ST. Lawrence Wind DEIS I

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
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
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
Table 1-1 (Sheet 1 of 7)

Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation
Aspect of Affected
Environment Potential Impact Proposed Mitigation
Physiography, Geology, Erosion and sedimentation during A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
and Soils construction. (SWPPP) would be developed and
implemented for the construction period.
Construction traffic could also create A Dust Control Plan would be developed and
airborne dust. implemented.
The proposed Project, once built, could A SWPPP would be developed and
potentially cause a minor alteration to implemented for the operational period.
existing drainage patterns.
Impacts to agricultural soils during SLW would follow NYS Department of
construction and operation Agriculture and Markets Guidelines for Siting
and Constructing Wind Farms.
Shallow bedrock and other geologic Geotechnical studies would be conducted prior
challenges (e.g., karst and problematic to final engineering design.
soils) could be encountered during
construction.
Release of hazardous substances A Spill Prevention, Containment, and
associated with construction or operation. Countermeasure Plan (SPCCP) would be
developed and implemented.
Water Resources Soil erosion during construction could A SWPPP would be developed and
impact ground water. implemented for the construction period.
Streams, Rivers, and Lakes Potential temporary impacts during Clearing near surface waters would be kept to a
construction could result from clearing minimum to prevent significant disturbance to
and grading near stream banks. the habitats associated with surface waters; A
SWPPP would be developed and implemented
for the construction period.
Overhead transmission line would cross Crossings of the Chaumont River and other
surface waterbodies. 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.
Wetlands Desktop data indicates that there could be To minimize the impacts to wetlands, no
minor temporary impact associated with Project infrastructure would be placed in
the construction of the overhead wetlands, unless absolutely necessary.
transmission line. 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.
1-4
000103

Aspect of Affected
Vegetation Clearing for construction may Clearing of vegetation would be minimized in
temporarily impact abundant vegetation areas that are ecologically sensitive, such as
communities. forested uplands, forested wetlands and the
banks of creeks crossed by the overhead
transmission line.
Non-bat Mammals Minor temporary impacts to wildlife The Project was designed to avoid significant
habitat associated with construction of the impact to wildlife. Project infrastructure is
Project would be limited to clearing of sited away from critical habitat and forested
forested habitat along the overhead clearing would be minimized or avoided to the
transmission line right-of-way and within extent possible.
small portions of the laydown area for 16
turbines.
Bats Bat collision with wind turbines is a Although impacts to bats are not anticipated to
potential impact. 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.
Migrating Birds During operation of the Project, there is SLW has selected the proposed Project layout
the potential that migratory birds could to minimize impacts to migrating birds.
collide with wind turbines. Should location of particular Project facilities
present a potential high risk for collision
impacts, SLW will explore alternative config-
urations to minimize risk at these locations.
Breeding Birds There may be a minor, temporary impact The proposed Project will encourage continued
during construction due to the clearing farming activities in the area by supplementing
and construction work in open nesting area farmers’ income. This will also result in
and foraging habitat. A much smaller the maintenance of open grassland habitats
footprint of such habitat, which is since the regional climate favors traditional late
abundant in the Project area, may be season harvest which is beneficial for grassland
displaced by Project infrastructure. birds.
Approximately 82 acres of second growth Mitigation is not necessary because conversion
deciduous forest would be cleared for of forest habitat in the Project area will benefit
Project components, which could result in birds that nest and forage in open habitats
temporary and permanent minor habitat which are relatively more important in the
loss for some forest-nesting avian species. region.
There is a low potential risk that local SLW is studying potential avian impact at the
breeding birds could collide with the Project site. The Project site is anticipated to
wind turbines. pose a low risk to breeding birds.
Threatened and Individual bats or bat colonies for the SLW is studying potential bat impact at the
Endangered Species Indiana bat and the small-footed myotis Project site. SLW has chosen to move forward
have been documented in Jefferson with site development, in part because the
County, within approximately 15 to 40 Project site is anticipated to pose a low risk to
miles of the proposed Project. No impacts threatened or endangered species. Although
are anticipated. 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.
1-5
000104

Aspect of Affected
There is a slight risk of collision for SLW is studying potential avian impact at the
migrating raptors. Project site. The Project site is anticipated to
pose a low risk to threatened or endangered
species.
There is a slight risk of collision for To mitigate temporary impacts to breeding
breeding birds. 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..
Suitable habitat for Michigan lily and SLW will develop a management plan to
autumnal water-starwort species may address the handling of these plants during
temporarily be disturbed during construction if impacts are unavoidable.
construction activities.
Transportation The potential need for the Project to SLW would obtain all necessary permits from
improve transportation infrastructure to NYSDOT and local highway department(s) in
accommodate construction needs or order to make necessary road improvements
repair damage to roads caused by and to operate oversized vehicles on the roads.
construction traffic. 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.
The need for the Project to temporarily A Transportation and Traffic Plan would be
relocate overhead lines and other facilities created for the Project and would address this
to accommodate oversize vehicles. issue.
Traffic delays and road closures due to SLW would assess work areas two weeks
transportation improvements or ahead of construction and would provide
construction traffic. schools (during the school-year), police, fire,
and emergency service agencies with advance
notice of lane or road closures.
1-6
000105

Aspect of Affected
Increased traffic generally over local A Transportation and Traffic Plan would be
roads during construction. 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.
Project construction traffic may create A Dust Control Plan would be developed and
fugitive dust. implemented for the construction period.
Transportation - If the SLW Project and BP projects are If construction is concurrent, coordination
Cumulative built during the same construction season, between the projects may be required, to make
it is possible that similar construction sure that responsibilities for road impacts and
transportation routes may be chosen. 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.
Land Use and Zoning The Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme The proposed Project is compliant with local
have no specific requirements for zoning and land use regulations.
development of wind projects in their
jurisdictions, but have general zoning and
land use regulations established for
development.
Construction of the Project would result SLW would follow NYS Department of
in the temporary disturbance of Agriculture and Markets Guidelines for
approximately 191 acres of agricultural Agricultural Mitigation for Wind Power
land and permanent conversion of 98 Projects.
acres of agricultural land to wind turbine
structures, a substation and pervious
access roads.
1-7
000106

Aspect of Affected
Utilities and Community The Project would result in minor short- Mitigation is not necessary as neither of these
Services and long-term increases in energy usage represents significant impacts on energy
associated with construction and resources.
operation of the Project.
Long-term energy use would increase Mitigation is not necessary as this impact
slightly as a result of facility would be minor because the amount of
maintenance. 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.
There is a remote possibility that some SLW would collaborate with the utility owners
overhead electrical distribution lines to reduce impacts to their facilities to the
would have to be temporarily relocated to maximum extent practicable.
accommodate crane routes.
During construction, large vehicles and SLW would assess work areas two weeks
temporary roads closures could block ahead of construction and would provide
emergency vehicle access to area farms schools (during the school-year), police, fire,
and homes. 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.
Cultural Resources Construction and operation of the Project The proposed Project layout would be
could affect archeological resources that modified, if necessary, to avoid impact to
are potentially eligible to the NRHP. 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.
Studies are being performed to determine If it is determined that the Project would result
whether the Project might be visible from in adverse effects, SLW would consider
historic structures listed in, eligible for, or whether minor redesign is feasible to avoid
recommended as potentially eligible for adverse effects. If avoidance of effects is not
the National Register of Historic Places. possible, SLW would work with the Towns of
Assessments would be made to determine Cape Vincent and Lyme, SHPO, the US Army
if the Project may result in adverse effects Corps of Engineers, and interested parties to
to potentially significant structures develop an MOA that would stipulate
located within the architecture APE. appropriate activities that would be performed
Visual effects that may result in a change to mitigate effects.
to the setting and/or character of a historic
property may be assessed as adverse.
1-8
000107

Aspect of Affected
Visual Resources The Project would be visible from a Although the visual mitigation options are
variety of locations within 5 miles of the limited given the nature of the Project and its
proposed Project area. 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.
Some residences located within 10 The proposed turbines would maintain
turbine diameters would experience some appropriate buffers to minimize visual
degree of shadow flicker in the Town of impact and extended shadow flicker.
Cape Vincent. Settlement agreements could be used to
purchase landscape screening (trees, shrubs),
or exclusionary treatments such as curtains
or blinds.
The United States Department of Aviation warning lighting would be limited to
Transportation Federal Aviation the minimum required by the FAA. The Project
Administration (FAA) requires aviation would purchase aviation warning lights that are
warning lights on the turbines, which shielded or otherwise directed so that they are
could present a potential adverse visual the least visible from the ground. Due to the
impact from some viewing locations. 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.
1-9
000108

Aspect of Affected
Visual - Cumulative Construction of the SLW Project and the The proposed mitigation described above
BP projects in relatively close proximity would be employed.
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.
Air Quality Temporary minor adverse impacts to air A Dust Control Plan would be developed and
quality may result from the operation of implemented for the construction period.
construction equipment and vehicles.
Noise The proposed Project would generate Adhering to regular construction work hours
noise during construction. 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.
The Project would not have significant Noise impacts will be avoided by buffers from
noise impacts during operation. 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.
Telecommunications It is unlikely that there would be a If Project operation results in any impacts to
significant impact to television signal existing off-air television coverage, SLW
coverage during Project operation. 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.
It is unlikely that the Project would Should the NTIA identify any Project-related
impact government communications. concerns related to signal blockage following
their 30-day review of the Project, SLW would
mitigate impacts as required.
1-10
000109

Aspect of Affected
There is a remote possibility that ice shed The use of buffers from roads and property
from turbines could cause personal or lines and public control measures would
property injury. 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.
Safety and Security There is a remote possibility that tower The use of buffers from roads and property
collapse or turbine failure could cause lines and public control measures would
personal or property injury. 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.
Wind power facilities have the potential Stray voltage concerns would be addressed
to create stray voltage only if the through proper electrical engineering design
electrical system is both poorly grounded and installation of all Project electrical
and located near underground or poorly components.
grounded metal objects.
Due to their height, physical dimensions, A Fire Prevention and Control Plan would be
and complexity, wind turbines may developed for the Project to ensure the safety
present response difficulties to local of company employees and local residents,
emergency responders should a fire occur visitors, and their property. Prior to the
within or near the structures. Storage and commencement of construction SLW would
use of diesel fuels, lubricating oils, and present, review and finalize the Fire Prevention
hydraulic fluids within the Project and Control Plan in cooperation with local fire
boundary also create the potential for fire departments.
or medical emergencies.
Due the height and materials used to The standard lightning protection system
construct, the wind turbines are installed within the rotor blades would be used
susceptible to lightning strikes. to prevent and minimize problems associated
with lightning strikes.
It is not anticipated that the proposed SLW would design all facilities in accordance
Project would be a target for any with guidance and regulations of the
homeland security concerns. Department of Homeland Security.
1-11
000110

