. 18801910), Colonial Revival (ca. 1880-1955), Tudor Revival (ca. 1890-1940), Craftsman/Bungalow (ca. 1900-1930), as well as vernacular end or side gable buildings (ca. 1820-1920), and MidCentury Mobile Housing (ca. 1945-present). The area also includes a number of nineteenth century masonry buildings built for the community of French immigrants who settled in the area between 1810 and 1850. The specific descriptions of these architectural styles and building types, including typical character-defining features, have been described in greater detail within standard architectural history guides (including Virginia & Lee McAlister’s Field Guide to American Houses). Masonry buildings in the area, described in a monograph and related article (Bonney, 1985; Bonney, 1991), represent a regionally distinct building style observed within the 1-mile APE. One additional category of aboveground resources recorded during survey were historic cemeteries. The APE includes a number of notable surviving examples of the above-noted styles. [References to specific structures are noted in the following discussion by ID number. The ID number appears for each structure within Appendix A on the upper right hand corner of each page. Photos for the buildings discussed may be found on the respective pages labeled with the referenced ID numbers.] Federal Style (ca. 1790-1830). The Federal style, with its classically derived ornament and attenuated decorative features, is represented by a few buildings within the 1-mile ring APE. One clear example of this style is the Vincent LeRay House (ID 28), executed in local limestone. The blind arcade, flush board siding and modillions of the Otis Starkey House (ID 168) demonstrate the elements typical of the style on a slightly less grand scale. Greek Revival (ca. 1830-1860). High-style Greek Revival buildings are better represented in the 1-mile ring APE. The most complete example of the style’s classically inspired elements is Maple Grove (ID 24). This temple front building with portico typifies the style as it was practiced at the highest level in the area. Italianate (ca. 1840-1885). The Italianate style is represented in the area by both commercial and domestic buildings. The Aubertine Building (ID 223) and the Glen Building (ID 213) reflect this style as it was expressed in commercial buildings of slightly different scales. The Erastus K. Burnham House (ID 215) is an exuberant expression of this period’s domestic architecture. Gothic Revival (ca. 1845-1880). The 1-mile ring APE contains only a few buildings which reflect the Gothic Revival style. The masonry St. Vincent of Paul Catholic Church (ID 39) is a fully realized expression of the style with pointed arch windows, an elaborately detailed entry, and a three-stage tower. The James Buckley House (ID 166) includes the characteristic cross gable roof, board and batten siding, and flattened arch details. A larger but less intact example can be seen at 346 James Street (ID 187).

8

000420

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION (1-MILE RING AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS) ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT AND CLAYTON JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Second Empire (ca. 1860-1880). Very few examples of Second Empire buildings were found within the 1-mile ring APE. The best preserved example is the General Sackett house (ID 182). The building retains its mansard roof with fish scale slates, round-headed dormers, and molded cornice with brackets. Stick (ca. 1860-1890). The Stick style was used in very few of the buildings within the 1-mile ring APE. 9440 County Rd. 9 (ID 390) is a good example of the style. It uses decorative trusses at the gable ends of its steeply pitched roofs, deep roof overhangs, decorated rafter ends, and a cross gable roof form. Queen Anne (ca. 1880-1910). Queen Anne was a relatively popular style within the 1-mile ring APE. Within the APE, this style was used in a restrained manner, employing only a few of the many devices commonly used in designs of this style. For example, 249 James Street (ID 196) uses only a projecting bay, cantilevered wall extension, and decorative shingles to avoid flat wall surfaces. Colonial Revival (ca. 1880-1955). The APE contains only a few Colonial Revival buildings. The most complete example is the Cornelius Sackett House (ID 220). This gambrel roofed building employs many of the elements of the style, including classically inspired elements, fanlight windows, and groups of double hung windows all in a symmetrical façade. Tudor Revival (ca. 1890-1940). Three Tudor Revival buildings were found within the 1-mile ring APE (IDs 367-369). This small grouping used half-timbering, steeply pitched roofs, and grouped windows to express the style. Craftsman/Bungalow (ca. 1900-1930). The Craftsman Style is also represented in the district. The structure at 383 South Market Street (ID 91) includes such character defining decorative elements as triangular knee braces, wide eaves overhangs, and shingles with alternating wide and narrow exposures. Vernacular Buildings (ca. 1820-1920). The majority of the buildings within the 1-mile ring APE lack the style markers of the structures described above and may simply be characterized as vernacular structures. Most of these were simpler versions of the high style structures described above, employing similar massing or plans but lacking the decorative details that distinguish the more elaborate buildings in the area. For example, a number of buildings employed the Greek Revival building gable front and wing form without using a classical entablature or other decorative elements. There is, however, one vernacular house type that merits specific mention, the buildings within the APE which are related to the French settlement of the area. While at least one of these, the Servants Quarter for the LeRay House (ID 26), recalls the French origins of its builders, the rest are linked more closely to each other (and other buildings in the APE) because of their use of local limestone and their simple gable-roofed form (e.g. McKinley Farm, ID 17). These masonry buildings are a distinctive feature in the landscape.

9

000421

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION (1-MILE RING AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS) ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT AND CLAYTON JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Mid-Century Mobile Housing (ca. 1945-present). Mobile housing units were also located within the APE. These were located either individually in rural settings (often associated with older agricultural outbuildings) (ID 420) and, less frequently, as in-fill buildings within neighborhoods (ID 407), or as parts of heterogeneous collections in trailer parks and seasonal housing groupings (ID 302 and ID 303). Relatively little academic study or National Register guidance has been produced regarding field dating methods of trailer parks or mobile housing units. However, earlier examples dating generally from the immediate post-World War II era are often distinguished on the basis of narrow width. As little formal professional study has been completed regarding this property type, dating methodologies are still emerging Nevertheless, field surveyors documented examples within the APE which were more likely to be 50 years of age or older on the basis of design, fenestration, and materials. The process of surveying this building type was further complicated by the frequent location of these structures far from the public right-of-way and down private roads. Examination from the road, combined with the examination of historic USGS maps, suggested that few of the examples in the study area met the criterion of being more than 50 years old. Cemeteries. Nine cemeteries were located within the APE. These appear on inventory maps labeled as C-1 through C-6, and ID numbers 39, 78, 297, and 421. (C-2 was also given ID number 297.) According to National Register Bulletin 15, a cemetery is not generally eligible for listing in the Register unless “it derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events.” (National Register Bulletin 15, Section VII: 2002 ed). None of the cemeteries within the 1-mile ring APE were associated with important design features, transcendentally important persons or associated with significant historic events. 3.3 Summary of Inventoried Properties

As a result of the survey of the 1-mile ring APE, a total of 516 buildings, structures or cemeteries style-dated as 50 years old or older were recorded. Twenty-five of these properties have already been listed in the NRHP (Table 1). An additional property, St. John’s Episcopal Church, was listed in the NRHP in 1985. The structure burned in 1999 and was replaced by a modern structure (html://www.capevincent.org/history.asp). As a result of this survey, an additional 66 properties are recommended as potentially eligible for inclusion in the NRHP (Table 2). Nine cemeteries were also recorded within the 1-mile ring APE (Table 3). Two of these are associated with churches listed on the NRHP. The other cemeteries are not recommended as potentially eligible to the NRHP. Appendix A contains the field data collected for all of the inventoried. Map 1 located in Appendix B depicts the map locations of these properties. The data recorded for each property appear on individual data sheets that include one, two, three, or four photographs of the property. The information included in the property data sheets is clustered into three sections: location information, description, and potential significance. The location information includes: Map ID (see Map 1, Appendix B for depiction of property location); street address; town/city; village; date of inventory; Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) northing and easting geographic

10

000422

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION (1-MILE RING AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS) ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT AND CLAYTON JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

coordinates. Description information includes: the original use of the property; current use of the property; type and style of structures observed; exterior materials; other exterior materials; roof materials; roof form; foundation materials; number of stories; structural system; windows; chimney placement; doorway; porch; decorative elements; alterations; other alterations; landscape elements; natural features; outbuildings; condition; type of setting; and notes. Significance information includes observations about the property as within a dense grouping; NRHP listing status; primary period of significance; primary NRHP criterion; integrity criteria (setting, association, materials, design, feeling, workmanship, and location); and eligibility recommendation. Due to a technical malfunction, the map locations of 27 properties were not obtained using the GPS unit in the field. This map location information will be updated during the next phase of fieldwork. 4.0 FUTURE INVESTIGATIONS

Pending review of this document by the SHPO and subsequent revisions to analysis and field methods, TtEC will complete a similar inventory of aboveground resources located within the remaining 5-mile ring APE. Discussions with SHPO may lead to modifications in survey methods. It is anticipated that the remaining portion of the survey and the subsequent report may focus only on resources recommended as potentially eligible to the NRHP and will not involve recording and reporting on all structures within the remaining 5-mile ring APE that may be styledated as 50 years old or older. Upon completion of the five-mile APE survey, St. Lawrence will consult with the SHPO, the Town of Cape Vincent, and any other appropriate parties, to determine if any further studies, analyses or related activities may be required. St. Lawrence will entertain possible Project modifications or other responses in order to possibly avoid or minimize affects to significant resources. 5.0 SOURCES CITED

Bonney, Clair., 1985 French Emigré Houses in Jefferson County. Basel, Switzerland: Glasser and Weiskopf. Bonney, Claire, 1991. Comparing Pre- and Post-Emegration French Homes in Jefferson County, New York and Haute-Saone. New York Folklore 17(1-2):99-120. Casler, Nelie Horton, 1906. Cape Vincent and Its History. Hungerford-Holbrook Co., Watertown, NY. Clarke, T. Wood, 1967. Émigrés in the Wilderness. Ira J. Friedman, Inc., Port Washington, NY. Emerson, Edgar C., 1898. Our County and Its People, A Descriptive Work on Jefferson County, New York. The Boston History Company, Publishers, Boston, MA.

11

000423

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION (1-MILE RING AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS) ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT AND CLAYTON JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

coordinates. Description information includes: the original use of the property; current use of the property; type and style of structures observed; exterior materials; other exterior materials; roof materials; roof form; foundation materials; number of stories; structural system; windows; chimney placement; doorway; porch; decorative elements; alterations; other alterations; landscape elements; natural features; outbuildings; condition; type of setting; and notes. Significance information includes observations about the property as within a dense grouping; NRHP listing status; primary period of significance; primary NRHP criterion; integrity criteria (setting, association, materials, design, feeling, workmanship, and location); and eligibility recommendation. Due to a technical malfunction, the map locations of 27 properties were not obtained using the GPS unit in the field. This map location information will be updated during the next phase of fieldwork. 4.0 FUTURE INVESTIGATIONS

Pending review of this document by the SHPO and subsequent revisions to analysis and field methods, TtEC will complete a similar inventory of aboveground resources located within the remaining 5-mile ring APE. Discussions with SHPO may lead to modifications in survey methods. It is anticipated that the remaining portion of the survey and the subsequent report may focus only on resources recommended as potentially eligible to the NRHP and will not involve recording and reporting on all structures within the remaining 5-mile ring APE that may be styledated as 50 years old or older. Upon completion of the five-mile APE survey, St. Lawrence will consult with the SHPO, the Town of Cape Vincent, and any other appropriate parties, to determine if any further studies, analyses or related activities may be required. St. Lawrence will entertain possible Project modifications or other responses in order to possibly avoid or minimize affects to significant resources. 5.0 SOURCES CITED

Bonney, Clair., 1985 French Emigré Houses in Jefferson County. Basel, Switzerland: Glasser and Weiskopf. Bonney, Claire, 1991. Comparing Pre- and Post-Emegration French Homes in Jefferson County, New York and Haute-Saone. New York Folklore 17(1-2):99-120. Casler, Nelie Horton, 1906. Cape Vincent and Its History. Hungerford-Holbrook Co., Watertown, NY. Clarke, T. Wood, 1967. Émigrés in the Wilderness. Ira J. Friedman, Inc., Port Washington, NY. Emerson, Edgar C., 1898. Our County and Its People, A Descriptive Work on Jefferson County, New York. The Boston History Company, Publishers, Boston, MA.

11

000424

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION (1-MILE RING AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS) ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT AND CLAYTON JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

coordinates. Description information includes: the original use of the property; current use of the property; type and style of structures observed; exterior materials; other exterior materials; roof materials; roof form; foundation materials; number of stories; structural system; windows; chimney placement; doorway; porch; decorative elements; alterations; other alterations; landscape elements; natural features; outbuildings; condition; type of setting; and notes. Significance information includes observations about the property as within a dense grouping; NRHP listing status; primary period of significance; primary NRHP criterion; integrity criteria (setting, association, materials, design, feeling, workmanship, and location); and eligibility recommendation. Due to a technical malfunction, the map locations of 27 properties were not obtained using the GPS unit in the field. This map location information will be updated during the next phase of fieldwork. 4.0 FUTURE INVESTIGATIONS

Pending review of this document by the SHPO and subsequent revisions to analysis and field methods, TtEC will complete a similar inventory of aboveground resources located within the remaining 5-mile ring APE. Discussions with SHPO may lead to modifications in survey methods. It is anticipated that the remaining portion of the survey and the subsequent report may focus only on resources recommended as potentially eligible to the NRHP and will not involve recording and reporting on all structures within the remaining 5-mile ring APE that may be styledated as 50 years old or older. Upon completion of the five-mile APE survey, St. Lawrence will consult with the SHPO, the Town of Cape Vincent, and any other appropriate parties, to determine if any further studies, analyses or related activities may be required. St. Lawrence will entertain possible Project modifications or other responses in order to possibly avoid or minimize affects to significant resources. 5.0 SOURCES CITED

Bonney, Clair., 1985 French Emigré Houses in Jefferson County. Basel, Switzerland: Glasser and Weiskopf. Bonney, Claire, 1991. Comparing Pre- and Post-Emegration French Homes in Jefferson County, New York and Haute-Saone. New York Folklore 17(1-2):99-120. Casler, Nelie Horton, 1906. Cape Vincent and Its History. Hungerford-Holbrook Co., Watertown, NY. Clarke, T. Wood, 1967. Émigrés in the Wilderness. Ira J. Friedman, Inc., Port Washington, NY. Emerson, Edgar C., 1898. Our County and Its People, A Descriptive Work on Jefferson County, New York. The Boston History Company, Publishers, Boston, MA.

11

000425

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION (1-MILE RING AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS) ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT AND CLAYTON JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Harwood, 1985a. Harwood, John. Cape Vincent Town and Village Multiple Resource Area National Register of Historic Places Inventory - Nomination Form. Submitted 1985. Harwood, 1985b. Harwood, John. Clayton Historic District National Register of Historic Places Inventory -Nomination Form. Submitted 1985. Hough, 1854. Hough, Franklin. A History of Jefferson County in the State of New York. Albany, NY: Joel Munsell Co., 1854. NYSDEC, 2000. Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts. Issued by Division/Office of Environmental Permits, Albany, NY. OPRHP, 2006. New York State Historic Preservation Office Guidelines for Wind Farm Development Cultural Resources Survey Work. OPRHP, Waterford, NY. Saratoga, 2007. Saratoga Associates 2007. St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Visual Resource Assessment. Prepared for Tetra Tech EC, Inc. Morris Plains, NJ. Trigger, 1978. Trigger, Bruce G., 1978. Early Iroquoian Contacts with Europeans. In Bruce Trigger, ed., Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, Northeast, pp. 344-356. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. USGS, 1958a. Cape Vincent North, N.Y. 7.5-minute quadrangle. USGS, Reston, VA. USGS, 1958b. Cape Vincent South N.Y. 7.5-minute quadrangle. USGS, Reston, VA. USGS, 1958c. Chaumont, N.Y. 7.5-minute quadrangle. USGS, Reston, VA. USGS, 1958d. St. Lawrence, N.Y. 7.5-minute quadrangle. USGS, Reston, VA.

12

000426

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project 94 90 86 87 81 82 75 76 69 70 71 63 64 60 56 49 57 50 58 51 45 52 53 39 46 30 40 31 24 16 17 18 14 15 20 21 59 11 12 Overhead Transmission Route To Be Determined 19 26 25 32 33 34 42 41 23 47 48 54 55 38 29 22 44 37 27 28 43 36 61 65 66 72 73 74 78 79 80 77 83 84 88 89 91 92 93 95 96

85

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Existing Meteorological Tower
62 67 68

35

Proposed Meteorological Tower

Turbine Locations

200 ft Temporary Turbine Laydown Radius

Buried Interconnect

Access Roads and Temporary Construction Turnarounds

Existing Substation

Construction Area

Operations and Management Building

Proposed Substation

8 9 1 10 6 2 3 4 7 5

13

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

Figure 1

Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Location

JANUARY, 2007

Overhead Transmission Route To Be Determined

Sources: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Maps: Cape Vincent N and S St.Lawrence and Chaumont, 1958

P:\Cape Vincent Wind Farm\GIS\ Spatial\MXD\archeology\ project_Location.mxd

000427

000428

000429

Inset 1
287

w ad Bro
288

ay
289

290

Na pa
H bec Que ead Ln

Taylor Ln

Da no

Ln

Legend

Structures 24-290
270 285 273 135 146 145 144 143 221 268 269 271 286

ph Jose

St

hway 12E State Hig

TURBINE
Fo

Lake

St

INTERCONNECT
Eu ro cli
xR u n

Elm

yB Wile
St

136 147 223 218 220

142 141 215 150 214 211 212 213 229 225 281 282 380 283 284 255 379 374 Str au B ss Blv reez d yP t 378 217 219 248 279 258 257 256 216 224 249 264 263 262 261 267 266

222 274

272

133 132 131 130 153 152 138 151

137 139 140

148 149 265

275 276 277 278 280

ACCESS ROAD
ff

lvd
e ntr Ce
e Pin St

HISTORIC STRUCTURE
sR d

124 123 122 113 51 49 48 47 109 58 107 105 104 103 101 106 189 188 245 246 187 170 169 28 57 44 42 41 59 62 98 97 93 94 64 99 91 89 88 181 84 82 180 179 178 352 351 81 83 80 355 354 353 87 86 85 90 174 173 182 92 34 35 65 66 67 68 33 38 36 37 C-5 172 184 183 185 96 95 186 60 102 100 61 27 26 43 29 46 45 171 53 54 55 56 243 244 108 168 193 190 192 191 242 50 166 167 52 116 114 115 112 110 196 241 195 194 250 111 165 199 200 240 197 117 121 120 160 163 205 228 125 119 118 158 157 161 206 202 204 201 236 227 162 247

127 128 126 155 156 209 207 234 226 259 231 208

134 154 210 260 159 230 232 233 235

129

re ho yS ad Sh

es ad lis Pa

Ln

st Ea

St

PROPERTIES RECOMMENDED AS NOT ELIGIBLE TO THE NRHP

S Lee t
Bay

PROPERTIES LISTED IN NRHP

383 382 377 381

PROPERTIES RECOMMENDED AS POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE TO THE NRHP

se Kel

yL
203 237 239

n 164
254 253

198

238 252 251

CEMETERY

St

Rd
375

376

1-MILE RING APE

MAP SECTION
C-4 369 368 367 373 371 372

Lake

St

25 24 31 39 63 30 32 40

STRUCTURES 349-369
363

A3
364 362

366

370 365

Co un ty

Ro

STRUCTURES 370-391, 400-402, C-4
ad 9

A4
387 388

384

STREET

nt Poi St

385

Pt

Co un ty

n rleto Ca

361

Ro

Isla

Be ad les

ad 4

358 356 357

Pe lo

389

390

Rd

nt St Vince
l St Rea
R nd d2

400

Be v

ins R

d

yP Wile D ark r
79 177 348 347 346 345 344 343 341 334 342 331 330 333 332 336 335 329 328 176 76 75 74 73 175 339 340 78 77 350 349

Rd

360 359

386

e us Ho

Rd

z en Fr

D r

391

St La w

ren ce

401

Rd
392-399 402-410 413

Sources: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangles: Cape Vincent North (1958, photo-inspected 1980) Cape Vincent South (1958, photo-inspected 1980) St. Lawrence (1958) Chaumont (1958)
Co un ty
414 411

t nt S Gra

324

Ro sie re

70 323 322

428 429 465

Rd

18

ne Sto
69

y arr Qu

Rd

Sta te Hig hw ay 12 E
326 327

d

Mc Ke ev er

Ba yR

Mu tta n

Rd

rs

416

Ln

de Gar
71

nw

all
72

Dr

Mil le

STRUCTURES 323-348, 427-430, 465-467, 470-472

415

412

See Inset 3

Fre nc hC

ton rle Ca

ree kR

Ma so nR

See Inset 2
310 311 C-3 309 308 306 305 304 303 307 316 315 317 471

470

d

472 318 319 473 474 468 469 433 434 432

en tR

d

See Inset 1
299 300 301 298 302

Hell St

475

435

476 C-2 297 295 294 477 478 296

436

STRUCTURES 18-290, C-5
71-227 248 286 249-284

C1
C-1 291 287-290 292 24-68, C-5 227 247 285

293

STRUCTURES 291-308, 481-488, C-1, C-2

C2

Bra nc he R

481 479

d
485

483

482

480

STRUCTURES 436-455, 468-469, 473-480
484

C3
R on ils W d
SUBSTATION

437

STRUCTURES 432-435
tR vre Fa
438 439

C4
d
440 441 486

M ac om b

Se ttle m

18

Gra nt St

17 16

ne Sto

456

ty un Co

Ro

ad

6

14

Fa vre tR

459

458

457

d

See Inset 4
460

As hla

y arr Qu

70 69

nd R

Rd

Co un ty

488

445-455

ty un Co

d

Ro

Ro

ad 5

Ro ot R

d

r

er Ba yD

Fu ll

Ba te

Me rch an tR

1

s

Rd

d

R unty Co
Isla R nd
337

d1

338

Ro

ad 9

St La w
325

d

es Jam

oad
Tibbe ts Point Rd

6

STRUCTURES 308-322 C-3
C
312 314 320

B2
Carleton Dr
313 321 315-319

St

B3
Gosiere Rd

427

417

418 419 420 430 421

STRUCTURES 392-399, 403-426, 431

B4
424 425 422

re nc 402 eR d
392 393

Inset 3

403

Structures 392-399 402-410

JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK STATE

h Bac
on sta nc e

394

Ln

Rd

404

395

m Sa
431 426 466
O&M BUILDING

s am Ad

Rd
408 409 423 410

396

405

406 407

397

ry ete m Ce

Inset 2

467

398

399

Rd
Sw alli a Rd

ST. LAWRENCE WINDPOWER, LLC

23

22 21 20 19

487

442 4 443 ad 444

ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT JEFFERSON COUNTY NEW YORK
tra Vo R d
13 12

yS Ba t

R unty Co oad 6
15

STRUCTURES 1-8, 15-17
P on Wils tR oin d
6

D1

8

STRUCTURES 9-14, 464
R ick erl De
7

D2
d
11 10

Inset 4
C-6 463 462 464 461

446

MAP 1
Structures 445-455
449 447 448 445

tR rn Bu

kR oc

d

450

451 452 9

Sta te

H
5 4 3

igh wa y1 2E

STRUCTURES 456-463, C-6
d tR an ch er M
2

D3
ff R Hu d

Ro bin so nR

d

453

454 455

HISTORIC STRUCTURE INVENTORY MAP (1-MILE RING APE)
lR me re ng ze De d

p am Sw Rd

R ay sB en Mill d

JANUARY 2007
1,500 750 0

r mee Sch

Rd

1,500

3,000

4,500 Feet

h ec Be Rd

P:\AES-Acciona Energy\CAD - GIS\arcview\st.lawrencehistoricstructures.mxd

000430

Table 1 – Properties Listed in the NRHP (Sheet 1 of 7)

Name: Nicholas Cocaigne House Address: 2867 Favret Rd., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 13

Name: Captain Louis Peugnet House Address: 32115 County Rd. 6, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 17

Name: Beechwood Address: 31429 County Rd. 6, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 20

Name: Beechwood Outbuilding Address: County Rd. 6 (no address), Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 21

000431

Table 1 – Properties Listed in the NRHP (Sheet 2 of 7)

Name: Maple Grove Address: 596 Broadway, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 24

Name: Bragden House Address: 523 Broadway, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 25

Name: Stone House Servant Quarters Address: 523 Broadway, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 26

Name: Vincent LeRay House Address: Broadway - N side, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 28

000432

Table 1 – Properties Listed in the NRHP (Sheet 3 of 7)

Name: St. Vincent of Paul Catholic Church Address: Kanady/Lake St. Northwest corner, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 39

Name: John Borland House Address: 127 Joseph St. , Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 108