Permits and Approvals for the St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project
Agency Description of Permit or Approval Required
Towns
Town of Cape Vincent Administration of SEQRA Process, and issuance of findings (as Lead Agency
Planning Board under SEQRA).
Town of Cape Vincent
Site Plan Approval and other land use considerations
Code Enforcement Officer
Zoning Permit for erection of structures (Zoning Law Section 705).
Town of Cape Vincent Issuance of building permits/certificates of compliance. Review and approval of
Departments highway work permits/road agreements.
Town of Lyme Participation in SEQRA Process as an involved agency; issuance of SEQRA
Planning Board findings
Town of Lyme
Special Permit (Zoning Board of Appeals) and other land use considerations
Zoning Board of Appeals
Issuance of building permits/certificates of compliance. Review and approval of
Town of Lyme Departments
highway work permits/road agreements.
Jefferson County
Completion of a NYS General Municipal Law Section 239-m review and issuance
Planning Department
of recommendations.
Highway Department County road work permits.
Jefferson County Industrial
Potentially involved with PILOT approval. If so, issuance of SEQRA Findings.
Development Agency (JIDA)
New York State
Potentially, Article 24 Permit for disturbance of state jurisdictional wetlands.
Department of Environmental SPDES General Permit for stormwater discharges (creation of SWPPP and
Conservation SPCCP). Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Issuance of SEQRA Findings as
an involved agency.
Department of State Division of
Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination
Coastal Resources
Department of Transportation Special Use Permit for oversize/overweight vehicles. Highway work permits.
Department of Agriculture &
Submit Notice of Intent for work in an Agricultural District.
Markets
Public Service Commission PSL §68 Certificate. Issuance of SEQRA Findings.
New York State Energy Research
Administration of Renewable Portfolio Standard procurement.
and Development (NYSERDA)
New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic
Cultural Resources Consultation.
Preservation (NYSOPRHP)
1-12
000111

Federal Agencies
Federal Aviation Administration
Notice of Construction and Aviation Lighting Plan.
(FAA)
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
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
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.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Consultation regarding special status species.
Occupational Safety and Health 29 CFR 1910 regulations (standard conditions for safe work practices during
Administration (OSHA) construction).
1-13
000112
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
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
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:
x DEIS accepted as complete by Lead Agency (i.e. Town of Cape Vincent Planning
Board);
x 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);
x 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
x 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:
x The Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board directs SLW to revise the DEIS as necessary
to address relevant public and agency comments;
x SLW completes the Final EIS (FEIS);
x Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board accepts the FEIS as complete;
x Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board files notice of completion of the FEIS;
x 10-day public consideration period;
x The Planning Board as Lead agency issues its SEQRA Findings Statement; and
x 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
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
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
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
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
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:
x Clearing and grading of the temporary field construction office, substation, access roads,
crane pads, turnaround areas and turbine locations;
x Construction of access roads;
x Construction of turbine tower foundations and, if necessary, transformer pads;
x Installation of the underground interconnect line;
x Construction of the approximately 9 miles of overhead transmission line;
x Assembly and erection of the wind turbines;
x Construction and installation of the substation;
x Plant commissioning and energizing;
x Final grading and drainage; and
x Restoration.
Project construction would occur over one construction season (likely mid-April through mid-
November 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
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 site-
specific 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
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
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 25-
foot 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
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
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
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.

Towns
Town of Cape Vincent Site Plan Approval (Planning Board) and other land use considerations for
Code Enforcement Officer construction of turbine foundations and transmission line to Town boundary
Zoning Permit
Town of Cape Vincent Departments
Planning Board findings.
Town of Lyme Special Permit (Zoning Board of Appeals) and other land use considerations for
Zoning Board of Appeals construction of transmission line to substation
Town of Lyme Issuance of building permits. Review and approval of highway work
Departments permits/road agreements.
Jefferson County
Completion of a NYS General Municipal Law Section 239-m review and
Planning Department
issuance of recommendations.
Jefferson County IDA Potentially involved with PILOT approval. If so, issuance of SEQRA Findings.
New York State
Potentially, Article 24 Permit for disturbance of state jurisdictional freshwater
Department of Environmental wetlands. SPDES General Permit for stormwater discharges (creation of SWPPP
Conservation and SPCCP). Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Issuance of SEQRA
Findings as an involved agency.
Department of State
Division of Coastal Resources
New York State
Department of Agriculture & Markets Submit Notice of Intent for work in an Agricultural District.
2-14
000126

NYSERDA Administration of Renewable Portfolio Standard procurement.
NYSOPRHP (SHPO) Cultural Resources Consultation.
Federal Agencies
FAA 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
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 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.
29 CFR 1910 regulations (standard conditions for safe work practices during
OSHA
construction).
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
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

3.1 Soils, Topography and Geological Resources
3.1.1 Existing Conditions
3.1.1.1 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 3-
3) 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
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
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
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
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
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
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 Potential Impacts

3.1.2.1 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
Table 3-1
General Description of Soil Series
(Taken from Soil Survey of Jefferson County, New York [McDowell, 1989])
Risk of Corrosion
Water Bedrock Erosion Unified
Hydrologic Table Depth Permeability Uncoated Factors Soil Plasticity
Soil Name Group¹ Depth (ft) ( in ) ( in/ hr ) pH Steel Concrete K Classification² Index
Benson C/D >6 10-20 0.6-2.0 5.6-7.3 Low Low 0.02 SM/GM NP-10
Chaumont D 1.5-1.5 20-40 <0.2 5.6-7.3 High Low 0.49 MH,CH 15-50
Covington D 0.5-1.0 >60 <0.2 5.6-7.3 High Moderate 0.49 CH,MH 10-40
Galoo C/D >6 2-10 0.6-2.0 5.6-7.8 Low Low 0.32 CL,ML 3-15
Hudson C 1.5-2.0 >60 0.2-2.0 5.1-7.3 High Low 0.49 ML,CL-ML 5-19
Kingsbury D 0.5-1.5 >60 0.06-0.2 5.1-7.8 High Moderate 0.49 ML,MH 11-20
Livingston D 0-1.0 >60 0.2-0.6 5.1-7.3 High Low 0.49 CH,MH 10-40
Reinbeck D 0.5-1.5 >60 0.2-0.6 5.1-7.3 High Low 0.49 ML,MH 10-25
Wilpoint D 1.5-2.0 20-40 <0.2 5.6-7.3 High Low 0.49 MH,CH 15-50
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
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 Proposed Mitigation

3.1.3.1 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
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
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 Water Resources

3.2.1 Groundwater and Groundwater Quality
3.2.1.1 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
Type of Usages
Groundwater Surface Unit
Public supply3 2.17 8.20 Mgal/d
Domestic, self-supplied withdrawals 0.45 0.00 Mgal/d
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
3-10
000137
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

3.1 Soils, Topography and Geological Resources
3.1.1 Existing Conditions
3.1.1.1 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 3-
3) 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.

3.1.2.1 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
Table 3-1
Risk of Corrosion
¹a) Definition
independently.
(b) Classes
3-7
000144
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 Proposed Mitigation

3.1.3.1 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
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

3.2 Water Resources

Table 3-2
Water Withdrawals2
Type of Usages
1
2
3
3-10
000147
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 Streams, Rivers, Lakes

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:
x Unnamed tributary to and wetlands associated with Wilson Bay;
x Unnamed tributary to St. Lawrence River North of Route 12E;
x Unnamed tributary to Millen Bay;
x Kents Creek west of abandoned railroad right-of-way;
x Kents Creek east of Route 8;
x Central area bounded by Route 12E, Favret Road, Rosiere/Swamp Roads, and the
abandoned railroad right-of-way; and
3-11
000148
x Wetland area along southern Township limits between Route 12E and just east of
abandoned railroad right-of-way.

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.

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 Wetlands
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
Table 3-3
NYSDEC Streams Crossed by the Project
Stream Total Linear Percent of

Stream Name Component Classification Feet Total Area
Chaumont River Overhead Transmission C 120 3
Kents Creek Interconnect C 173 4
Kents Creek Overhead Transmission C 122 3
Scotch Brook Interconnect - 66 2
Shaver Creek Overhead Transmission - 120 3
Three Mile Creek Overhead Transmission C 124 3
Unnamed Interconnect D 25 1
Unnamed Interconnect C 366 9
Unnamed Interconnect C 50 1
Unnamed Overhead Transmission C 128 3
Unnamed Turbine D 32 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/shrub-
emergent 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
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
x 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.
x 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.

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 Total Acres Percent Total

NWI
PEM 0.3 <1
PFO 126 32
PFO/SS 139 35
PSS 29 7
PSS/EM 103 26
NYSDEC
II 337 100
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
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.

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
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 Vegetation
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

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.

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 Mammals Excluding Bats

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.

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
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.

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 Bats
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 small-
footed myotis.

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
(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.

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 Migrating Birds

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, red-
tailed 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
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
Franklin
Braddock Bay Derby Hill
Mountain
Common Name Scientific Name Fall 2006 Fall 2006 Spring 2006
Black Vulture Coragyps atratus 0 0 1
Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura 4671 393 11375
Osprey Pandion haliaeetus 1 121 503
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 20 121 363
Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus 89 70 474
Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus 49 573 2706
Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperi 43 115 349
Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis 4 8 29
Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus 187 115 578
Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus 0 774 9442
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis 419 2711 4859
Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus 37 4 251
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos 5 207 41
American Kestrel Falco sparverius 44 85 216
Merlin Falco columbarius 0 39 33
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 1 14 11
Unknown 3 56 39
Total Number of Hours 157.75 847.25 485.6
Total Number of Individuals Observed 5573 5406 31270
1
Located on the southern shore of Lake Ontario in the town of Greece, just outside of Rochester, NY.
2
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.
3
Located on the southeastern shore of Lake Ontario in Oswego County.
4
Source: Hawk Migration Association of North America (2006). Hawkcount Results [Online].