Name: Lewis Building Address: 230 Market St. , Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 132

Name: Roxy Hotel Address: Broadway/Market St. - Northeast corner, , Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 157

000433

Table 1 – Properties Listed in the NRHP (Sheet 4 of 7)

Name: Roxy Hotel [wing] Address: 123 Broadway, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 158

Name: James Buckley House Address: 169 Joseph St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 166

Name: Otis Starkey House Address: 9500 Point St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 168

Name: General Sacket House Address: 467 James St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 182

000434

Table 1 – Properties Listed in the NRHP (Sheet 5 of 7)

Name: Jean Philippe Galband du Fort House Address: James/Lake St. Southwest corner, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 188

Name: The Glen Building Address: 352 Broadway, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 213

Name: Erastus K. Burnham House Address: Broadway/Esseltyne St. Northeast corner, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 215

Name: Cornelius Sacket House Address: 451 Broadway, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 220

000435

Table 1 – Properties Listed in the NRHP (Sheet 6 of 7)

Name: The Aubertine Building Address: East of 580 Broadway, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 223

Name: George Reynolds House Address: 34191 State Hwy. 12e, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 323

Name: Union Meeting House Address: County Rd. 8/st rd 12e Northeast corner, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 342

Name: Joseph Docteur House Address: 31469 Rosiere Rd., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 444

000436

Table 1 – Properties Listed in the NRHP (Sheet 7 of 7)

Name: Remy Dezengremel House Address: 30538 Rosiere Rd., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 463

Name: Xavier Chevalier House Address: 6338 Gosiere Rd., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 465

Name: Claude Vautrin House Address: 33110 Mason Rd., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 468

Name: Warren Wilson House Address: 4670 Favret Rd., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 483

000437

Table 2 – Properties Recommended as Potentially Eligible to the NRHP (Sheet 1 of 17)

Address: 29766 County Rd. 6, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 4

Address: Deer Lick Rd. se corner County Rd. 6, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 7

Address: State Hwy. 12e, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 9

Address: 3204 State Hwy. 12e, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 10

000438

Table 2 – Properties Recommended as Potentially Eligible to the NRHP (Sheet 2 of 17)

Address: 2481 State Hwy. 12e, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 14

Address: 31498 Lake St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 33

Address: 266 Lake St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 36

Address: 254 Lake St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 37

000439

Table 2 – Properties Recommended as Potentially Eligible to the NRHP (Sheet 3 of 17)

Address: Northwest corner, Kanady/Joseph St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 43

Address: Southwest corner, Broadway/Kanady St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 47

Address: 139 Broadway, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 48

Address: Broadway, west of 221, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 50

000440

Table 2 – Properties Recommended as Potentially Eligible to the NRHP (Sheet 4 of 17)

Address: 132 Real St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 53

Address: 144 Real St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 54

Address: Real St., north of 178, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 56

Address: 178 Real St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 57

000441

Table 2 – Properties Recommended as Potentially Eligible to the NRHP (Sheet 5 of 17)

Address: 483 Market St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 85

Address: 461 Market St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 87

Address: 383 Market St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 91

Address: 355 Market St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 92

000442

Table 2 – Properties Recommended as Potentially Eligible to the NRHP (Sheet 6 of 17)

Address: 320 Market St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 93

Address: 341 Market St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 94

Address: 179 Lake St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 98

Address: Market St. south of 255, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 102

000443

Table 2 – Properties Recommended as Potentially Eligible to the NRHP (Sheet 7 of 17)

Address: 110 Joseph St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 106

Address: 130 Joseph St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 107

Address: 172 Broadway, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 115

Address: 151 Gouvello St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 126

000444

Table 2 – Properties Recommended as Potentially Eligible to the NRHP (Sheet 8 of 17)

Address: Gouvello St. w of 119Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 127

Address: Northeast corner, Market St./Gouvello St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 129

Address: Club St. opposite 371, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 141

Address: Point St., North of 165, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 147

000445

Table 2 – Properties Recommended as Potentially Eligible to the NRHP (Sheet 9 of 17)

Address: 9505 Point St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 167

Address: 662 James St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 176

Address: 561 James St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 181

Address: 437 James St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 184

000446

Table 2 – Properties Recommended as Potentially Eligible to the NRHP (Sheet 10 of 17)

Address: The United Church, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 209

Address: 285 Broadway, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 211

Address: 481 Broadway, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 222

Address: 186 Esseltyne St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 235

000447

Table 2 – Properties Recommended as Potentially Eligible to the NRHP (Sheet 11 of 17)

Address: 343 William St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 254

Address: William St., North of 248, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 264

Address: 185 William St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 267

Address: Carrier Ln., North side, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 269

000448

Table 2 – Properties Recommended as Potentially Eligible to the NRHP (Sheet 12 of 17)

Address: Bay St./Carrier Ln., Southwest corner, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 270

Address: 32719 State Hwy. 12e, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 301

No photo currently available.

Address: State Hwy. 12e, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 311

Address: 33865 Mance Rd., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 315

000449

Table 2 – Properties Recommended as Potentially Eligible to the NRHP (Sheet 13 of 17)

Address: State Hwy. 12e, east of 34191, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 324

Address: County Rd. 7, North of 34765, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 336

Address: 35109 County Rd. 7,Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 346

Address: 35361 County Rd. 7, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 352

000450

Table 2 – Properties Recommended as Potentially Eligible to the NRHP (Sheet 14 of 17)

Address: 35373 County Rd. 7, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 353

Address: 35381 County Rd. 7, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 354

Address: 35438 County Rd. 7,Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 356

Address: Beadles Pt. Rd. & Frenz Dr., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 357

000451

Table 2 – Properties Recommended as Potentially Eligible to the NRHP (Sheet 15 of 17)

Address: State Rd. 12e Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 358

Address: State Rd. 12e, East of 36091, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 368

Address: 36147 State Rd. 12e, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 369

Address: Cedar Point St. State Park Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 380

000452

Table 2 – Properties Recommended as Potentially Eligible to the NRHP (Sheet 16 of 17)

Address: Rosiere Rd., East of 33143, opposite side [south], Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 408

Address: 31345 Rosiere Rd., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 450

Address: Rosiere Rd., West of Kents Creek, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 464

Address: Constance Rd.Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 471

000453

Table 2 – Properties Recommended as Potentially Eligible to the NRHP (Sheet 17 of 17)

Address: Hell St./Favret Rd., Southwest corner, opposite 32152, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 479

Address: 4609 Favret Rd., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 484

Address: 31515 Votra Rd., Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 487

000454

Table 3 – Cemeteries (Sheet 1 of 3)

Name: St. Vincent de Paul Cemetery Address: Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: C-1

Name: Riverside Cemetery Address: Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: C-2, 297

Name: Judd Cemetery Address: Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: C-3

Name: Sand Bay Cemetery Address: Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: C-4

000455

Table 3 – Cemeteries (Sheet 2 of 3)

No photo currently available. One will be taken during the second phase of surveying.

Name: St. John’s Cemetery Address: Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: C-5

Name: St. Vincent de Paul Cemetery Address: Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: C-6

Name: Market Street Cemetery Address: Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 78

Name: St. Lawrence Union Cemetery Address: Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 421

000456

Table 3 – Cemeteries (Sheet 3 of 3)

No photo currently available. One will be taken during the second phase of surveying.

Name: St. Vincent of Paul Cemetery Address: Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 39

Name: St. Vincent de Paul Cemetery Address: Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Map ID: 445

000457

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 1 Map Section: D1 Map ID: Merchant Rd. Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Not applicable Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393860.49 Geographic Coordinates: 4883004.95 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 1 Frame Replacement End Gable Gabled/Porch Open None Replacement Siding Replacement Porch Agricultural Field Viewshed None Fair Rural/Ag No driveway or house number

ID:

1

20

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [30] Vincent Wi Merchant Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE No Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Merchant Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-1

000458

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 2 Map Section: D1 Map ID: County Rd. 6 n of 29697 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Not applicable Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 394001.17 Geographic Coordinates: 4883315.07 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame 2/2 DH Multiple Gabled/Porch Enclosed Window caps Replacement Siding Non-Historic Addition Agricultural Field Viewshed Multiple Ag building Fair Rural/Ag No house number

ID:

2

21

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [31] Vincent Wi County Rd. 6 n of 29697 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Many windows replaced; others have decorative surrounds SIGNIFICANCE No Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [33] County Rd. 6 n of 29697 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-2

000459

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 3 Map Section: D1 Map ID: County Rd. 6 29697 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Not applicable Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393860.29 Geographic Coordinates: 4883560.89 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 Colonial Revival Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gambrel Stone 1 Frame 1/1 DH End Gable Gabled/Porch Open None Replacement Siding Non-Historic Outbuildin Agricultural Field Viewshed Multiple Ag building Excellent Rural/Ag Dormers

ID:

3

22

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [34] Vincent Wi County Rd. 6 29697 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE No Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. County Rd. 6 29697 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-3

000460

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 4 Map Section: D1 Map ID: County Rd. 6 29766 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Not applicable Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393776.99 Geographic Coordinates: 4883708.66 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1840-1865 Greek Revival Stone Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 2 Masonry 6/9 DH End Gable Replacement Added Belt course, cornice None visible Not applicable Agricultural Field Viewshed Multiple Ag building Excellent Rural/Ag Dormers

ID:

4

23

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [35] Vincent Wi County Rd. 6 29766 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE No Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1840-1865 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: Yes Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: No Second Image. Yes Feeling: County Rd. 6 29766 No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

Cape Vincent

Jefferson County

A-4

000461

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 5 Map Section: D1 Map ID: County Rd. 6 south of 30011 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Not applicable Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393673.87 Geographic Coordinates: 4883877.64 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Agricultural 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Wood Clapboard Not applicable Metal Side Gable Stone 2 Frame Not applicable End Gable Replacement None None Rear Addition Not applicable Agricultural Field Trees None Deteriorated Rural/Ag Abandoned house now used for hay storage

ID:

5

19

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [29] Vincent Wi County Rd. 6 south of 30011 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE No Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. County Rd. 6 south of 30011 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-5

000462

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 6 Map Section: D1 Map ID: County Rd. 6 30011 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Not applicable Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393506.47 Geographic Coordinates: 4884174.56 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH End Gable Gabled/Porch Open None Replacement Siding Not applicable Agricultural Field Trees Multiple Ag building Fair Rural/Ag Porch removed except for roof

ID:

6

18

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [27] Vincent Wi County Rd. 6 30011 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE No Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [28] County Rd. 6 30011 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-6

000463

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 7 Map Section: D1 Map ID: Deer Lick Rd. se corner County Rd. 6 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Not applicable Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393559.79 Geographic Coordinates: 4884316.72 24 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1800-1840 Greek Revival Stone wooden shingle Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 2 Masonry 12/12 DH End Gable Gabled/Porch Open None Rear Addition Not applicable Agricultural Field Viewshed Multiple Ag building Excellent Rural/Ag Porch partially enclosed with flush board siding

ID:

7

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [36]aVincent Wi Deer Lick Rd. se corner County Rd. 6 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

At least one stone outbuilding SIGNIFICANCE No Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1800-1840 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: Yes Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: No Second Image. Yes Feeling: Deer Lick Rd. se corner County Rd. 6 No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

Cape Vincent

Jefferson County

A-7

000464

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 8 Map Section: D1 Map ID: Deer Lick Rd. north side Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Not applicable Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 394213.33 Geographic Coordinates: 4884683.7 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Metal Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame Replacement End Gable Gabled/Porch Open None Replacement Siding Rear Addition Agricultural Field Viewshed Multiple Ag building Excellent Rural/Ag

ID:

8

25

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [37] Vincent Wi Deer Lick Rd. north side Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE No Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Deer Lick Rd. north side Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-8

000465

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 9 Map Section: D2 Map ID: State Hwy. 12e Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Not applicable Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 395913.87 Geographic Coordinates: 4884289.55 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 Foursquare Wood Clapboard Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Hipped Poured Concrete 2 Frame 1/1 DH Other Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Non-Historic Addition Rear Addition Agricultural Field Open Space Multiple Ag building Good Rural/Ag

ID:

9

1

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 State Hwy. 12e Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE No Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1920-1945 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: Yes Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: No Second Image. Yes Feeling: State Hwy. 12e No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

Cape Vincent

Jefferson County

A-9

000466

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 10 Map Section: D2 Map ID: State Hwy. 12e 3204 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Not applicable Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 395417.66 Geographic Coordinates: 4884597.8 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1800-1840 Greek Revival Stone Wood clapboard Shingle Asphalt Ell Stone 2 Masonry 9/9 DH End Gable Not visible Enclosed None Rear Addition Rear Addition Agricultural Field Open Space Multiple Ag building Good Rural/Ag

ID:

10

2

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (1) Vincent Wi State Hwy. 12e 3204 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE No Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1800-1840 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: Yes Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (2) Yes Feeling: State Hwy. 12e 3204 No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-10

000467

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 11 Map Section: D2 Map ID: State Hwy. 12e '3' Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Not applicable Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 395326.09 Geographic Coordinates: 4884653.44 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Vinyl Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH End Gable Gabled/Porch 1 Story Decorative fretwork in pr Rear Addition Replacement Siding Agricultural Field Open Space Multiple Ag building Good Rural/Ag

ID:

11

3

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (3) Vincent Wi State Hwy. 12e '3' Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE No Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. State Hwy. 12e '3' Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-11

000468

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 12 Map Section: D2 Map ID: State Hwy. 12e 2935 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Not applicable Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 394945.94 Geographic Coordinates: 4884921.46 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Wood Clapboard shingle in gable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 2 Frame See notes End Gable Replacement 1 Story None New steps to front door Replacement Siding Agricultural Field Open Space Multiple Ag building Fair Rural/Ag Windows 1/1 and 2/2

ID:

12

4

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (4) Vincent Wi State Hwy. 12e 2935 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE No Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. State Hwy. 12e 2935 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-12

000469

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 13 Map Section: D2 Map ID: Favret Rd. 2867 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Not applicable Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 394829.91 Geographic Coordinates: 4885090.33 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1800-1840 Greek Revival Stone Composite shingle Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 2 Masonry Replacement End Gable Gabled/Porch 1 Story Cornice According to the NRHP Rear Addition Agricultural Field Open Space Multiple Ag building Excellent Rural/Ag Nicholas Cocaigne House

ID:

13

5

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (5) Vincent Wi Favret Rd. 2867 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Cross gable and porch both new SIGNIFICANCE No Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: Yes Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1800-1840 C, B Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: Yes Materials: Yes Design: Yes Feeling: Yes Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Listed

Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (6) Favret Rd. 2867 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-13

000470

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 14 Map Section: D2 Map ID: State Hwy. 12e 2481 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Not applicable Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 394321.01 Geographic Coordinates: 4885455.68 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1800-1840 Greek Revival Stone Not applicable Metal Side Gable Stone 2 Masonry Replacement End Gable Fanlights/Transom Enclosed Other Historic Addition Storm Windows Agricultural Field Open Space Multiple Ag building Fair Rural/Ag 1 chimney removed; 1 repaired; 1 added

ID:

14

6

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (7) Vincent Wi State Hwy. 12e 2481 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

new front steps SIGNIFICANCE No Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1800-1840 C,B Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: Yes Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (8) No Feeling: State Hwy. 12e 2481 Yes Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-14

000471

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 15 Map Section: D1 Map ID: County Rd. 6 30685 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Not applicable Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392986.19 Geographic Coordinates: 4885094.77 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 Colonial Revival Clapboard Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Not visible 2 Frame Not visible End Gable Not visible Not visible None Not visible Not applicable Agricultural Field Open Space Multiple Ag building Good Rural/Ag House down long private drive

ID:

15

17

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [26] Vincent Wi County Rd. 6 30685 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Barely visible from road SIGNIFICANCE No Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. County Rd. 6 30685 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-15

000472

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 16 Map Section: D1 Map ID: County Rd. 6 32109 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Not applicable Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 391748.61 Geographic Coordinates: 4885756.07 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Abandoned 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame 2/2 DH End Gable Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Rear Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Body Of Water Multiple Ag building Deteriorated Neighborhood

ID:

16

29

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [43] Vincent Wi County Rd. 6 32109 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE No Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. County Rd. 6 32109 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-16

000473

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 17 Map Section: D1 Map ID: County Rd. 6 32115 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Not applicable Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 391667.94 Geographic Coordinates: 4885872.1 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1800-1840 19th century vernacular Stone Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Stone 2 Masonry Not visible Multiple Gabled/Porch Open Door surround Rear Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Body Of Water Barn Excellent Neighborhood Captain Louis Peugnet House

ID:

17

28

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [42] Vincent Wi County Rd. 6 32115 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE No Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: Yes Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1800-1840 C, B Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: Yes Association: Yes Materials: Yes Design: Yes Feeling: Yes Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Listed

Photo ID: No Second Image. County Rd. 6 32115 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-17

000474

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 18 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: County Rd. 6 31163 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Not applicable Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392562.37 Geographic Coordinates: 4886007.96 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1840-1865 Italianate Cement-Asbestos vertical siding in rear Shingle Asphalt Pyramidal Stone 2 Frame Replacement Multiple Other Enclosed Window caps Non-Historic Addition Not applicable Agricultural Field Open Space Multiple Ag building Excellent Rural/Ag

ID:

18

16

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [24] Vincent Wi County Rd. 6 31163 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE No Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1840-1865 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: Yes Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [25] County Rd. 6 31163 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-18

000475

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 19 Map Section: C1 Map ID: County Rd. 6 31381 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392394.4 Geographic Coordinates: 4886369.2 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding vertical siding in rear Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame Replacement Multiple Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Non-Historic Addition Replacement siding Agricultural Field Trees Multiple Ag building Excellent Neighborhood

ID:

19

15

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [23] Vincent Wi County Rd. 6 31381 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE No Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. County Rd. 6 31381 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-19

000476

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 20 Map Section: C1 Map ID: County Rd. 6 31429 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392359.17 Geographic Coordinates: 4886443.42 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1840-1865 Greek Revival Brick rear ell clapboarded Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Not visible 2 Masonry Other Multiple Gabled/Porch Open Other New Portico Non-Historic Addition Vistas Body Of Water Other Excellent Neighborhood Beechwood -- building burned in 1854 and again in 1932 Front portico with giant order piers added in 1932 SIGNIFICANCE No Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: Yes Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1840-1865 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: Yes Design: Yes Feeling: Yes Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Listed

ID:

20

14

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [22] Vincent Wi County Rd. 6 31429 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [41] County Rd. 6 31429 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-20

000477

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 21 Map Section: C1 Map ID: County Rd. 6 no address Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392335.69 Geographic Coordinates: 4886493.3 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Other: See Notes Other: See Notes 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Wood Clapboard Not applicable Wood Shingle Gable Front Not visible 2 Frame Other None Other None None Not applicable Not applicable Vistas Body Of Water Other Fair Neighborhood Outbuilding associated with Beechwood

ID:

21

13

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [21] Vincent Wi County Rd. 6 no address Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE No Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: Yes Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1840-1865 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: Yes Association: Yes Materials: No Design: Yes Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Listed

Photo ID: No Second Image. County Rd. 6 no address Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-21

000478

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 22 Map Section: C1 Map ID: County Rd. 6 north side north of turn Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Not applicable Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392239.5 Geographic Coordinates: 4886536.36 26 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Other: See Notes Other: See Notes 1890-1920 Boat House Vinyl Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Poured Concrete 1 Frame Other None Other None None Replacement Siding Not applicable Body Of Water Body Of Water None Excellent Neighborhood Outbuilding associated with Beechwood

ID:

22

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [38] Vincent Wi County Rd. 6 north side north of turn Cape Vincent Jefferson County

On property included in Broadway NRHP District but not on map SIGNIFICANCE No Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: Yes Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. County Rd. 6 north side north of turn Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-22

000479

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 23 Map Section: C1 Map ID: County Rd. 6 north side north of turn Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Not applicable Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392263.32 Geographic Coordinates: 4886562.66 27 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Other: See Notes Other: See Notes 1890-1920 Bath House Vinyl Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Poured Concrete 1 Frame Other None Other None None Replacement Siding Not applicable Body Of Water Body Of Water None Excellent Neighborhood Outbuilding associated with Beechwood

ID:

23

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [39] Vincent Wi County Rd. 6 north side north of turn Cape Vincent Jefferson County

On property included in Broadway NRHP District but not on map SIGNIFICANCE No Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: Yes Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. County Rd. 6 north side north of turn Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-23

000480

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 24 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Broadway 596 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392402.02 Geographic Coordinates: 4886626.81 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1800-1840 Greek Revival Wood Clapboard Flush board siding Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 2 Frame 6/6 DH Offset Gabled/Porch Open Other Rear Addition Garage Attached Body Of Water Body Of Water None Excellent Neighborhood Maple Grove

ID:

24

41

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [58] Vincent Wi Broadway 596 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: Yes Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1800-1840 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: Yes Materials: Yes Design: Yes Feeling: Yes Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Listed

Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [59] Broadway 596 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-24

000481

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 25 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Broadway 523 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392490.67 Geographic Coordinates: 4886666.15 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1840-1865 Greek Revival Wood Clapboard Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 2 Frame Other Offset Gabled/Porch Open Other Rear Addition Not applicable Body Of Water Body Of Water Multiple Ag building Good Neighborhood Bragden House

ID:

25

42

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [60] Vincent Wi Broadway 523 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Stable also included in NRHP Broadway District SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: Yes Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1840-1865 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: Yes Association: Yes Materials: No Design: Yes Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Listed

Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [61] Broadway 523 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-25

000482

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 26 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Broadway 523 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392517.97 Geographic Coordinates: 4886685.62 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1800-1820 19th century vernacular Wood Clapboard End walls parged Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Stone 1 Frame Other Multiple Gabled/Porch Open None Side Addition Not applicable Body Of Water Body Of Water None Good Neighborhood Servants quarters for the Stone House

ID:

26

40

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [57] Vincent Wi Broadway 523 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: Yes Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1800-1840 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: Yes Association: Yes Materials: Yes Design: Yes Feeling: Yes Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Listed

Photo ID: No Second Image. Broadway 523 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-26

000483

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 27 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Broadway 446 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392595.5 Geographic Coordinates: 4886712.12 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 Queen Anne Shingle Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Brick 2 Frame Other Multiple Gabled/Porch Open Corbelling Rear Addition Gable window Body Of Water Body Of Water Garage Good Neighborhood 1/1 double hung windows flanked by fixed single panes

ID:

27

43

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [63] Vincent Wi Broadway 446 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Broadway 446 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-27

000484

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 28 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Broadway n side Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392613.23 Geographic Coordinates: 4886728.02 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1800-1840 Federal Stone Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Hipped Stone 2 Masonry 8/8 DH Multiple Fanlights/Transom Open See notes Storm windows Not applicable Suburban Yard Body Of Water None Good Neighborhood Vincent Le Ray House

ID:

28

39

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [55] Vincent Wi Broadway n side Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Quoins, water table, balustrade and round headed windows SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: Yes Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1800-1840 C, B Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: Yes Association: Yes Materials: Yes Design: Yes Feeling: Yes Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Listed

Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [56] Broadway n side Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-28

000485

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 29 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Broadway east of 446 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392639.62 Geographic Coordinates: 4886731.78 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Concrete Block 2 Frame 1/1 DH Offset Gabled/Porch Open Other Rear Addition Not applicable Body Of Water Body Of Water Barn Good Neighborhood Turned posts and brackets on front porch

ID:

29

44

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [64] Vincent Wi Broadway east of 446 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: Yes Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [65] Broadway east of 446 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-29

000486

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 30 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Vincent St. 185 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392697.05 Geographic Coordinates: 4886666.72 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1945-1960 Cottage Other: See Notes Vertical boards Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Not visible 1 Log Other None Gabled/Porch Open None Rear Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees Garage Good Neighborhood Novelty siding

ID:

30

15

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [19]aVincent Wi Vincent St. 185 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Foundation not visible; windows double hung and picture SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1945-1960 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Vincent St. 185 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-30

000487

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 31 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Joseph St. 378 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392740.62 Geographic Coordinates: 4886633.14 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Not visible 1 Log 1/1 DH Center Other Enclosed None Replacement Siding Rear Addition Suburban Yard Trees Garage Fair Neighborhood

ID:

31

34

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [47] Vincent Wi Joseph St. 378 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [48] Joseph St. 378 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-31

000488

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 32 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Joseph St. 366 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392759.36 Geographic Coordinates: 4886642.08 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Poured Concrete 2 Frame 1/1 DH None Gabled/Porch Open None Replacement Siding Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees None Good Neighborhood

ID:

32

35

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [49] Vincent Wi Joseph St. 366 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1945-1960 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Joseph St. 366 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-32

000489

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 33 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Lake St. 31498 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392812.57 Geographic Coordinates: 4886527.96 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Parged 2 Frame 1/1 DH Other Gabled/Porch Open None Replacement Siding Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees Barn Good Neighborhood Foundation not visible