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
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.

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 Breeding Birds

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

Number of Birds/Route Documented Along the USGS Breeding Bird Survey2 Watertown (61071),
1
Ogdensburg (61096), and Philadelphia (61113) Routes3 in the Project Vicinity

Number of
Birds/Route
Common Name Scientific Name Watertown Ogdensburg Philadelphia
Common Loon Gavia immer ----- 0.05 0.21
Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus ----- 0.16 0.11
Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps 0.05 ----- 0.05
American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus 1.16 0.21 0.26
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias 9.26 2.26 6.00
Green Heron Butorides virescens 0.79 1.74 0.42
Black-crn. Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax 0.05 -----
Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura 0.47 0.26 2.79
Canada Goose Branta canadensis 2.53 3.63 1.05
Wood Duck Aix sponsa 0.26 0.68 1.05
American Black Duck Anas rubripes 0.26 ----- 0.11
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 1.37 2.63 1.74
Blue-winged Teal Anas discors ----- 0.16 0.21
Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus ----- ----- 0.05
Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis ----- 0.16 -----
Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus ----- ----- 0.05
Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus 0.21 0.37 0.26
Broad-winged hawk Buteo platypterus ----- ----- 0.05
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis 0.42 0.79 0.42
American Kestrel Falco sparverius 0.63 1.89 0.74
Gray Partridge Perdix perdix 0.11 ----- -----
Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus 0.74 0.16 0.05
Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus 0.11 0.21 -----
Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo 0.05 0.05 0.53
Virginia Rail Rallus limicola 0.05 0.16 0.21
Sora Porzana carolina ----- 0.05 0.05
Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus 0.05 0.05 0.11
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus 11.63 10.89 5.79
Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia 0.42 0.05 0.05
Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda 0.26 0.21 0.26
Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago 1.05 7.26 3.53
American Woodcock Scolopax minor ----- ----- 0.05
Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis 155.74 52.95 5.05
Herring Gull Larus argentatus 0.11 ----- -----
Rock Dove Columba livia 43.89 26.16 10.37
Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura 17 7.58 7.00
Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus 1.26 0.79 1.00
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus 0.16 ----- 0.05
3-23
000160

1

Number of
Common Name Scientific Name Birds/Route
Eastern Screech-Owl Otus asio 0.11 ----- -----
Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus 0.11 ----- -----
Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor ----- 0.11 -----
Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica 2.63 0.95 1.32
Ruby-thr. Hummingbird Archilochus colubris 0.11 0.11 -----
Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon 0.47 0.47 0.79
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus 0.11 ----- -----
Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus 0.05 ----- 0.05
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius ----- ----- 0.11
Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens 1.42 0.68 0.68
Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus 0.05 0.11 0.16
Northern Flicker Colaptes spp. 3.47 3.16 2.21
Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus 0.05 0.26 0.42
Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens 6.16 4.84 3.47
Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum 5.00 2.32 1.26
Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii 10.37 0.89 0.74
Willow/Alder Flycatcher Empidonax spp. 15.37 3.21 2.00
Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus 3.63 1.32 1.37
Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe 4.68 3.68 4.84
Grt. Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus 2.74 1.95 1.53
Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus 5.89 5.32 8.16
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus ----- 0.16 0.05
Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons 0.21 0.32 1.53
Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius ----- ----- 0.05
Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus 15.37 8.26 8.05
Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus 5.68 4.58 9.58
Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata 3.53 4.68 5.26
American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 35.68 38.21 32.79
Common Raven Corvus corax ----- ----- 0.21
Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris 3.68 0.42 0.11
Purple Martin Progne subis 1.63 0.84 0.53
Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor 8.79 9.95 7.58
N. Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis 0.21 0.21 0.21
Bank Swallow Riparia riparia 7.37 5.58 0.21
Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota ----- 0.05 1.68
Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 19.11 16.89 26.89
Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus 5.63 2.32 5.95
White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis 0.16 0.32 1.79
House Wren Troglodytes aedon 13.63 11.11 10.89
Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes 0.05 ----- 0.16
Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis ----- 0.16 0.21
3-24
000161

1

Number of
Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris 0.11 0.05 3.32
Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis 0.11 0.42 0.26
Veery Catharus fuscescens 3.42 2.16 0.95
Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus ----- ----- 0.21
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina 8.74 4.21 5.05
American Robin Turdus migratorius 56.26 43.26 47.89
Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis 6.63 4.89 6.58
Northern Mockingbird Mimis polyglottos ----- ----- 0.16
Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum 1.32 2.47 2.37
European Starling Sturnus vulgaris 111.63 34.89 21.26
Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 10.37 4.11 4.89
Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus 0.11 ----- 0.05
Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera 0.16 0.11 2.21
Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla 0.05 0.05 -----
Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia 33.05 39.11 32.32
Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica 5.32 1.42 2.26
Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata 0.05 0.05 0.11
Black-thr. Green Warbler Dendroica virens 0.11 0.05 0.32
Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus 0.05 0.26 0.42
Cerulean Warbler Dendrocia cerulean ----- ----- 0.16
Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia 1.00 1.47 2.84
American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla 2.47 2.47 4.37
Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus 0.89 1.11 2.89
Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis 0.05 ----- 0.68
Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 29.89 20.05 30.37
Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens ----- 0.05 -----
Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis 0.11 ----- -----
Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea 0.58 0.32 2.05
Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus 3.42 2.74 9.79
Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina 12.32 8.84 11.37
Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla 3.84 2.89 7.79
Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus 1.32 0.26 0.05
Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 35.11 12.42 12.26
Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum 1.42 ----- -----
Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii 0.42 ----- 0.05
Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia 40.89 39.63 31.11
Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana 3.58 1.84 6.84
White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis 0.32 1.37 0.37
Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis ----- ----- 0.21
Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis 2.63 1.84 0.74
Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus 2.11 4.26 4.58
3-25
000162

1

Number of
Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea 0.79 2.11 8.21
Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 36.00 28.32 27.00
Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 166.05 74.47 86.63
Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna 25.47 21.84 23.84
Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula 35.00 14.42 16.63
Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater 10.84 5.68 4.84
Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula 10.47 5.47 3.16
Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus 0.05 0.26 0.26
House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus 4.00 0.37 1.05
American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis 35.05 13.58 17.58
House Sparrow Passer domesticus 27.32 27.84 15.74
Total Number of Species 110 104 117
1
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 1966-
2005.
2
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.

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
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.

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 Over Wintering Birds

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
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.

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
18 Dec 2004 28 Dec 2005
Common Name Scientific name (41 hrs) (31 hrs)
Snow Goose Chen caerulescens 11 --
Canada Goose Branta canadensis 4523 913
Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus -- 7
American Black Duck Anas rubripes 16 3
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 407 84
Greater Scaup Aythya marila 4 --
Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis 4 --
Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 1 170
Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 14 --
Common Merganser Mergus merganser 39 100
Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus -- 2
Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus -- 1
Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo 93 290
Great Blue Heron (Blue form) Ardea herodias -- 2
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 2
Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus 17 --
Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus 2 2
Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii 3 3
Accipiter sp. Accipiter -- 1
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis 52 84
Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus 13 11
American Kestrel Falco sparverius 1 3
3-28
000165

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
18 Dec 2004 28 Dec 2005
Common Name Scientific name (41 hrs) (31 hrs)
Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis 34 11
Herring Gull Larus argentatus 38 17
Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus 14 12
Rock Pigeon Columba livia 547 1002
Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura 284 638
Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus 2 2
Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens 15 13
Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus 6 7
Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus -- 5
Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus 1 1
Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor 2 6
Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata 74 163
American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 2601 1330
Common Raven Corvus corax 1 4
Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris 55 120
Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus 227 206
Tufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolor 1 --
Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta Canadensis 1 1
White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis 18 18
Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis -- 2
American Robin Turdus migratorius 181 2
European Starling Sturnus vulgaris 931 1672
Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 32 --
American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea 69 121
White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis -- 3
Dark-eyed (Slate-colored) Junco Junco hyemalis 14 20
Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus -- 3
Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis 614 51
Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis 31 41
Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 1 --
Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater 1 --
House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus 145 66
American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis 46 35
House Sparrow Passer domesticus 373 711
Total Number of Species 47 47
1
Source: National Audubon Society (2002). The Christmas Bird Count Historical Results [Online].
3-29
000166

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.

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 Threatened and Endangered Species

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.

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

Summary of Listed Species Reported in the Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Database
Suitable
Suitable Habitat in
Status Habitat On- Project Suitable Habitat in Project
Common Name Scientific Name (State/Federal) Source Site?¹ Area?¹ Area?¹
Vascular Plants
Wet meadows, floodplain
Michigan Lily Lilium michiganense Endangered (St.) NHP Yes Yes
forests, swamps
Autumnal Water-
Callitriche hermaphroditica Endangered (St.) NHP Yes Yes Lakes and streams
Starwort
Fish
S2-Imperiled
Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus NHP No Yes Rivers and lakes
(NHP listing)
Reptiles
Shrub swamps, marshes, and
Blanding’s Turtle1 Emydoidea blandingii Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes
shallow ponds
Birds2
Marshes, grasslands and
Short-eared owl Asio flammeus Endangered (St.) NHP Yes Yes
croplands
Black Tern Chlidonias niger Endangered (St.) NHP No Yes Freshwater marshes
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Endangered (St.) NHP Yes Yes Agricultural areas
Grasslands and rocky inland
Common Tern Sterna hirundo Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes
shores
Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis Threatened (St.) NHP No Yes Marshes
Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes Grasslands
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes Agriculture fields, grasslands
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened (St./Fed.) NHP No No Lakes, rivers, reservoirs
Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps Threatened (St.) NHP No Yes Streams, ponds, lakes, marshes
3-31
000168

Suitable
Suitable Habitat in
Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes Marshes and wet meadows
Henslow’s sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes Grasslands
Common Loon Gavia immer Special Concern (St.) NHP No Yes Lakes
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Special Concern (St.) NHP Yes Yes Marshes and swamps
Clay-colored sparrow Spizella pallida Special Concern (St.) NHP Yes Yes Grasslands
3
Mammals
Caves, mines, under rocks and
tree bark, floodplain forest,
Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered (St./Fed.) NHP Yes Yes
beech-maple forest, limestone
woodlands
Eastern small-footed Caves, mines, under rocks and
Myotis leibii Special Concern (St.) NHP No Yes
myotis tree bark, forest and forest edge
1. Documented within 0.6 mile of project site (NHP)
2. 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
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.