ID:

33

16

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [20] Vincent Wi Lake St. 31498 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: Yes Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: No Second Image. Yes Feeling: Lake St. 31498 No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

Cape Vincent

Jefferson County

A-33

000490

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 34 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Lake St. east of 31498 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392843.13 Geographic Coordinates: 4886537.73 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Stone 2 Frame 2/2 DH None Replacement None None Replacement Siding Non-Historic Addition Suburban Yard Trees None Fair Neighborhood Garage attached

ID:

34

17

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [21] Vincent Wi Lake St. east of 31498 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Lake St. east of 31498 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-34

000491

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 35 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Lake St. 31512 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392878.9 Geographic Coordinates: 4886557.92 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Not visible 2 Frame Other None Gabled/Porch Open None Replacement Siding Side Addition Suburban Yard Trees None Good Neighborhood Dormers and turned posts on porch

ID:

35

18

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [22] Vincent Wi Lake St. 31512 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Foundation parged material not visible SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [23] Lake St. 31512 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-35

000492

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 36 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Lake St. 266 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392887.54 Geographic Coordinates: 4886561.37 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Not visible 2 Frame 2/2 DH Other Plain None None Replacement Siding Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees Garage Good Neighborhood Foundation parged material not visible

ID:

36

19

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [24] Vincent Wi Lake St. 266 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: No Second Image. Yes Feeling: Lake St. 266 No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

Cape Vincent

Jefferson County

A-36

000493

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 37 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Lake St. 254 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392907.05 Geographic Coordinates: 4886570.09 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 2 Frame Other Offset Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Replacement Siding Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees Garage Good Neighborhood

ID:

37

20

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [25] Vincent Wi Lake St. 254 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

9/9 windows SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: No Second Image. Yes Feeling: Lake St. 254 No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

Cape Vincent

Jefferson County

A-37

000494

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 38 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Lake St. 263 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392911.3 Geographic Coordinates: 4886575.93 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH Other Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Side Addition Rear Addition Suburban Yard Trees Garage Good Neighborhood Chimney at eaves in rear

ID:

38

14

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [17] Vincent Wi Lake St. 263 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [18] Lake St. 263 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-38

000495

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 39 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Kanady/Lake St. nw corner Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392855.25 Geographic Coordinates: 4886590.96 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Institutional Institutional 1840-1865 Gothic Revival Stone Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 1 Masonry Other None In bell tower None Windows, bell tower Side Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees None Excellent Neighborhood St. Vincent of Paul Catholic Church

ID:

39

29

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [39] Vincent Wi Kanady/Lake St. nw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Associated graveyard behind SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: Yes Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1840-1865 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: Yes Materials: Yes Design: Yes Feeling: Yes Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Listed

Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [40] Kanady/Lake St. nw corner Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-39

000496

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 40 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Kanady Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392831.46 Geographic Coordinates: 4886652.43 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Vinyl Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Poured Concrete 1 Frame Other None Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Replacement Siding Side Addition Suburban Yard Trees None Good Neighborhood Roof lines suggest it is historic

ID:

40

28

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [38] Vincent Wi Kanady Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Garage attached SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Kanady Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-40

000497

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 41 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Joseph St. 308 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392825.83 Geographic Coordinates: 4886667.56 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 2 Frame 2/2 DH End Gable Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Replacement Siding Rear Addition Suburban Yard Trees None Good Neighborhood Garage attached

ID:

41

27

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [37] Vincent Wi Joseph St. 308 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Reoriented from Kanady St. SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Joseph St. 308 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-41

000498

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 42 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Joseph St. 260 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392842.53 Geographic Coordinates: 4886677.77 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Stone 2 Frame 2/2 DH End Gable Gabled/Porch Open None Rear Addition Side Addition Suburban Yard Trees Garage Good Neighborhood Porch partially enclosed

ID:

42

36

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [50] Vincent Wi Joseph St. 260 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Joseph St. 260 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-42

000499

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 43 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Kanady/Joseph St. nw corner Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392815.89 Geographic Coordinates: 4886692.61 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Stone 1 Frame 2/2 DH End Gable Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Replacement Siding Rear Addition Suburban Yard Trees None Fair Neighborhood

ID:

43

26

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [36] Vincent Wi Kanady/Joseph St. nw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: No Second Image. Yes Feeling: Kanady/Joseph St. nw corner No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

Cape Vincent

Jefferson County

A-43

000500

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 44 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Kanady/Joseph St. ne corner Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392819.5 Geographic Coordinates: 4886693.41 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH Multiple Replacement None None Side Addition Replacement Siding Suburban Yard None Garage Excellent Neighborhood

ID:

44

30

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [41] Vincent Wi Kanady/Joseph St. ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [42] Kanady/Joseph St. ne corner Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-44

000501

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 45 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Kanady 172 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392817.39 Geographic Coordinates: 4886697.63 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 2 Frame Replacement Offset Gabled/Porch Open None Side Addition Rear Addition Suburban Yard None None Excellent Neighborhood Garage attached

ID:

45

31

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [43] Vincent Wi Kanady 172 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Kanady 172 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-45

000502

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 46 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Kelsey Ln. 160 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392800.92 Geographic Coordinates: 4886734.76 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 19th century vernacular Wood Shingle Not applicable Metal Gable Front Poured Concrete 2 Frame 1/1 DH Offset Hood None None Side Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees None Excellent Neighborhood Attributes removed but appears historic

ID:

46

32

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [44] Vincent Wi Kelsey Ln. 160 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Faces Kelsey Ln. but number appears to be Kanady SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [45] Kelsey Ln. 160 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-46

000503

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 47 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Broadway/Kanady St. sw corner Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392736.13 Geographic Coordinates: 4886774.64 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 Colonial Revival Wood Clapboard Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Hipped Stone 2 Frame Other Multiple Gabled/Porch Enclosed Corbelling None visible Not applicable Body Of Water Body Of Water Garage Excellent Neighborhood Windows: 9/1,12/2,9/2,6/1

ID:

47

45

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [66] Vincent Wi Broadway/Kanady St. sw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Dormers, square bay, faceted bay SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: No Second Image. Yes Feeling: Broadway/Kanady St. sw corner Yes Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

Cape Vincent

Jefferson County

A-47

000504

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 48 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Broadway 139 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392753.95 Geographic Coordinates: 4886791.81 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 Stick Cement-Asbestos vertical board siding Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH Offset Fanlights/Transom Open Bargeboards Side Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Body Of Water Boathouse Good Neighborhood Brackets and decorative window caps

ID:

48

38

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [53] Vincent Wi Broadway 139 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [54] Yes Feeling: Broadway 139 Yes Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-48

000505

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 49 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Broadway/Kanady St. se corner Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392789.3 Geographic Coordinates: 4886798.05 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH End Gable Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Replacement Siding Rear Addition Body Of Water Body Of Water Garage Good Neighborhood

ID:

49

46

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [67] Vincent Wi Broadway/Kanady St. se corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Broadway/Kanady St. se corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-49

000506

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 50 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Broadway west of 221 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392801.24 Geographic Coordinates: 4886812.36 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 Queen Anne Wood Clapboard vertical board siding Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH End Gable Fanlights/Transom Side/Rear Window caps, faceted ba None visible Not applicable Suburban Yard Body Of Water Garage Fair Neighborhood Boathouse

ID:

50

37

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [51] Vincent Wi Broadway west of 221 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: Yes Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [52] Yes Feeling: Broadway west of 221 Yes Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-50

000507

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 51 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Broadway 221 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392855.13 Geographic Coordinates: 4886836.46 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Other: See Notes 1890-1920 Colonial Revival Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame Replacement End Gable Gabled/Porch Open None Side Addition Rear Addition Suburban Yard Trees None Excellent Neighborhood Residence and commercial

ID:

51

36

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [50] Vincent Wi Broadway 221 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Broadway 221 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-51

000508

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 52 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Real St. 119 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392866.17 Geographic Coordinates: 4886831.34 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1840-1865 Greek Revival Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH Multiple Gabled/Porch Open Frieze, door surround, po Replacement Siding Side Addition Suburban Yard Trees Garage Good Neighborhood Formerly the Arlington Hotel

ID:

52

47

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [68] Vincent Wi Real St. 119 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1840-1865 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Real St. 119 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-52

000509

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 53 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Real St. 132 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392904.65 Geographic Coordinates: 4886804.81 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH Offset Gabled/Porch Open None Replacement Siding Rear Addition Suburban Yard None None Good Neighborhood Porch partially enclosed

ID:

53

3

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [3]a Vincent Wi Real St. 132 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [35] Yes Feeling: Real St. 132 No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-53

000510

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 54 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Real St. 144 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392908.77 Geographic Coordinates: 4886797.24 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Metal Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH Other Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Replacement Siding Rear Addition Suburban Yard None Garage Fair Neighborhood Modern chimney

ID:

54

2

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [2] Vincent Wi Real St. 144 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [34] Yes Feeling: Real St. 144 No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-54

000511

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 55 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Real St. 157 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392912.18 Geographic Coordinates: 4886768.83 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Vertical Boards Aluminum siding and as Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Stone 1 Frame Replacement Offset Gabled/Porch Open None Replacement Siding Rear Addition Suburban Yard Trees None Fair Neighborhood Thoroughly renovated

ID:

55

4

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [4] Vincent Wi Real St. 157 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [5] Real St. 157 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-55

000512

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 56 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Real St. north of 178 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2004 Date of Inventory: / 392917.73 Geographic Coordinates: 4886770.72 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 1 Frame Replacement Offset Replacement Enclosed None Replacement Siding Side Addition Suburban Yard None Garage Fair Neighborhood

ID:

56

25

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [33] Vincent Wi Real St. north of 178 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: No Second Image. Yes Feeling: Real St. north of 178 No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

Cape Vincent

Jefferson County

A-56

000513

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 57 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Real St. 178 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392927.13 Geographic Coordinates: 4886748.35 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame 2/2 DH Offset Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Replacement Siding Rear Addition Suburban Yard Trees None Fair Neighborhood Garage attached to s side

ID:

57

24

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [31] Vincent Wi Real St. 178 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: Yes Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [32] Yes Feeling: Real St. 178 No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-57

000514

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 58 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Real St. 190 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392932.94 Geographic Coordinates: 4886736.16 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Poured Concrete 2 Frame Replacement Other Gabled/Porch Side/Rear None Replacement Siding Side Addition Suburban Yard Trees Garage Good Neighborhood Concrete block chimney on side addition

ID:

58

23

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [30] Vincent Wi Real St. 190 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Enclosed porch on side SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Real St. 190 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-58

000515

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 59 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Joseph St. 221 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392914.57 Geographic Coordinates: 4886716.45 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Metal Gable Front Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH Center Gabled/Porch Replacement None Side Addition Replacement Siding Suburban Yard Trees Garage Excellent Neighborhood Also shingle asphalt

ID:

59

33

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [46] Vincent Wi Joseph St. 221 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Joseph St. 221 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-59

000516

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 60 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Joseph St. 228 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392892.26 Geographic Coordinates: 4886701.55 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1945-1960 Colonial Revival Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Poured Concrete 2 Frame 1/1 DH None Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Rear Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees None Good Neighborhood Garage attached

ID:

60

37

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [51] Vincent Wi Joseph St. 228 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1945-1960 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Joseph St. 228 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-60

000517

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 61 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Real St. 223 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392944.11 Geographic Coordinates: 4886702.18 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 Colonial Revival Wood Shingle Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Other Stone 2 Frame Other None Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Side Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees Garage Excellent Neighborhood Gable-on-hip roof

ID:

61

5

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [6] Vincent Wi Real St. 223 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Windows 6/1 double hung SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: Yes Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Real St. 223 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-61

000518

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 62 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Real St. 270 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392977.01 Geographic Coordinates: 4886638.48 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Wood Shingle Not applicable Metal Gable Front Not visible 1 Frame 2/2 DH Offset Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Replacement Siding Side Addition Suburban Yard Trees None Good Neighborhood

ID:

62

22

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [28] Vincent Wi Real St. 270 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Real St. 270 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-62

000519

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 63 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Lake St. 237 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392946.44 Geographic Coordinates: 4886592.26 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH None Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Side Addition Rear Addition Suburban Yard Trees None Good Neighborhood

ID:

63

13

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [16] Vincent Wi Lake St. 237 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Lake St. 237 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-63

000520

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 64 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Real St. 228 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392990.86 Geographic Coordinates: 4886593.87 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1840-1865 Greek Revival Wood Shingle Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 2 Frame Other End Gable Fanlights/Transom Side/Rear None Non-Historic Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees None Excellent Neighborhood Greek Revival door surround

ID:

64

6

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [7] Vincent Wi Real St. 228 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Garage addition SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1840-1865 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: Yes Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [8] Real St. 228 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-64

000521

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 65 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Real St. 352 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393016.37 Geographic Coordinates: 4886542.71 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 Colonial Revival Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Not visible 2 Frame 1/1 DH Center Recessed None None Replacement Siding Non-Historic Addition Suburban Yard Trees None Good Neighborhood Almost nothing left except one exterior door

ID:

65

10

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [12] Vincent Wi Real St. 352 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [13] Real St. 352 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-65

000522

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 66 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Real St. north of 430 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393041.84 Geographic Coordinates: 4886487.61 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH None Gabled/Porch Open None Replacement Siding Side Addition Suburban Yard Trees Garage Good Neighborhood Also rear addition

ID:

66

9

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [11] Vincent Wi Real St. north of 430 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Door probably replaced; picture window SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Real St. north of 430 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-66

000523

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 67 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Real St. opposite 430 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393052.33 Geographic Coordinates: 4886457.77 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 19th century vernacular Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH End Gable Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Replacement Siding Side Addition Suburban Yard Open Space Multiple Ag building Fair Neighborhood

ID:

67

7

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [9] Vincent Wi Real St. opposite 430 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Real St. opposite 430 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-67

000524

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 68 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Real St. 430 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393056.91 Geographic Coordinates: 4886454.61 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Not visible 1 Frame 2/2 DH None Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Replacement Siding Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees None Fair Neighborhood

ID:

68

8

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [10]aVincent Wi Real St. 430 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Real St. 430 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-68

000525

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 69 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: State Hwy. 12e 1964 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Not applicable Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393429.17 Geographic Coordinates: 4885966.2 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Other: See Notes Landmark 1890-1920 Light House Wood Clapboard Not applicable Metal Conical Not visible 1 Frame 1/1 DH None Replacement None None Moved Not applicable Waterside None None Good Neighborhood Moved from the Cape Vincent breakwater

ID:

69

8

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (12) Vincent Wi State Hwy. 12e 1964 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1920-1945 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: Yes Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. State Hwy. 12e 1964 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-69

000526

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 70 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: State Hwy. 12e opp 1964 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Not applicable Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393428.93 Geographic Coordinates: 4885967.69 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Commercial Commercial 1920-1945 Motor Court Vertical Boards Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Not visible 1 Frame Picture Window None Other Open None Replacement Siding Not applicable Agricultural Field Open Space None Fair Rural/Ag Hilltop Court

ID:

70

7

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (10) Vincent Wi State Hwy. 12e opp 1964 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

5 buildings, main one has aluminum siding SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1920-1945 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: Yes Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (11) State Hwy. 12e opp 1964 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-70

000527

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 71 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: State Hwy. 12e 762 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393346.92 Geographic Coordinates: 4886117.24 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1920-1945 Cape Vinyl Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Concrete Block 1 Frame Other Other Other None None Replacement Siding Non-Historic Addition Suburban Yard Trees Garage Good Neighborhood

ID:

71

9

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (13) Vincent Wi State Hwy. 12e 762 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1920-1945 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (14) State Hwy. 12e 762 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-71

000528

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 72 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: State Hwy. 12e 726 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393348.36 Geographic Coordinates: 4886133.58 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 19th century vernacular Vinyl Siding Clapboards -- wood and Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Other 2 Frame Replacement None Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Replacement Siding Non-Historic Addition Suburban Yard Trees Barn Deteriorated Neighborhood Roof also metal

ID:

72

10

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (15) Vincent Wi State Hwy. 12e 726 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Carriage barn SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. State Hwy. 12e 726 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-72

000529

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 73 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: State Hwy. 12e 714 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393330.23 Geographic Coordinates: 4886171.66 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1840-1865 Greek Revival Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Stone 1 Frame Replacement End Gable Plain Side/Rear None Replacement Siding Non-Historic Addition Suburban Yard Trees Garage Good Neighborhood 2 concrete block chimneys

ID:

73

11

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (16) Vincent Wi State Hwy. 12e 714 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1840-1865 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. State Hwy. 12e 714 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-73

000530

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 74 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: State Hwy. 12e 674 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393318.7 Geographic Coordinates: 4886201.86 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Stone 1 Frame 1/1 DH Other Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Historic Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees Garage Good Neighborhood Brick chimney

ID:

74

12

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (17) Vincent Wi State Hwy. 12e 674 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1920-1945 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. State Hwy. 12e 674 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-74

000531

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 75 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: State Hwy. 12e 656 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393301.47 Geographic Coordinates: 4886236.67 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1840-1865 Greek Revival Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Metal Side Gable Not visible 1 Frame 1/1 DH Offset Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Non-Historic Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees Garage Good Neighborhood Foundation parged material not visible

ID:

75

13

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (18) Vincent Wi State Hwy. 12e 656 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Cornice returns SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1840-1865 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. State Hwy. 12e 656 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-75

000532

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 76 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: State Hwy. 12e 640 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393293.48 Geographic Coordinates: 4886256.77 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding vinyl shingle Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Not visible 2 Frame 1/1 DH Center Gabled/Porch Enclosed Other Non-Historic Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees Garage Excellent Neighborhood Decorative shingle

ID:

76

14

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (19) Vincent Wi State Hwy. 12e 640 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. State Hwy. 12e 640 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-76

000533

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 77 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: State Hwy. 12e 596 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393260.75 Geographic Coordinates: 4886317.18 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1920-1945 Cape Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Poured Concrete 1 Frame 1/1 DH Center Plain None None Replacement Siding Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees Garage Good Neighborhood Picture window

ID:

77

15

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (20) Vincent Wi State Hwy. 12e 596 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1920-1945 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. State Hwy. 12e 596 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-77

000534

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 78 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: State Hwy. 12e opposite 596 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393222.03 Geographic Coordinates: 4886322.26 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Cemetery Cemetery Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees None Good Neighborhood Market Street cemetery

ID:

78

16

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (21) Vincent Wi State Hwy. 12e opposite 596 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: Not applicable Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. State Hwy. 12e opposite 596 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-78

000535

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 79 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: State Hwy. 12e 574 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393257.22 Geographic Coordinates: 4886341.88 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1800-1840 19th century vernacular Vertical Boards Aluminum siding wood c Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Stone 2 Frame Replacement End Gable Replacement None None Replacement Siding Non-Historic Addition Suburban Yard Trees None Excellent Neighborhood Roof may have been raised

ID:

79

17

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (22) Vincent Wi State Hwy. 12e 574 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1800-1840 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. State Hwy. 12e 574 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-79

000536

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 80 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. south of 510 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393244.62 Geographic Coordinates: 4886371.93 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1800-1840 Greek Revival Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 2 Frame Other Multiple Gabled/Porch Open Cornice Replacement Siding Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees Garage Fair Neighborhood

ID:

80

42

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (56) Vincent Wi Market St. south of 510 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1840-1865 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Market St. south of 510 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-80

000537

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 81 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. 510 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393228.46 Geographic Coordinates: 4886406.86 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1945-1960 Cape Other: See Notes Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Poured Concrete 1 Frame Replacement None Gabled/Porch Open None Rear Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees Garage Good Neighborhood Shingle asphalt on walls

ID:

81

1

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [1]a Vincent Wi Market St. 510 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1945-1960 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Market St. 510 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-81

000538

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 82 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. 498 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393222.77 Geographic Coordinates: 4886422.88 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1945-1960 Cape Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Poured Concrete 1 Frame Replacement None Gabled/Porch Enclosed Other Rear Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees Garage Good Neighborhood Round window in projection

ID:

82

2

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [2] Vincent Wi Market St. 498 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1945-1960 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Market St. 498 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-82

000539

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 83 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. 495 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393196.86 Geographic Coordinates: 4886425.71 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1920-1945 Cottage Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Concrete Block 1 Frame Replacement None Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Replacement Siding Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees None Excellent Neighborhood

ID:

83

4

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [8]a Vincent Wi Market St. 495 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1920-1945 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: Yes Design: Yes Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Market St. 495 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-83

000540

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 84 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. 486 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393214.35 Geographic Coordinates: 4886444.21 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding vertical board Shingle Asphalt Saltbox Stone 1 Frame Replacement End Gable Gabled/Porch Open None Rear Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees Garage Good Neighborhood

ID:

84

3

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [3]a Vincent Wi Market St. 486 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [7] Market St. 486 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-84

000541

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 85 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. 483 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393189.58 Geographic Coordinates: 4886444.75 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1920-1945 Cottage Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Concrete Block 1 Frame Replacement None Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Replacement Windows Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees None Excellent Neighborhood

ID:

85

5

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [9] Vincent Wi Market St. 483 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1920-1945 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: Yes Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: No Second Image. Yes Feeling: Market St. 483 No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

Cape Vincent

Jefferson County

A-85

000542

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 86 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. 471 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393185.69 Geographic Coordinates: 4886455.01 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1920-1945 Cottage Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Concrete Block 1 Frame Replacement None Replacement None None Front Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees None Excellent Neighborhood

ID:

86

6

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [10] Vincent Wi Market St. 471 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1920-1945 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Market St. 471 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-86

000543

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 87 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. 461 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393159.11 Geographic Coordinates: 4886482.83 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 19th century vernacular Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Concrete Block 2 Frame 2/2 DH Offset Gabled/Porch Open Bay window Rear Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees Barn Good Neighborhood Next to large parking lot and modern motel

ID:

87

41

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (55) Vincent Wi Market St. 461 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: No Second Image. Yes Feeling: Market St. 461 Yes Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

Cape Vincent

Jefferson County

A-87

000544

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 88 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. south of 404 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393181.86 Geographic Coordinates: 4886510.46 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Wood Shingle Not applicable Metal Gable Front Stone 2 Frame 2/2 DH Multiple Gabled/Porch Enclosed None New Outbuilding Rear Addition Suburban Yard Trees Garage Fair Neighborhood Also historic 6/6 double hung windows

ID:

88

40

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (53) Vincent Wi Market St. south of 404 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Market St. south of 404 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-88

000545

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 89 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. 404 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393170.11 Geographic Coordinates: 4886524.48 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1840-1865 Greek Revival Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Stone 2 Frame Replacement None Replacement Enclosed Other Replacement Siding Rear Addition Suburban Yard Trees Barn Fair Neighborhood Cornice

ID:

89

39

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (51) Vincent Wi Market St. 404 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Carriage barn SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (52) Market St. 404 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-89

000546

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 90 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. 384 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393163.26 Geographic Coordinates: 4886548.5 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 Greek Revival Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Stone 2 Frame Replacement End Gable Sidelights None None Replacement Siding Rear Addition Suburban Yard Trees Garage Fair Neighborhood May be historic 6/6 on s 2nd fl

ID:

90

38

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (50) Vincent Wi Market St. 384 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Market St. 384 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-90

000547

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 91 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. 383 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393133.14 Geographic Coordinates: 4886562.71 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 Craftsman Wood Clapboard Wood shingle Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Concrete Block 2 Frame 3/1 DH None Gabled/Porch Open Brackets None visible Rear Addition Suburban Yard Trees Garage Excellent Neighborhood Dormer

ID:

91

37

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (48) Vincent Wi Market St. 383 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Garage same vintage, 1/1 double hung windows on sides SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: Yes Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (49) Yes Feeling: Market St. 383 Yes Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-91

000548

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 92 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. 355 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393119.83 Geographic Coordinates: 4886584.15 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1840-1865 Greek Revival Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH Offset Gabled/Porch Open Cornice, parapet Side Addition Rear Addition Suburban Yard Trees Garage Excellent Neighborhood

ID:

92

36

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (47) Vincent Wi Market St. 355 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1840-1865 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: No Second Image. Yes Feeling: Market St. 355 No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

Cape Vincent

Jefferson County

A-92

000549

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 93 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. 320 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393132.1 Geographic Coordinates: 4886624.07 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Wood Clapboard Not applicable Metal Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame 2/2 DH Other Gabled/Porch Open Brackets and turned post Rear Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees Barn Excellent Neighborhood An example of what the McAlesters call "Folk Victorian"

ID:

93

35

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (46) Vincent Wi Market St. 320 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: Yes Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: No Second Image. Yes Feeling: Market St. 320 No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

Cape Vincent

Jefferson County

A-93

000550

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 94 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. 341 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393105.48 Geographic Coordinates: 4886615.59 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 19th century vernacular Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Metal Gable Front Other 2 Frame 1/1 DH None Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Rear Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees Garage Excellent Neighborhood Foundation parged