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
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 Areas of Critical Concern

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:
x A benefit or threat to human health;
x A natural setting (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat, forest and vegetation, open space and
areas of important aesthetic or scenic quality);
x Agricultural, social, cultural, historic, archaeological, recreational, or educational values;
or
x 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

Critical areas will be avoided.

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

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
x 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.
x 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.
x 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.
x 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.
x 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
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
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
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.

Existing land use, potential impacts, and proposed mitigation measures are discussed in the
following sections.
3-40
000177
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
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
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 40-
43]). 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
Table 3-9
Summary of Prime Farmland1 in the Project Area
Total Acres Total Percent
Farmland Class by Farmland Class by Farmland Class
Prime Farmland 1173 13
Prime Farmland if Drained 1852 20
Not Prime Farmland 2230 25
Farmland of Statewide Importance 3789 42
2
N/A 21 <1
1
Source: Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resource Conservation Service, United States Department of
Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Survey Area, State [Online].
2
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.

The Project would have impacts on land use. These would include temporary, construction-
related impacts, as well as permanent, long-term impacts. These impacts are described below.

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.

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
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.

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.

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

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.

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

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
(315) 654-3400
3-46
000183
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
(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
(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
(315) 785-4000
3-47
000184
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
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.

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
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
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 construction-
duration 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.

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
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
3.7 Cultural Resources

3.7.1 Archeological Resources
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
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

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 Architectural Resources

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
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.

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 Visual Resources/Community Character

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:
x Define the existing landscape character/visual setting to establish the baseline visual
condition from which visual change is evaluated;
x 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;
x Identify sensitive aesthetic resources to establish priority places from which further
analysis of potential visual impact is conducted;
3-56
000193
x Select key receptors from which detailed impact analysis is conducted;

x Depict the appearance of the facility upon completion of construction;
x Evaluate the aesthetic effects of the visual change (qualitative analysis) resulting from
Project construction, completion and operation; and,
x 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:
x Topography and vegetation;

x Water features;
x Transportation; and
x Population centers.
3-57
000194
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:
x 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;
area;
area; and
area.
x 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.
x 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
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.
x 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.
x 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.
x 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).
x 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, 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
x 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.
x 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.
x Based on the VRA, of 197 studied shadow receptors located within 10 rotor diameters:
22 (11.2 %) will be impacted 0-1 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
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:
x 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.
x 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
wind energy project and integrate best lighting configurations and practices during and after
construction.

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:
x 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.
x The wind turbines should be painted (using a non-specular material) an off-white color
and would not be used for commercial advertising.
x SLW places a high priority on facility maintenance, not only for operational purposes,
but for aesthetic appearances in the community as well.
x 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.
x Perimeter screen plantings will be used to minimize visibility of the proposed substation
and operations/maintenance buildings from the proposed right-of-way.
x 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.
x 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.
x 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
target points that assist in developing photographic simulations, a balloon visibility study has not
been conducted for this Project for several reasons:
x Balloon studies require relatively calm conditions to assure reliable balloon positioning.
By their very nature, wind energy sites are inherently windy places.
x 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.
x 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 Air Quality

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
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.

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
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.

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

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
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.

Although noise impacts are expected to be minor, mitigation measures would include:
3-67
000204
x Adhering to regular construction work hours Mondays through Saturdays, and typically
not working on Sundays or after hours;
x Implementing BMPs during construction, such as using appropriate mufflers; and
x 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.

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

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. Short-
term 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
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 two-
thirds 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
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.

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
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
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
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.

3.12.2.1 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
Television Communication Systems

The television analysis report developed by Comsearch detailed information for each of the off-
air 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 30-
day review of the Project, SLW would relocate the appropriate project facilities. Therefore,
impacts to the IRAC radio frequency transmissions are not anticipated.

3.12.3.1 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
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 30-
day review of the Project, SLW would relocate the appropriate project facilities.
3.13 Safety and Security

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
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.

3.13.2.1 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

3.13.3.1 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

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
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.

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 DHS.
3-79
000216
4.0 CUMULATIVE AND GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS

4.1 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
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
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
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
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:
x "Stimulating sustainable economic growth;"

x "Increasing energy diversity…including renewable-based energy;" and
x "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
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
7.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

7.1 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:
x Adequate wind speeds to support an economic project;
x Proximity to a transmission line that can transport energy generated by a project;
x Ability to build a project in compliance with applicable local, state, and federal laws and
regulations; and
x 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, three-
bladed, 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
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 energy-
generating 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:
x 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
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.
x 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.
x 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.
x 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
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 low-
cost. 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
7.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

7.1 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:
x Adequate wind speeds to support an economic project;
x Proximity to a transmission line that can transport energy generated by a project;
x Ability to build a project in compliance with applicable local, state, and federal laws and
regulations; and
x 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, three-
bladed, 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
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 energy-
generating 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:
x 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
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.
x 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.
x 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.
x 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
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 low-
cost. 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

Aspect of Affected
Physiography, Geology, Erosion and sedimentation during A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
and Soils construction. (SWPPP) would be developed and
implemented for the construction period.
Construction traffic could also create A Dust Control Plan would be developed and
airborne dust. implemented.
The proposed Project, once built, could A SWPPP would be developed and
potentially cause a minor alteration to implemented for the operational period.
existing drainage patterns.
Impacts to agricultural soils during SLW would follow NYS Department of
construction and operation Agriculture and Markets Guidelines for Siting
and Constructing Wind Farms.
Shallow bedrock and other geologic Geotechnical studies would be conducted prior
challenges (e.g., karst and problematic to final engineering design.
soils) could be encountered during
construction.
Release of hazardous substances A Spill Prevention, Containment, and
associated with construction or operation. Countermeasure Plan (SPCCP) would be
developed and implemented.
Water Resources Soil erosion during construction could A SWPPP would be developed and
impact ground water. implemented for the construction period.
Streams, Rivers, and Lakes Potential temporary impacts during Clearing near surface waters would be kept to a
construction could result from clearing minimum to prevent significant disturbance to
and grading near stream banks. the habitats associated with surface waters; A
SWPPP would be developed and implemented
for the construction period.
Overhead transmission line would cross Crossings of the Chaumont River and other
surface waterbodies. 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.
Wetlands Desktop data indicates that there could be To minimize the impacts to wetlands, no
minor temporary impact associated with Project infrastructure would be placed in
the construction of the overhead wetlands, unless absolutely necessary.
transmission line. 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.
1-4
000231

Aspect of Affected
Vegetation Clearing for construction may Clearing of vegetation would be minimized in
temporarily impact abundant vegetation areas that are ecologically sensitive, such as
communities. forested uplands, forested wetlands and the
banks of creeks crossed by the overhead
transmission line.
Non-bat Mammals Minor temporary impacts to wildlife The Project was designed to avoid significant
habitat associated with construction of the impact to wildlife. Project infrastructure is
Project would be limited to clearing of sited away from critical habitat and forested
forested habitat along the overhead clearing would be minimized or avoided to the
transmission line right-of-way and within extent possible.
small portions of the laydown area for 16
turbines.
Bats Bat collision with wind turbines is a Although impacts to bats are not anticipated to
potential impact. 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.
Migrating Birds During operation of the Project, there is SLW has selected the proposed Project layout
the potential that migratory birds could to minimize impacts to migrating birds.
collide with wind turbines. Should location of particular Project facilities
present a potential high risk for collision
impacts, SLW will explore alternative config-
urations to minimize risk at these locations.
Breeding Birds There may be a minor, temporary impact The proposed Project will encourage continued
during construction due to the clearing farming activities in the area by supplementing
and construction work in open nesting area farmers’ income. This will also result in
and foraging habitat. A much smaller the maintenance of open grassland habitats
footprint of such habitat, which is since the regional climate favors traditional late
abundant in the Project area, may be season harvest which is beneficial for grassland
displaced by Project infrastructure. birds.
Approximately 82 acres of second growth Mitigation is not necessary because conversion
deciduous forest would be cleared for of forest habitat in the Project area will benefit
Project components, which could result in birds that nest and forage in open habitats
temporary and permanent minor habitat which are relatively more important in the
loss for some forest-nesting avian species. region.
There is a low potential risk that local SLW is studying potential avian impact at the
breeding birds could collide with the Project site. The Project site is anticipated to
wind turbines. pose a low risk to breeding birds.
Threatened and Individual bats or bat colonies for the SLW is studying potential bat impact at the
Endangered Species Indiana bat and the small-footed myotis Project site. SLW has chosen to move forward
have been documented in Jefferson with site development, in part because the
County, within approximately 15 to 40 Project site is anticipated to pose a low risk to
miles of the proposed Project. No impacts threatened or endangered species. Although
are anticipated. 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.
1-5
000232

Aspect of Affected
There is a slight risk of collision for SLW is studying potential avian impact at the
migrating raptors. Project site. The Project site is anticipated to
pose a low risk to threatened or endangered
species.
There is a slight risk of collision for To mitigate temporary impacts to breeding
breeding birds. 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..
Suitable habitat for Michigan lily and SLW will develop a management plan to
autumnal water-starwort species may address the handling of these plants during
temporarily be disturbed during construction if impacts are unavoidable.
construction activities.
Transportation The potential need for the Project to SLW would obtain all necessary permits from
improve transportation infrastructure to NYSDOT and local highway department(s) in
accommodate construction needs or order to make necessary road improvements
repair damage to roads caused by and to operate oversized vehicles on the roads.
construction traffic. 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.
The need for the Project to temporarily A Transportation and Traffic Plan would be
relocate overhead lines and other facilities created for the Project and would address this
to accommodate oversize vehicles. issue.
Traffic delays and road closures due to SLW would assess work areas two weeks
transportation improvements or ahead of construction and would provide
construction traffic. schools (during the school-year), police, fire,
and emergency service agencies with advance
notice of lane or road closures.
1-6
000233

Aspect of Affected
Increased traffic generally over local A Transportation and Traffic Plan would be
roads during construction. 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.
Project construction traffic may create A Dust Control Plan would be developed and
fugitive dust. implemented for the construction period.
Transportation - If the SLW Project and BP projects are If construction is concurrent, coordination
Cumulative built during the same construction season, between the projects may be required, to make
it is possible that similar construction sure that responsibilities for road impacts and
transportation routes may be chosen. 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.
Land Use and Zoning The Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme The proposed Project is compliant with local
have no specific requirements for zoning and land use regulations.
development of wind projects in their
jurisdictions, but have general zoning and
land use regulations established for
development.
Construction of the Project would result SLW would follow NYS Department of
in the temporary disturbance of Agriculture and Markets Guidelines for
approximately 191 acres of agricultural Agricultural Mitigation for Wind Power
land and permanent conversion of 98 Projects.
acres of agricultural land to wind turbine
structures, a substation and pervious
access roads.
1-7
000234