ID:

94

34

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (45) Vincent Wi Market St. 341 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Attached garage SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: Yes Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: No Second Image. Yes Feeling: Market St. 341 No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

Cape Vincent

Jefferson County

A-94

000551

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 95 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St./Lake St. sw corner Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393092.47 Geographic Coordinates: 4886647.14 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 19th century vernacular Vinyl Siding Not applicable Metal Side Gable Concrete Block 2 Frame 1/1 DH End Gable Gabled/Porch Open Brackets and turned post Rear Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees Garage Good Neighborhood Folk Victorian

ID:

95

33

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (44) Vincent Wi Market St./Lake St. sw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Market St./Lake St. sw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-95

000552

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 96 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Lake St. 127 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393080.47 Geographic Coordinates: 4886648.17 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Metal Gable Front Stone 2 Frame Replacement Center Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Non-Historic Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees None Fair Neighborhood Garage attached

ID:

96

32

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (43) Vincent Wi Lake St. 127 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Lake St. 127 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-96

000553

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 97 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Lake St. 149 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393041.38 Geographic Coordinates: 4886635.22 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1945-1960 Cape Vinyl Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Concrete Block 2 Frame Other None Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Replacement Siding Rear Addition Suburban Yard Trees None Excellent Neighborhood Windows are casements and 1/1 double hung

ID:

97

11

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [14] Vincent Wi Lake St. 149 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1945-1960 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: No Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Lake St. 149 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-97

000554

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 98 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Lake St. 179 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393009.68 Geographic Coordinates: 4886620.42 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Wood Clapboard Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH None Gabled/Porch Open None Side Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees Garage Excellent Neighborhood Folk Victorian

ID:

98

12

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [15] Vincent Wi Lake St. 179 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Incised window caps and chamfered posts SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: Yes Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: No Second Image. Yes Feeling: Lake St. 179 No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

Cape Vincent

Jefferson County

A-98

000555

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 99 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Lake St. 178 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393001.87 Geographic Coordinates: 4886611.62 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1840-1865 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH Offset Gabled/Porch Open None Replacement Siding Rear Addition Suburban Yard Trees None Good Neighborhood Side addition

ID:

99

21

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [26] Vincent Wi Lake St. 178 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [27] Lake St. 178 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-99

000556

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 100 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St./Lake St. ne corner Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393108 Geographic Coordinates: 4886680.27 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Other: See Notes Aluminum on addition Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 2 Frame See notes Other Plain Side/Rear Brackets and rail on porc Rear Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees Garage Good Neighborhood Board and batten siding

ID:

100

29

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (39) Vincent Wi Market St./Lake St. ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County

6/6,2/2, 3/1 windows SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (40) Market St./Lake St. ne corner Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-100

000557

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 101 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. 266 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393096.17 Geographic Coordinates: 4886703.08 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1840-1865 19th century vernacular Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame See notes None Gabled/Porch Open Cornice Rear Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees Garage Fair Neighborhood 6/6,2/2, 3/1 windows

ID:

101

28

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (37) Vincent Wi Market St. 266 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1840-1865 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Market St. 266 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-101

000558

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 102 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. south of 255 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393065.22 Geographic Coordinates: 4886688.09 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Metal Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame 2/2 DH End Gable Gabled/Porch Open Other Rear Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees None Deteriorated Neighborhood Rafter tails and purlins visible

ID:

102

30

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (41) Vincent Wi Market St. south of 255 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Turned posts SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: No Second Image. Yes Feeling: Market St. south of 255 No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

Cape Vincent

Jefferson County

A-102

000559

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 103 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. 246 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393088.79 Geographic Coordinates: 4886721.33 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Vinyl Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 2 Frame Replacement Other Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Rear Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees Garage Good Neighborhood New concrete block chimney

ID:

103

27

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (36) Vincent Wi Market St. 246 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Market St. 246 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-103

000560

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 104 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. 255 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393062.31 Geographic Coordinates: 4886711.76 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1840-1865 Greek Revival Aluminum Siding Not applicable Metal Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame Replacement Offset Gabled/Porch Open Cornice Rear Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees None Fair Neighborhood

ID:

104

31

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (42) Vincent Wi Market St. 255 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1840-1865 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Market St. 255 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-104

000561

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 105 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. 237 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393056.63 Geographic Coordinates: 4886720.28 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame Other End Gable Gabled/Porch Open Other Rear Addition Side Addition Suburban Yard Trees Garage Excellent Neighborhood 6/6 double hung windows

ID:

105

26

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (35) Vincent Wi Market St. 237 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

New concrete block chimney SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: Yes Design: Yes Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Market St. 237 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-105

000562

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 106 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Joseph St. 110 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393068.06 Geographic Coordinates: 4886763.18 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 Gothic Revival Wood Clapboard Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame Replacement None Replacement None Other Rear Addition Rear Addition Suburban Yard Trees None Excellent Neighborhood Interesting angular window caps

ID:

106

24

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (32) Vincent Wi Joseph St. 110 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: Yes Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (33) Joseph St. 110 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-106

000563

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 107 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Joseph St. 130 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393040.86 Geographic Coordinates: 4886765.23 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 Craftsman Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Stone 2 Frame Other End Gable Replacement None Other Rear Addition Rear Addition Suburban Yard Trees Garage Excellent Neighborhood Shed dormers

ID:

107

25

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (34) Vincent Wi Joseph St. 130 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: No Second Image. Yes Feeling: Joseph St. 130 No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

Cape Vincent

Jefferson County

A-107

000564

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 108 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Joseph St. 127 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393062.92 Geographic Coordinates: 4886791 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Institutional 1800-1840 Federal Wood Clapboard Flushboards Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Stone 2 Frame Replacement None Gabled/Porch Enclosed Other Historic Addition Rear Addition Suburban Yard Trees None Excellent Neighborhood John Borland House

ID:

108

23

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (30) Vincent Wi Joseph St. 127 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Front porch w\ turned columns and decorative scroll work SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: Yes Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1800-1840 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: Yes Association: Yes Materials: Yes Design: Yes Feeling: Yes Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Listed

Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (31) Joseph St. 127 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-108

000565

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 109 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. 189 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393030.72 Geographic Coordinates: 4886789.38 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1840-1865 Greek Revival Wood Clapboard Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 2 Frame Replacement Other Replacement None Other Replacement Siding Non-Historic Addition Suburban Yard Trees None Good Neighborhood Very little historic trim

ID:

109

22

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (29) Vincent Wi Market St. 189 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Dramatically altered, parapet on side addition SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1840-1865 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Market St. 189 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-109

000566

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 110 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. 171 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393027.85 Geographic Coordinates: 4886810.86 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1840-1865 Greek Revival Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Stone 2 Frame Replacement Other Replacement None Cornice Replacement Siding Non-Historic Addition Suburban Yard Trees None Good Neighborhood Dramatically altered

ID:

110

21

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (28) Vincent Wi Market St. 171 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1840-1865 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Market St. 171 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-110

000567

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 111 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. St/Broadway se corner Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393038.3 Geographic Coordinates: 4886842.45 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Commercial Commercial 1920-1945 Motel Wood Clapboard Stucco and vertical board Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Not visible 1 Frame See notes None Multiple None None Replacement Siding Not applicable Suburban Yard None None Good Neighborhood Motel with 3 buildings on property

ID:

111

20

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (26) Vincent Wi Market St. St/Broadway se corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1920-1945 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (25) Market St. St/Broadway se corner Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-111

000568

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 112 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. St/Kelsey Ln. ne corner Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393012.63 Geographic Coordinates: 4886832.24 19 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Wood Clapboard Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Stone 1 Frame Replacement None Gabled/Porch Open Brackets Rear Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard None Garage Good Neighborhood Elaborate brackets on door hood

ID:

112

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (24) Vincent Wi Market St. St/Kelsey Ln. ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Market St. St/Kelsey Ln. ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-112

000569

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 113 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Broadway 183 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392901.76 Geographic Coordinates: 4886858.91 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 19th century vernacular Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH None Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Side Addition Rear Addition Suburban Yard Trees None Good Neighborhood Attached garage

ID:

113

32

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [46] Vincent Wi Broadway 183 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Broadway 183 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-113

000570

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 114 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Broadway 188 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392907.02 Geographic Coordinates: 4886845.86 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH End Gable Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Replacement Siding Rear Addition Suburban Yard Trees Garage Good Neighborhood

ID:

114

48

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [69] Vincent Wi Broadway 188 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Broadway 188 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-114

000571

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 115 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Broadway 172 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392916.99 Geographic Coordinates: 4886847.34 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH End Gable Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Replacement Siding Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees None Good Neighborhood

ID:

115

49

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [71] Vincent Wi Broadway 172 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: No Second Image. Yes Feeling: Broadway 172 Yes Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

Cape Vincent

Jefferson County

A-115

000572

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 116 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Broadway 168 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392927.36 Geographic Coordinates: 4886854 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Metal Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH End Gable Gabled/Porch Open None Replacement Siding Not applicable Suburban Yard None None Good Neighborhood

ID:

116

50

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [72] Vincent Wi Broadway 168 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Broadway 168 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-116

000573

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 117 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Broadway 157 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392930.42 Geographic Coordinates: 4886871.41 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1840-1865 Greek Revival Wood Clapboard Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Ell Stone 2 Frame Replacement End Gable Gabled/Porch Open Other Rear Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees None Good Neighborhood Greek Revival cornice

ID:

117

31

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [45] Vincent Wi Broadway 157 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

French doors added SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1840-1865 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: Yes Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Broadway 157 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-117

000574

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 118 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Broadway 162 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392941.74 Geographic Coordinates: 4886862.04 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 19th century vernacular Wood Clapboard Not applicable Metal Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH End Gable Gabled/Porch Open None Replacement Siding Not applicable Suburban Yard None None Good Neighborhood

ID:

118

51

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [73] Vincent Wi Broadway 162 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Broadway 162 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-118

000575

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 119 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Broadway e of 168 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392954.68 Geographic Coordinates: 4886870.12 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Commercial Commercial 1865-1890 19th century commercial Wood Clapboard Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Shed Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH None Plain None None Side Addition Rear Addition Suburban Yard None None Fair Commercial

ID:

119

1

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [1] Vincent Wi Broadway e of 168 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Broadway e of 168 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-119

000576

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 120 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St./Broadway se corner Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/29/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392994.85 Geographic Coordinates: 4886880.72 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Unknown Commercial 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Vinyl Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Stone 2 Frame Replacement End Gable Replacement None None Replacement Siding Non-Historic Addition Commercial district None Garage Excellent Commercial Pent roof over first floor

ID:

120

18

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (23) Vincent Wi Market St./Broadway se corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County

No windows 2nd fl front SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Market St./Broadway se corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-120

000577

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 121 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Broadway 113 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392982.48 Geographic Coordinates: 4886897.22 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 Queen Anne Aluminum Siding Not applicable Metal Side Gable Stone 2 Frame Other Multiple Under overhang Side/Rear Brackets Rear Addition Not applicable Commercial district Trees Garage Good Neighborhood

ID:

121

30

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [44] Vincent Wi Broadway 113 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Broadway 113 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-121

000578

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 122 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Real St. street 141/143 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392852.72 Geographic Coordinates: 4886908.11 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Other: See Notes Residence 1865-1890 Gothic Revival Vertical Boards Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame Replacement Center Replacement None Bargeboards Bays closed in New windows Suburban Yard Body Of Water None Fair Neighborhood Former carriage barn turned into housing

ID:

122

35

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [49] Vincent Wi Real St. street 141/143 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Board and batten SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Real St. street 141/143 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-122

000579

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 123 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Real St. street 168 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392844.78 Geographic Coordinates: 4886935.42 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Concrete Block 2 Frame Replacement Offset Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Replacement Siding Side Addition Suburban Yard Body Of Water Garage Good Neighborhood

ID:

123

33

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [47] Vincent Wi Real St. street 168 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Real St. street 168 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-123

000580

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 124 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Real St. street 184 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392829.78 Geographic Coordinates: 4886957.31 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1840-1865 Gothic Revival Wood Clapboard Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame Replacement Offset Gabled/Porch Open See notes Non-Historic Addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Body Of Water Garage Good Neighborhood Labeled John Tucker house on plaque

ID:

124

34

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [48] Vincent Wi Real St. street 184 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Octagonal window SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1840-1865 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: Yes Materials: Yes Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Real St. street 184 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-124

000581

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 125 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Gouvello St. 150 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/02/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392912.15 Geographic Coordinates: 4886937.94 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1840-1865 Greek Revival Wood Clapboard Vertical boards Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Stone 1 Frame 2/2 DH End Gable Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Rear Addition Front Addition Suburban Yard Trees None Excellent Neighborhood

ID:

125

9

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-02-06 [12] Vincent Wi Gouvello St. 150 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1840-1865 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: SLW 12-02-06 [13] Gouvello St. 150 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-125

000582

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 126 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Gouvello St. 151 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/02/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392916.17 Geographic Coordinates: 4886944.58 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Wood Clapboard Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame 2/2 DH Center Gabled/Porch Open Brackets None visible Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees Garage Excellent Neighborhood What the McAlesters call "Folk Victorian"

ID:

126

8

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-02-06 [11] Vincent Wi Gouvello St. 151 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Incised window caps SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: Yes Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: No Second Image. Yes Feeling: Gouvello St. 151 No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

Cape Vincent

Jefferson County

A-126

000583

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 127 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Gouvello St. w of 119 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/02/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392925.04 Geographic Coordinates: 4886949 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1840-1865 19th century vernacular Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Metal Side Gable Poured Concrete 1 Frame Other Center Gabled/Porch Open None Replacement Siding Rear Addition Suburban Yard Trees None Fair Neighborhood 12/8 windows

ID:

127

7

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-02-06 [10] Vincent Wi Gouvello St. w of 119 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Foundation repaired SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1840-1865 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: No Second Image. Yes Feeling: Gouvello St. w of 119 No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

Cape Vincent

Jefferson County

A-127

000584

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 128 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Gouvello St. 119 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392941.7 Geographic Coordinates: 4886962.57 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1840-1865 19th century vernacular Wood Clapboard Not applicable Metal Side Gable Not visible 1 Frame Replacement None Gabled/Porch Open None Side Addition Rear Addition Suburban Yard Trees None Fair Neighborhood Being restored

ID:

128

12

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [20] Vincent Wi Gouvello St. 119 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1840-1865 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Gouvello St. 119 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-128

000585

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 129 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St./Gouvello St. ne corner Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392976.4 Geographic Coordinates: 4886975.61 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Commercial Commercial 1945-1960 Tourist Cabins Wood Clapboard Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Other 1 Frame 1/1 DH None Gabled/Porch Open None None visible Not applicable Vistas Body Of Water None Excellent Neighborhood Owner says built starting 1947

ID:

129

7

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [11] Vincent Wi Market St./Gouvello St. ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County

6 similar tourists cabins and one smaller building --maybe office SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1945-1960 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [12] Yes Feeling: Market St./Gouvello St. ne corner No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-129

000586

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 130 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. 196 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392955.46 Geographic Coordinates: 4887022.24 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1945-1960 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Concrete Block 1 Frame 1/1 DH Center Gabled/Porch Open None Replacement Siding Not applicable Vistas Body Of Water None Excellent Neighborhood Owner said built c. 1947

ID:

130

8

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [14] Vincent Wi Market St. 196 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1945-1960 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Market St. 196 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-130

000587

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 131 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. 189 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392927.92 Geographic Coordinates: 4887015.56 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 19th century vernacular Wood Clapboard Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Concrete Block 1 Frame 2/2 DH End Gable Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Side Addition Rear Addition Vistas Body Of Water Garage Excellent Neighborhood

ID:

131

11

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [19] Vincent Wi Market St. 189 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Market St. 189 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-131

000588

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 132 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. 230 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392937.5 Geographic Coordinates: 4887042.52 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Stone 1 Frame Replacement None Replacement Open None Side Addition Rear Addition Vistas Body Of Water None Excellent Neighborhood Lewis House

ID:

132

9

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [15] Vincent Wi Market St. 230 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Thoroughly modified since being listed in the NRHP SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: Yes Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Listed

Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [16] Market St. 230 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-132

000589

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 133 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Market St. 217 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 11/30/2006 Date of Inventory: / 392913.14 Geographic Coordinates: 4887068.69 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 Craftsman Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Not visible 1 Frame Replacement End Gable Replacement Enclosed Corbelling, dormer Replacement Siding Rear Addition Vistas Body Of Water Garage Excellent Neighborhood Thoroughly modified

ID:

133

10

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [17] Vincent Wi Market St. 217 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [18] Market St. 217 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-133

000590

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 134 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Gouvello St. 162 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/02/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393021.72 Geographic Coordinates: 4886990.9 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1840-1865 Greek Revival Wood Clapboard Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame Other None Gabled/Porch Open Bargeboards Side Addition Rear Addition Suburban Yard Trees None Fair Neighborhood Windows -- 6/1

ID:

134

10

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-02-06 [14] Vincent Wi Gouvello St. 162 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1840-1865 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Gouvello St. 162 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-134

000591

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 135 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Point St. on the river e side road Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393019.15 Geographic Coordinates: 4887157.65 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Commercial 1890-1920 Colonial Revival Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Hipped Not visible 2 Frame Other Center Replacement Enclosed None Non-Historic Addition Not applicable Body Of Water Body Of Water None Excellent Neighborhood Vastly altered house

ID:

135

42

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-02-06 [16] Vincent Wi Point St. on the river e side road Cape Vincent Jefferson County

Now part of complex including Buccaneer Motel SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: SLW 12-02-06 [17] Point St. on the river e side road Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-135

000592

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 136 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Point St. 213 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393033.95 Geographic Coordinates: 4887112.32 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 19th century vernacular Vinyl Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Not visible 2 Frame 1/1 DH Offset Gabled/Porch Open None Replacement Siding Not applicable Body Of Water Body Of Water None Excellent Neighborhood Foundation not visible

ID:

136

43

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-02-06 [18] Vincent Wi Point St. 213 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Point St. 213 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-136

000593

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 137 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Point St. 199 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393042.34 Geographic Coordinates: 4887093.81 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH Center Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Replacement Siding Rear Addition Suburban Yard Body Of Water None Excellent Neighborhood

ID:

137

44

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [58]aVincent Wi Point St. 199 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Point St. 199 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-137

000594

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 138 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Point St. 185 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393054.09 Geographic Coordinates: 4887072.43 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Cement-Asbestos Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Parged 2 Frame 2/2 DH None Hood None None Replacement Siding Rear Addition Suburban Yard Trees Garage Excellent Neighborhood

ID:

138

45

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [59]aVincent Wi Point St. 185 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Point St. 185 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-138

000595

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 139 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Point St. 173 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393060.65 Geographic Coordinates: 4887056.65 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Other 2 Frame 1/1 DH None Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Replacement Siding Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees None Excellent Neighborhood Foundation has been parged

ID:

139

46

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-01-06 [60]aVincent Wi Point St. 173 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Point St. 173 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-139

000596

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 140 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Point St. Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/01/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393068.16 Geographic Coordinates: 4887053.26 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1945-1960 Cape Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Side Gable Poured Concrete 2 Frame 1/1 DH Center Replacement None None None visible Not applicable Suburban Yard Body Of Water Garage Excellent Neighborhood

ID:

140

41

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-02-06 [15] Vincent Wi Point St. Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1945-1960 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Point St. Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-140

000597

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 141 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Club St. opposite 371 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/02/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393244.86 Geographic Coordinates: 4887108.41 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Wood Clapboard Not applicable Metal Gable Front Stone 2 Frame 2/2 DH Center Gabled/Porch Open None Rear Addition Not applicable Body Of Water Body Of Water None Good Neighborhood

ID:

141

21

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-02-06 [32] Vincent Wi Club St. opposite 371 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: Yes Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: No Second Image. Yes Feeling: Club St. opposite 371 Yes Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

Cape Vincent

Jefferson County

A-141

000598

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 142 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Club St. east of 371 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/02/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393245.27 Geographic Coordinates: 4887117.2 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Commercial Commercial 1890-1920 Boat House Vertical Boards Not applicable Metal Gable Front Not visible 1 Frame Not applicable None Replacement None None Replacement Siding Not applicable Body Of Water Body Of Water None Fair Neighborhood Marina building

ID:

142

22

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-02-06 [33] Vincent Wi Club St. east of 371 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Club St. east of 371 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-142

000599

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 143 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Club St. 371 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/02/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393229.59 Geographic Coordinates: 4887121.21 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1890-1920 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH Center Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Side Addition Rear Addition Body Of Water Body Of Water None Good Neighborhood

ID:

143

20

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-02-06 [31] Vincent Wi Club St. 371 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Club St. 371 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-143

000600

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 144 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Club St. west of 371 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/02/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393214.78 Geographic Coordinates: 4887119.66 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Unknown Commercial 1920-1945 Colonial Revival Aluminum Siding stone Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Not visible 2 Frame Replacement Center Replacement None Stone facing Side Addition Rear Addition Body Of Water Body Of Water None Good Neighborhood

ID:

144

19

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-02-06 [30] Vincent Wi Club St. west of 371 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1920-1945 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Club St. west of 371 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-144

000601

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 145 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Club St. opposite captain jacks Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/02/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393206.88 Geographic Coordinates: 4887128.85 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Vinyl Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH Center Replacement Enclosed None Rear Addition Not applicable Body Of Water Body Of Water None Good Neighborhood

ID:

145

18

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-02-06 [29] Vincent Wi Club St. opposite captain jacks Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Club St. opposite captain jacks Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-145

000602

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 146 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Club St. 335 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/02/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393191.11 Geographic Coordinates: 4887129.19 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Commercial Commercial 1920-1945 Commercial Concrete Block Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Concrete Block 1 Masonry Other None Replacement Open None Side Addition Not applicable Body Of Water Body Of Water None Good Neighborhood

ID:

146

17

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-02-06 [27] Vincent Wi Club St. 335 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1920-1945 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: SLW 12-02-06 [28] Club St. 335 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-146

000603

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 147 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Point St. n of 165 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/02/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393185.98 Geographic Coordinates: 4887095.17 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Commercial Institutional 1800-1840 Factory Stone Not applicable Metal Cross Gable Stone 1 Masonry Replacement None Replacement None None See notes Not applicable Body Of Water Body Of Water None Excellent Neighborhood Chamber of Commerce and Historical Museum

ID:

147

16

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-02-06 [26] Vincent Wi Point St. n of 165 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

New doors and infill masonry SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1800-1840 C Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: Yes Materials: Yes Design: Photo ID: No Second Image. Yes Feeling: Point St. n of 165 Yes Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible

Cape Vincent

Jefferson County

A-147

000604

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 148 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: Point St. opposite 165 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/02/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393185.81 Geographic Coordinates: 4887089.09 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Aluminum Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Cross Gable Stone 2 Frame 1/1 DH None Gabled/Porch Open None Side Addition Rear Addition Suburban Yard Body Of Water None Good Neighborhood

ID:

148

15

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-02-06 [25] Vincent Wi Point St. opposite 165 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: No Second Image. Point St. opposite 165 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

A-148

000605

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 149 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: James St.165 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/02/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393186.1 Geographic Coordinates: 4887080.92 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimney Placement: Doorway: Porch: Decorative Elements: Alterations: Other Alterations: Landscape Elements: Natural Features: Outbuildings: Condition: Type of Setting: Notes: Residence Residence 1865-1890 19th century vernacular Vinyl Siding Not applicable Shingle Asphalt Gable Front Poured Concrete 2 Frame 1/1 DH End Gable Gabled/Porch Enclosed None Non historic addition Not applicable Suburban Yard Trees None Excellent Neighborhood Garage addition

ID:

149

14

P:\Cape Photo ID: SLW 12-02-06 [22] Vincent Wi James St.165 Cape Vincent Jefferson County

SIGNIFICANCE Yes Within Dense Grouping: National/State Register Listed: No Not applicable Local Landmark: Primary Period of Significance: 1890-1920 Not Applicable Primary NR Criterion: Integrity Criteria: Yes Setting: No Association: No Materials: No Design: No Feeling: No Workmanship: Yes Location: ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible

Photo ID: SLW 12-02-06 [24] James St.165 Cape Vincent

P:\Cape Vincent Wi Jefferson County

A-149

000606

St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006
LOCATION INFORMATION 150 Map Section: Inset 1 Map ID: James St.139 Address: Cape Vincent Town/City: Cape Vincent Village: Jefferson County County: 12/02/2006 Date of Inventory: / 393189.15 Geographic Coordinates: 4887056.2 DESCRIPTION Original Use: Current Use: Construction Date: Type/Style: Exterior Materials: Other Exterior Materials: Roof Materials: Roof Form: Foundation Materials: Stories: Structural System: Windows: Chimn