Aspect of Affected
Utilities and Community The Project would result in minor short- Mitigation is not necessary as neither of these
Services and long-term increases in energy usage represents significant impacts on energy
associated with construction and resources.
operation of the Project.
Long-term energy use would increase Mitigation is not necessary as this impact
slightly as a result of facility would be minor because the amount of
maintenance. 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.
There is a remote possibility that some SLW would collaborate with the utility owners
overhead electrical distribution lines to reduce impacts to their facilities to the
would have to be temporarily relocated to maximum extent practicable.
accommodate crane routes.
During construction, large vehicles and SLW would assess work areas two weeks
temporary roads closures could block ahead of construction and would provide
emergency vehicle access to area farms schools (during the school-year), police, fire,
and homes. 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.
Cultural Resources Construction and operation of the Project The proposed Project layout would be
could affect archeological resources that modified, if necessary, to avoid impact to
are potentially eligible to the NRHP. 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.
Studies are being performed to determine If it is determined that the Project would result
whether the Project might be visible from in adverse effects, SLW would consider
historic structures listed in, eligible for, or whether minor redesign is feasible to avoid
recommended as potentially eligible for adverse effects. If avoidance of effects is not
the National Register of Historic Places. possible, SLW would work with the Towns of
Assessments would be made to determine Cape Vincent and Lyme, SHPO, the US Army
if the Project may result in adverse effects Corps of Engineers, and interested parties to
to potentially significant structures develop an MOA that would stipulate
located within the architecture APE. appropriate activities that would be performed
Visual effects that may result in a change to mitigate effects.
to the setting and/or character of a historic
property may be assessed as adverse.
1-8
000235

Aspect of Affected
Visual Resources The Project would be visible from a Although the visual mitigation options are
variety of locations within 5 miles of the limited given the nature of the Project and its
proposed Project area. 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.
Some residences located within 10 The proposed turbines would maintain
turbine diameters would experience some appropriate buffers to minimize visual
degree of shadow flicker in the Town of impact and extended shadow flicker.
Cape Vincent. Settlement agreements could be used to
purchase landscape screening (trees, shrubs),
or exclusionary treatments such as curtains
or blinds.
The United States Department of Aviation warning lighting would be limited to
Transportation Federal Aviation the minimum required by the FAA. The Project
Administration (FAA) requires aviation would purchase aviation warning lights that are
warning lights on the turbines, which shielded or otherwise directed so that they are
could present a potential adverse visual the least visible from the ground. Due to the
impact from some viewing locations. 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.
1-9
000236

Aspect of Affected
Visual - Cumulative Construction of the SLW Project and the The proposed mitigation described above
BP projects in relatively close proximity would be employed.
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.
Air Quality Temporary minor adverse impacts to air A Dust Control Plan would be developed and
quality may result from the operation of implemented for the construction period.
construction equipment and vehicles.
Noise The proposed Project would generate Adhering to regular construction work hours
noise during construction. 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.
The Project would not have significant Noise impacts will be avoided by buffers from
noise impacts during operation. 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.
Telecommunications It is unlikely that there would be a If Project operation results in any impacts to
significant impact to television signal existing off-air television coverage, SLW
coverage during Project operation. 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.
It is unlikely that the Project would Should the NTIA identify any Project-related
impact government communications. concerns related to signal blockage following
their 30-day review of the Project, SLW would
mitigate impacts as required.
1-10
000237

Aspect of Affected
There is a remote possibility that ice shed The use of buffers from roads and property
from turbines could cause personal or lines and public control measures would
property injury. 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.
Safety and Security There is a remote possibility that tower The use of buffers from roads and property
collapse or turbine failure could cause lines and public control measures would
personal or property injury. 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.
Wind power facilities have the potential Stray voltage concerns would be addressed
to create stray voltage only if the through proper electrical engineering design
electrical system is both poorly grounded and installation of all Project electrical
and located near underground or poorly components.
grounded metal objects.
Due to their height, physical dimensions, A Fire Prevention and Control Plan would be
and complexity, wind turbines may developed for the Project to ensure the safety
present response difficulties to local of company employees and local residents,
emergency responders should a fire occur visitors, and their property. Prior to the
within or near the structures. Storage and commencement of construction SLW would
use of diesel fuels, lubricating oils, and present, review and finalize the Fire Prevention
hydraulic fluids within the Project and Control Plan in cooperation with local fire
boundary also create the potential for fire departments.
or medical emergencies.
Due the height and materials used to The standard lightning protection system
construct, the wind turbines are installed within the rotor blades would be used
susceptible to lightning strikes. to prevent and minimize problems associated
with lightning strikes.
It is not anticipated that the proposed SLW would design all facilities in accordance
Project would be a target for any with guidance and regulations of the
homeland security concerns. Department of Homeland Security.
1-11
000238

Towns
Site Plan Approval and other land use considerations
Zoning Permit for erection of structures (Zoning Law Section 705).
Town of Cape Vincent Issuance of building permits/certificates of compliance. Review and approval of
Departments highway work permits/road agreements.
Planning Board findings
Town of Lyme
Special Permit (Zoning Board of Appeals) and other land use considerations
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Lyme Departments
Jefferson County
Completion of a NYS General Municipal Law Section 239-m review and issuance
Planning Department
of recommendations.
Jefferson County Industrial
Potentially involved with PILOT approval. If so, issuance of SEQRA Findings.
Development Agency (JIDA)
New York State
Potentially, Article 24 Permit for disturbance of state jurisdictional wetlands.
Department of Environmental SPDES General Permit for stormwater discharges (creation of SWPPP and
Conservation SPCCP). Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Issuance of SEQRA Findings as
an involved agency.
Department of State Division of
Coastal Resources
Department of Agriculture &
Submit Notice of Intent for work in an Agricultural District.
Markets
New York State Energy Research
Administration of Renewable Portfolio Standard procurement.
and Development (NYSERDA)
New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic
Cultural Resources Consultation.
Preservation (NYSOPRHP)
1-12
000239

Federal Agencies
Federal Aviation Administration
Notice of Construction and Aviation Lighting Plan.
(FAA)
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
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
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.
Occupational Safety and Health 29 CFR 1910 regulations (standard conditions for safe work practices during
Administration (OSHA) construction).
1-13
000240
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.

Towns
Town of Cape Vincent Site Plan Approval (Planning Board) and other land use considerations for
Code Enforcement Officer construction of turbine foundations and transmission line to Town boundary
Zoning Permit
Town of Cape Vincent Departments
Planning Board findings.
Town of Lyme Special Permit (Zoning Board of Appeals) and other land use considerations for
Zoning Board of Appeals construction of transmission line to substation
Town of Lyme Issuance of building permits. Review and approval of highway work
Departments permits/road agreements.
Jefferson County
Completion of a NYS General Municipal Law Section 239-m review and
Planning Department
issuance of recommendations.
Jefferson County IDA Potentially involved with PILOT approval. If so, issuance of SEQRA Findings.
New York State
Potentially, Article 24 Permit for disturbance of state jurisdictional freshwater
Department of Environmental wetlands. SPDES General Permit for stormwater discharges (creation of SWPPP
Conservation and SPCCP). Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Issuance of SEQRA
Findings as an involved agency.
Department of State
Division of Coastal Resources
New York State
Department of Agriculture & Markets Submit Notice of Intent for work in an Agricultural District.
2-14
000241

NYSERDA Administration of Renewable Portfolio Standard procurement.
NYSOPRHP (SHPO) Cultural Resources Consultation.
Federal Agencies
FAA 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
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 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.
29 CFR 1910 regulations (standard conditions for safe work practices during
OSHA
construction).
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
Table 3-1
Risk of Corrosion
¹a) Definition
independently.
(b) Classes
3-7
000243

3.2 Water Resources

Table 3-2
Water Withdrawals2
Type of Usages
1
2
3
3-10
000244

Suitable
Suitable Habitat in
Vascular Plants
Wet meadows, floodplain
Michigan Lily Lilium michiganense Endangered (St.) NHP Yes Yes
forests, swamps
Autumnal Water-
Callitriche hermaphroditica Endangered (St.) NHP Yes Yes Lakes and streams
Starwort
Fish
S2-Imperiled
Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus NHP No Yes Rivers and lakes
(NHP listing)
Reptiles
Shrub swamps, marshes, and
Blanding’s Turtle1 Emydoidea blandingii Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes
shallow ponds
Birds2
Marshes, grasslands and
Short-eared owl Asio flammeus Endangered (St.) NHP Yes Yes
croplands
Black Tern Chlidonias niger Endangered (St.) NHP No Yes Freshwater marshes
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Endangered (St.) NHP Yes Yes Agricultural areas
Grasslands and rocky inland
Common Tern Sterna hirundo Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes
shores
Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis Threatened (St.) NHP No Yes Marshes
Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes Grasslands
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes Agriculture fields, grasslands
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened (St./Fed.) NHP No No Lakes, rivers, reservoirs
Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps Threatened (St.) NHP No Yes Streams, ponds, lakes, marshes
3-31
000245

Suitable
Suitable Habitat in
Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes Marshes and wet meadows
Henslow’s sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes Grasslands
Common Loon Gavia immer Special Concern (St.) NHP No Yes Lakes
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Special Concern (St.) NHP Yes Yes Marshes and swamps
Clay-colored sparrow Spizella pallida Special Concern (St.) NHP Yes Yes Grasslands
3
Mammals
Caves, mines, under rocks and
tree bark, floodplain forest,
Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered (St./Fed.) NHP Yes Yes
beech-maple forest, limestone
woodlands
Eastern small-footed Caves, mines, under rocks and
Myotis leibii Special Concern (St.) NHP No Yes
myotis tree bark, forest and forest edge
1. Documented within 0.6 mile of project site (NHP)
2. 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
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. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

1000 The American Road 2003 Central Avenue
Morris Plains, New Jersey 07950 Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001
Ethan Prout, PG Lyman McDonald

Senior Geoscientist / Project Manager (307) 634-1756
(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
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
Jennifer Vitella, Biologist
(Biology, Ecology and Natural Resources)
Saratoga Associates, Inc. Comsearch
443 Broadway 19700 Janelia Farms Boulevard
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 Ashburn, Virginia 20147
Matt Allen, RLA, Associate Principal Denise Finney, Project Manager

(518) 587-2550 (703) 726-5650
8-1
000247
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. North American
Windpower. November 2005, pp. 16 -18.
9-1
000248
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, 2006. Hawkcount! [Online].

http://www.hawkcount.org [December 21, 2006].
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
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
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. http://www.acris.

nynhp.org/guide.php.
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
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
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
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. North American Waterfowl Management Plan. A
Strategy for Cooperation. 19pp.
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
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
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 Expected Effect on Receptors
Sound Levels (dBA)
0–3 No appreciable effect.
3–6 Potential for adverse noise impact only in cases where the most
sensitive receptors are present.
>6 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.
10 Perceived as a doubling of the sound level.
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) Source/Location Subjective Impression
180 Rocket Engine at 3 feet Severe Pain
160 Sonic Boom
140 Threshold of Pain Slight Pain
130 Hydraulic Press at 3 feet
120 Pneumatic Riveter at 3 feet Extremely Loud
110 Unmuffled Motorcycle at 3 feet
100 Chain Saw at 3 feet Very Loud
90 Train at 100 feet
80 Truck Traffic at 50 feet Moderately Loud
70 Auto Traffic at 50 feet
60 Normal Conversation Typical
50 Typical Office
40 Bedroom at Night Quiet
30 Soft Whisper
20 Sound Test Booth Very Quiet
10 Breathing
0 Threshold of Hearing No Sound
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 A-
weighted 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 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k Total Total
(dBA) (dB)
PWL 118.8 111.8 107.7 105.2 103.0 100.8 95.8 88.6 78.3 105.3 120.2
(dB re: 10-12 watts)
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 Number of Residences Predicted Increase in 45

Level Range (dBA) within Range dBA Ambient (dBA)
22.9 – 24.9 7 0
25 – 29.9 3 0 – 0.1
30 – 34.9 38 0.1 – 0.4
35 – 39.9 67 0.4 – 1.2
40 – 44.9 84 1.2 – 3.0
45 – 48.3 48 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) Predicted Sound Level (dBA)
100 56
200 54.4
300 52.5
400 50.8
500 49.2
600 47.8
700 46.6
800 45.4
900 44.4
1,000 43.4
1,100 42.5
1,200 41.7
1,300 40.9
1,400 40.2
1,500 39.5
1,600 38.9
1,700 38.2
1,800 37.7
1,900 37.1
2,000 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
Prepared for:
Tetra Tech EC, Inc.
1000 The American Road
Morris Plains, New Jersey 07950
January 7, 2007
Landscape Architects, Architects, ©Copyright All Rights Reserved Saratoga Associates

Engineers and Planners, P.C. #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 Landscape Units ............................................................................................................... 28
3.3.2 Viewer/User Groups.......................................................................................................... 30
3.3.3 Distance Zones ................................................................................................................. 32
3.3.4 Duration/Frequency/Circumstances of View..................................................................... 32
3.3.5 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 Visual Resource Assessment – January 7, 2007
#06-115.10M Page 1
000269
List of Figures
Figure 1 5–Mile Viewshed – Topography Only ................................................................................16

Figure 2 5–Mile Viewshed – Topography and Vegetation.................................................................17
Figure 3 Visually Sensitive Resource Location Map.........................................................................24
Figure 4 Photo Simulation Location Map........................................................................................38
Figure A1 Photo Simulation – VP#2 Broadway Historic District ......................................................... A-1
Figure A2 Photo Simulation – VP#24 Village of Cape Vincent Boat Launch ........................................ A-3
Figure A3 Photo Simulation – VP#27 Cocaigne, Nicholas, House...................................................... A-5
Figure A4 Photo Simulation – VP#33 Intersection Merchant Rd. & CR6 ............................................. A-7
Figure A5 Photo Simulation – VP#35 Dyer, Reuter, House ............................................................... A-9
Figure A6 Photo Simulation – VP#38 Wilson, Warren, House.......................................................... A-11
Figure A7 Photo Simulation – VP#39 Intersection Favret Rd. & Hell St. ........................................... A-13
Figure A8 Photo Simulation – VP#40 Burnham Point State Park/Seaway Trail ................................. A-15
Figure A9 Photo Simulation – VP#43 Vautrin, Claude, House.......................................................... A-17
Figure A10 Photo Simulation – VP#45 NY Rte.12E - Seaway Trail Near Millen Bay ............................. A-19
Figure A11 Photo Simulation – VP#48 Docteur, Joseph, House........................................................ A-21
Figure A12 Photo Simulation – VP#58 Intersection Macomb Settlement Rd. & St. Lawrence Rd. (CR9) A-23
Figure A13 Photo Simulation – VP#59 Intersection Rosiere Rd. (CR4) & St. Lawrence Rd. (CR9)........ A-25
Figure A14 Photo Simulation – VP#59.1 NY Rte. 12E- Seaway Trail at Cedar Point State Park............ A-27
Figure A15 Photo Simulation – VP#61 NY Rte.12E - Seaway Trail Near Pelo Rd................................. A-29
Figure A16 Photo Simulation – VP#36.1 Long Point State Park ........................................................ A-31
Figure B1 Line-of-Sight Profile A-A’ – Village of Clayton Looking to Turbine #93.................................. B-1
Figure B2 Line-of-Sight Profile B-B’ – Wolfe Island North Looking to Turbine #86................................ B-2
Figure B3 Line-of-Sight Profile C-C’ – Hamlet of Saint Lawrence Looking to Turbine #77..................... B-3
Figure B4 Line-of-Sight Profile D-D’ – Wolf island at Banford Point Looking to turbine #65................... B-4
Figure B5 Line-of-Sight Profile E-E’ – Carleton Island West Looking to Turbine #65............................. B-5
Figure B6 Line-of-Sight Profile F-F’ – Carleton Island East Looking to Turbine #33 .............................. B-6
Figure B7 Line-of-Sight Profile G-G’ – Wolfe Island South Looking to Turbine #9 ................................. B-7
Figure B8 Line-of-Sight Profile H-H’ – Grenadier Island Looking to Turbine #5..................................... B-8
Figure B9 Line-of-Sight Profile I-I’ – Long Point State Park Looking to Turbine #18 ............................. B-9
Figure B10 Line-of-Sight Profile J-J’ – Hamlet of Three Mile Bay Looking to Turbine #34 ..................... B-10
Figure C1 Proposed Turbine Shadow Limits – Topography Only ....................................................... C-3
Figure C2 Proposed Turbine Shadow Limits – Vegetated ................................................................. C-4
#06-115.10M Page 2
000270
List of Tables
Table 1 Viewshed Coverage Summary .........................................................................................14

Table 2 Demographic Summary of Study Area Municipalities (2000 Census) .......................................20
Table 3 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes for Study Area Highways (NYSDOT 2004) ....................20
Table 4 Visual Resource Visibility Summary ..................................................................................25
Table 5 Visual Resource Impact Summary....................................................................................34
Table 6 Key Receptors Selected for Photo Simulation ...................................................................36
Table C1 Shadow Impact on Existing Structures ............................................................................ C-1
#06-115.10M 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 decision-
makers 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;
#06-115.10M 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 5-
mile 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.
#06-115.10M 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.
#06-115.10M 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)
#06-115.10M 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
2000 census
4
Thompson, p.40
#06-115.10M 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
#06-115.10M 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.
#06-115.10M 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.
#06-115.10M 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;

! 60-80 turbines visible; and
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
#06-115.10M 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 non-
forest 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)
#06-115.10M 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 Vegetation and Topography Viewshed
(see Figure 1*) (see Figure 2)
Acres Percent Cover Acres Percent cover
No Turbines Visible 7,974 7 43,161 35%
1-20 Turbine Visible 6481 5 16,572 14%
20-40 Turbines Visible 5,283 4 9,593 8%
Total 121,581 100 121,574 100%
*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.
#06-115.10M 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 multi-
spectral 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 five-
mile study area.
#06-115.10M Page 15
000283
5-MILE VIEWSHED:
TOPOGRAPHY ONLY
Figure 1
Visual Resource Assessment
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project
s January 7, 2007
i le
M
5
KEY
CLAYTON
1 PROPOSED TURBINE (425' BLADE TIP HEIGHT)
1 AND 5 MILE BUFFERS
94 AREA OF VISIBILITY
90 95
91 1 - 20 TURBINES
12E 86
92 12
81
87
93 20 - 40 TURBINES
75
82 88
40 - 60 TURBINES
83 89
76
77 84 60 - 80 TURBINES
ile 69
80 - 95 TURBINES
1M
70 85
71
78
63 72 79
64 73 80
60 65 74
56 61 66
49 57
62
43 50 58 67
35
36 44 51 68
37 45
27 52
28 38 53
29 39
46
22 30 40 54
23 41 47
31
24 48 55
16 25
17 42
18 32
19 33
14 26
15 34
20
21
11 12
PROJECT # 2006 - 06115.10P
8 13 Copyright © 2006 Saratoga Associates. All Rights Reserved.
9 CAPE VINCENT
1 5 This map is com puter generated using data acquired by Sarato ga Associates
10
6 from various sources and is intended only for reference, concep tual planning
2 and presentation purpo ses. This map is not intended for and sho uld no t be
3 7
used to establish boundaries, property lines, location of ob jects or to provide
4 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
January 7, 2007
CLAYTON KEY
94
90 95
AREA OF VISIBILITY - TOPOGRAPHY & VEGETATION
12E 91
86
87
92 12 1 - 20 TURBINES
81 93
82 88 20 - 40 TURBINES
75
76 83 89
40 - 60 TURBINES
77 84
69
70 85 60 - 80 TURBINES
71
63 72
78
79 80 - 95 TURBINES
64 73 80
60 65 74
56 61 66
49 57
62
43 50 58 67
35
36 44 51 68
37 45
27 52
28 38 53
29 39
46
22 30 40 54
23 41 47
31
24 48 55
16 25
17 42
18 32
19 33
14 26
15 34
20
21
11 12 CAPE VINCENT
PROJECT # 2006 - 06115.10P
9
1 5 This map is com puter generated using data acquired by Sarato ga Associates
10
6 from various sources and is intended only for reference, concep tual planning
2 and presentation purpo ses. This map is not intended for and sho uld no t be
3 7
used to establish boundaries, property lines, location of ob jects or to provide
4 any other information typically needed for co nstruction or any other purpose
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.
#06-115.10M 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.
#06-115.10M 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 Demographic Summary of Study Area Municipalities (2000 Census)
Off-Season Vacation Season

Municipality Year Round Population Total Seasonal Vacation Vacation
Population Density Housing Housing Season Season
(off- Units Units Population Population
season) (% of total) Density
New York State 18,976,457 401.9
Jefferson County 111,738 88
Town of Cape Vincent 3,345 59 2,825 1,891 (67%) 8,281 147
Village of Cape Vincent 760 1,041 515 115 (22%) 1,060 1,452
Town of Cape Vincent excluding Village 2,585 46 2,310 1,776 (77%) 7,220 128
Town of Lyme 2,015 36 2,142 1,234 (58%) 5,236 93
Town of Clayton 4,817 58 3,391 1,333 (39%) 8,296 100

Village of Clayton 1,821 1,124 1,107 199 (18%) 2,340 1,445
Town of Clayton excluding Village 2,996 37 2,284 1,134 (50%) 5,956 72
Highway Corridors - Due to its rural,

location, many highways within the Table 3 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes for
study area are relatively lightly traveled. Study Area Highways (NYSDOT 2004)7
Primary roads include NY Rte.12E Route Section AADT
which travels north from Watertown to Rte.12E CR 8 to CR 57 (at Three Mile Bay) 2,758
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
northeast along the St. Lawrence River Rte.12E CR 9 to NY Rte.12 (Village of Clayton) 3,477
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
#06-115.10M 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 year-
round, 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. Cross-
country 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
#06-115.10M 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
http://www.seawaytrail.com/05_index.asp
9
http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/NY/Jefferson/state.html
#06-115.10M Page 22
000290
> 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.
#06-115.10M Page 23
000291
25 !
( 24
(
!
!
((
!
!
(
AESTHETIC
20
!
(
(
!
RESOURCES
17 19.1
!
15 (
(
!
!
( !
10 ((
! (
!
(
!
!
(
22 (
!
19 !(
9.1 !
(5 !
( 21
!
(
(
! (
! (
!
(
!
( !(!(
11
!
(
!
10.1 (
! 18
(
!
!6
( Figure 3
(
!
!
(8 Visual Resource Assessment
!
( !(
(
!
12.1
!
(3 (
!
!
(7
(
! (
!
13
(
!
!
(2
(
!
!
(
14
(
!
!
(4
(
!
!
(9
(
!
!
(
13.1 (
! !
(
65
January 7, 2007
s
ile
5M
!
(
61
KEY
!
(
26
(
!
VISUAL RECEPTOR
1
!
(
59.2
!
( 1 PROPOSED TURBINE (425' BLADE TIP HEIGHT)
!
(
59.1 CLAYTON
63
SEAWAY TRAIL SCENIC HIGHWAY
NATIONAL REGISTER SITE
"
)
94
STATE PARK
"
)
90 "
)
95 !
(
62
!
( 12E
"
)
81
"
)86
"
)
87
"
)
91
"
)
92
"
)
93
!
(
12
STATE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA
"
)
82 "
)88
"
)
75
"
)83 "
)
89 !
(
59
MAJOR ROAD
"
)76
44 !
( "
)
45
!
( "
) 84
ROAD
!
(
40.1
1M
i le "
)
69
"
)70
"
77
"
)
85
COUNTY BOUNDARY
)71
"
)
78
!
( "
)
63
"
)
72
"
) TOWN BOUNDARY
41 79
! "
)
64 "
)
73 "
)
80
(
40
42 " )60 "
) !
(
58
SHORELINE
65
56 !( "
)
74
"
) "
)
61
"
)
66
"
)
49
"
)
57
" AREA OF VISIBILITY - TOPOGRAPHY & VEGETATION
" "
) )
62
"
)
35 )
43 50
"
)
58 "
)
67
1 - 20 TURBINES
"
)
36 "
)
44
"
)
51 "
)68 !
(
46
"
) "
)
37 "
)
45
"
)
52
20 - 40 TURBINES
27
"
)
28 "
)
38
"
)
53 !
(43
"
) "
)
39
40 - 60 TURBINES
29
"
) "
)
30 "
)46
"
)
22
"
)
40
"
) "
)
47
54
"
)
23
"
)
31 41
60 - 80 TURBINES
"
)
24
!
(
39 "
)
48 "
)55
"
)
16
"
)
17 "
)
25
!
(38
80 - 95 TURBINES
!
(
24
"
)
18 "
)
32 "
)
42
(5 !
15 !
( (20
! 18 ! (
22
"
) "
)
33
(8 !
( 19
"
)14 "
)
26
(3 !
! 9 !
(
13 "
)
15
"
)
"
)
34
(4 ! ( 20
! "
)
21 !
(47
!
(
26 "
)11 "
)
12
!
(
48
!
(
49 PROJECT # 2006 - 06115.10P
!
(
28 "
)8 "
)
13
CAPE VINCENT
Copyright © 2006 Saratoga Associates. All Rights Reserved.
"5 "
)9
)1 )
" "
)
10 This map is computer generated using data acquired by Saratoga Associates
"6 !
) (27
from various sources and is intended only for reference, conceptual planning
"
)2 3 !
(
37 and presentation purposes. This map is not intended for and should not be
!
(
30 "
) "
)7 used to establish boundaries, property lines, location of objects or to provide
"
)4 !
(
35 any other information typically needed for construction or any other purpose
!
(
31
!
(
57
File Location: S:\GIS\06115\CapeVincent_AestheticResources_PHOTOLOG.mxd
!
(
33 !
(35.1
LYME
!
(
32
!
(
56
!
(
51
!
(
53
!
(
12E !
(
36
!
( !
(
54 56
(
!
(
!
!
(
55
(
!
! !
(
51
(
!
(
50
(
!
BROWNVILL
!
(
53
(
!
0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles ¯
000292
Table 4 Visual Resource Visibility Summary
Potential Visibility
Key
ƔVisibility Indicated Theoretical Theoretical
żNo Visibility Indicated

View Indicated View Indicated Actual View
by Viewshed - by Viewshed - Likely Based
Ž Filtered view through trees or limited view through structures possible (field observed) Excluding
Existing
Including
Existing
on Field
Confirmation
Map Vegetation Vegetation of Existing
ID Receptor Name Municipality Inventory Type (see Figure 1) (see Figure 2) Line-of-sight10
Cultural Resources
2 Broadway Historic District Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ

3 LeRay, Vincent, House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ž
4 St. Vincent of Paul Catholic Church Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ž
5 Lewis House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ ż
6 Roxy Hotel Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ ż
7 Borland, John, House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ ż
8 Buckley, James, House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ ż
9 St. John's Episcopal Church Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ ż
10.1 Sacket, Cornelius, House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ ż
12.1 Starkey, Otis, House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ ż
13
Galband du Fort, Jean Philippe,
House
Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
18 Glen Building Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ ż
19 Burnham, E. K., House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ž
20 Duvillard Mill Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ž
21 Aubertine Building Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ž
22 Anthony, Levi, Building Vilage of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ž
26 Sacket, General, House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
27 Cocaigne, Nicholas House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
28 Peugnet, Captain Louis, House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ž
30 Johnson House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ž
31 Tibbetts Point Lighthouse Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance ż ż View from top
of lighthouse
10
Field confirmation of potential visibility was conducted on December 12, 2006. Refer 3.4.1for additional
information.
#06-115.10M Page 25
000293
Key

Existing
Including
Existing
on Field
Confirmation
32 Rogers Brothers Farmstead Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ

35 Dyer, Reuter, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
36 District School No. 3 Town of Lyme Statewide Significance ż ż ż
37 Dezengremel, Remy, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
38 Wilson, Warren, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
40.1 Fort Haldimand Site Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Not visited
41 Reynolds, George, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ

42 Chevalier, Xavier, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
43 Vautrin, Claude, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
44 Union Meeting House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
48 Docteur, Joseph, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
50 The Row Town of Lyme Statewide Significance ż ż ż
51 Taft House Town of Lyme Statewide Significance ż ż ż
53 Taylor Boathouse Town of Lyme Statewide Significance ż ż ż
54 Three Mile Bay Historic District Town of Lyme Statewide Significance ż ż ż
55 Wheeler, Menzo, House Town of Lyme Statewide Significance ż ż ż
56 Stone Shop, Old Town of Lyme Statewide Significance ż ż ż
Recreational and Tourist Resources
9.1
Village of Cape Vincent River
Access
Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Ɣ Ɣ ż
10
Village of Cape Vincent Historical
Museum
Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Ɣ Ɣ ż
11 Cape Vincent Village Green Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Ɣ Ɣ ż
13.1 Cape Vincent Recreation Park Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
15 Wolfe Island Ferry Landing Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Ɣ Ɣ ż
17 Cape Vincent Public Dock Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Ɣ Ɣ ż
19.1
NYS DEC Research Station &
Aquarium
Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ž
#06-115.10M Page 26
000294
Key

Existing
Including
Existing
on Field
Confirmation
24
Village of Cape Vincent Boat
Launch
Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
25 Village Waterfront Park Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
36.1 Long Point State Park Town of Lyme Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
40.2 Burnham Point State Park Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ž
49
Ashland Flats Wildlife Management
Area
Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
59.2 Cedar Point State Park Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ ż
62
French Creek State Wildlife
Management Area
Town of Clayton Local Importance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
Highway Corridors/Roadside Receptors
33 Intersection Merchant Rd & CR6 Town of Cape Vincent Other Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ

35.1
NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail Near
Bates Rd
39 Intersection Favret Rd & Hell St. Town of Cape Vincent Other Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
40
NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail at
Burnham Point State Park
45
Millen Bay
46
Intersection Millers Bay Rd &
Rosiere Rd (CR4)
Town of Cape Vincent Other Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
47 Intersection Favret Rd & CR 4 Town of Cape Vincent Other Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
57 Intersection CR5 & Millers Bay Rd Town of Lyme Other Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
58
Intersection Macomb Settlement
Rd & St Lawrence Rd (CR9)
Town of Clayton Other Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
59
Intersection Rosiere Rd (CR4) & St
Lawrence Rd (CR9)
Town of Cape Vincent Other Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
59.1
NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail at Cedar
Point State Park
61
Pelo Rd
Town of Clayton Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
63
Intersection of Deferno Rd & Grant
Rd
Town of Clayton Other Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
65
NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail 1 Mile SE
of Clayton
Town of Clayton Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
Residential/Community Resources
14 Cape Vincent Elementary School Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
#06-115.10M 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
#06-115.10M 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 tree-
lined 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
#06-115.10M 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
#06-115.10M 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.
#06-115.10M 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.
#06-115.10M 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.
#06-115.10M Page 33
000301
Table 5 Visual Resource Impact Summary
Factors Affecting Visual Impact
Approximate
Number of
Turbines Distance (miles)
Map Visible Landscape Viewer/User /Distance Zone Moving/
ID Receptor Name Municipality Inventory Type (see Figure 2) Unit Group(s) (nearest turbine) Stationary
2 Broadway Historic District Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 21 Village Center local residents, tourists 1.0 / Foreground (T1) Stationary
3 LeRay, Vincent, House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 55 Village Center local residents 1.0 / Middleground (T1) Stationary
4 St. Vincent of Paul Catholic Church Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 77 Village Center local residents 0.8 / Middleground (T1) Stationary
13 Galband du Fort, Jean Philippe, House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 30 Village Center local residents 0.9 / Middleground (T1) Stationary
local residents,
13.1 Cape Vincent Recreation Park Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance 27 Village Center 0.8 / Middleground (T1) Stationary
recreational, tourists
14 Cape Vincent Elementary School Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance 18 Village Center local residents 0.8 / Middleground (T5) Stationary
19 Burnham, E. K., House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 93 Village Center local residents 1.1 / Middleground (T1) Stationary
19.1 NYS DEC Research Station & Aquarium Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 37 Village Center tourists 1.1 / Middleground (T5) Stationary
20 Duvillard Mill Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 89 Village Center local residents 1.1 / Middleground (T5) Stationary
21 Aubertine Building Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 89 Village Center local residents 1.1 / Middleground (T5) Stationary
22 Anthony, Levi, Building Vilage of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 92 Village Center local residents 1.1 / Middleground (T8) Stationary
local residents,
24 Village of Cape Vincent Boat Launch Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance 87 Village Center 1.0 / Middleground (T11) Stationary
local residents,
25 Village Waterfront Park Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance 89 Village Center 1.0 / Middleground (T11) Stationary
26 Sacket, General, House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 74 Village Center local residents 0.6 / Middleground (T5) Stationary
27 Cocaigne, Nicholas House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 84 Rural Agricultural local residents 0.2 / Foreground (T6) Stationary
28 Peugnet, Captain Louis, House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 5 Waterfront local residents 1.0 / Middleground (T1) Stationary
30 Johnson House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 2 Waterfront local residents 1.7 / Middleground (T1) Stationary
32 Rogers Brothers Farmstead Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 2 Waterfront local residents 2.0 / Middleground (T4) Stationary
travelers, local residents,
33 Intersection Merchant Rd & CR6 Town of Cape Vincent Other 27 Rural Agricultural 0.8 / Middleground (T4) Moving
workers
35 Dyer, Reuter, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 35 Rural Agricultural local residents 1.2 / Middleground (T13) Stationary
travelers, local residents.
35.1 NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail Near Bates Rd Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 79 Rural Agricultural 1.9 / Foreground (T10) Moving
tourists
36.1 Long Point State Park Town of Lyme Statewide Significance 95 Waterfront recreational 7.0 / Background (T34) Stationary
37 Dezengremel, Remy, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 9 Rural Agricultural local residents 1.3 / Middleground (T34) Stationary
38 Wilson, Warren, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 95 Rural Agricultural local residents 0.3 / Foreground (T31) Stationary
39 Intersection Favret Rd & Hell St. Town of Cape Vincent Other 57 Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents 0.3 / Foreground (T42) Moving
NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail at Burnham travelers, local residents.
40 Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 58 Waterfront 0.5 / Middleground (T49) Moving
Point State Park tourists
40.1 Fort Haldimand Site Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 24 Waterfront tourists 1.8 / Middleground (T35) Stationary
40.2 Burnham Point State Park Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 58 Waterfront recreational 0.5 / Middleground (T49) Stationary
42 Chevalier, Xavier, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 91 Rural Agricultural local residents 0.3 / Foreground (T56) Stationary
43 Vautrin, Claude, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 75 Rural Agricultural local residents 0.4 / Foreground (T54) Stationary
44 Union Meeting House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 31 Waterfront local residents 0.6 / Middleground (T69) Stationary
#06-115.10M Page 34
000302
Table 5 Visual Resource Impact Summary
Factors Affecting Visual Impact
Approximate
Number of
Turbines Distance (miles)
Map Visible Landscape Viewer/User /Distance Zone Moving/
ID Receptor Name Municipality Inventory Type (see Figure 2) Unit Group(s) (nearest turbine) Stationary
45 NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail Near Millen Bay Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 72 Waterfront 0.5 / Middleground (T69) Moving
tourists
Intersection Millers Bay Rd & Rosiere Rd
46 Town of Cape Vincent Other 90 Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents 0.8 / Middleground (T74) Moving
(CR4)
47 Intersection Favret Rd & CR 4 Town of Cape Vincent Other 92 Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents 0.9 / Middleground (T55) Moving
48 Docteur, Joseph, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 82 Rural Agricultural local residents 1.1 / Middleground (T55) Stationary
49 Ashland Flats Wildlife Management Area Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 44 Rural Agricultural recreational 1.5 / Middleground (T55) Stationary
57 Intersection CR5 & Millers Bay Rd Town of Lyme Other 27 Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents 4.0 / Background (T55) Moving
Intersection Macomb Settlement Rd & St
58 Town of Clayton Other 14 Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents 2.9 / Middleground (T93) Moving
Lawrence Rd (CR9)
Intersection Rosiere Rd (CR4) & St
59 Town of Cape Vincent Other 58 Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents 1.0 / Middleground (T93) Moving
Lawrence Rd (CR9)
NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail at Cedar Point travelers, local residents.
59.1 Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance 49 Waterfront 0.8 / Middleground (T94) Moving
State Park tourists
61 NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail Near Pelo Rd Town of Clayton Statewide Significance 95 Waterfront 1.7 / Middleground (T94) Moving
tourists
French Creek State Wildlife Management
62 Town of Clayton Local Importance 5 Rural Agricultural recreational 0.2 / Foreground (T95) Stationary
Area
63 Intersection of Deferno Rd & Grant Rd Town of Clayton Other 71 Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents 4.0 / Background (T95) Moving
NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail 1 Mile SE of travelers, local residents.
65 Town of Clayton Statewide Significance 3 Waterfront 4.6 / Background (T95) Moving
Clayton tourists
#06-115.10M 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
visual impact (viewer/user groups, 24 Village of Cape Vincent Boat Launch
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
circumstances of view discussed 39 Intersection Favret Rd. & Hell St.
40 NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail at Burnham Point State Park
above (see section 3.3). 43 Vautrin, Claude, House
45 NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail Near Millen Bay
48 Docteur, Joseph, House
These simulations do not include 58 Intersection Macomb Settlement Rd & St Lawrence Rd (CR9)
59 Intersection Rosiere Rd (CR4) & St Lawrence Rd (CR9)
views from all potentially affected 59.1 NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail at Cedar Point State Park
61 NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail Near Pelo Rd
visual resources, but rather provide 36.1 Long Point State Park
representative examples of how the
12
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).
#06-115.10M 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 three-
dimensional 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).
#06-115.10M Page 37
000305
PHOTO SIMULATION
LOCATION MAP
Figure 4
i le
s January 7, 2007
5M
!
61 (
!
KEY
!59.1
(
!
1(
!
VISUAL RECEPTOR
)
"
94 PHOTO SIMULATION LOCATION
)
"90 "
)
95
!
(
12E
)
"
81
)
"86
)
"
87
)
"
91
)
"
92
"
)
93
!
(
12 AREA OF VISIBILITY - TOPOGRAPHY & VEGETATION
)
"
82 )
"88 1 - 20 TURBINES
)
"
75
)
" )
"
89 !
59
(
!
20 - 40 TURBINES
83
!45 )
"
76
)
"
)
" 84
(
!
77
)
"
69
)
"70
)
"
85 40 - 60 TURBINES
)
"
71
)
"
)
"
63
)
"72
78
)
"79 60 - 80 TURBINES
)
"
64
)
"
73 )
"
80
!
40
(
!
)
"
60 "
)
65 !
58
(
!
80 - 95 TURBINES
)
"
56 )
"
61
)
"
74
)
"
66
)
"
49
)
"
57
)
"
62
)
"
35 )
"
43 "
)
50
)
"58 )
"
67
)
"36 )
"44
)
"51 )
"
68
)
" )
"
37 )
"
45
)
"
52
27
)
"
28 )
"
38
"
)53 !
43(
!
)
"
29 )
"
39
)
"
46
)
"
22 )
"30
)
"40 )
"
54
)
"
23
"
)
31 )
"41 )
"
47
"
)24
!39 )
"
48 )
"
55
)
"
(
!
16
!
24 )
"
17 )
"
25
!38
(
!
)
"
42
"
)
(
!
)
"
18 32
)
"
14 "
)
19
"
)
26 )
"33
!2
(
! )
"
15
)
"20
)
"
34
"
)
21
)
"
11 "
)
12
!
48
(
!
)8
" )
"13 PROJECT # 2006 - 06115.10P
)9
" Copyright © 2006 Saratoga Associates. All Rights Reserved.
"1 "
) )5 )
"
10
)6 !
" 27
(
!
This map is computer generated using data acquired by Saratoga Associates
)2
" from various sources and is intended only for reference, conceptual planning
)3
" "7
) and presentation purposes. This map is not intended for and should not be
)4
" !
35
(
! used to establish boundaries, property lines, location of objects or to provide
any other information typically needed for construction or any other purpose
File Location: S:\GIS\06115\CapeVincent_AestheticResources_PHOTOLOG.mxd
!
33
(
!
!
( 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.
#06-115.10M 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 (10-
foot 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
#06-115.10M 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 man-
made 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.
#06-115.10M 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
http://www.meridianenergy.co.nz/WindProjects/Project+west+wind/appendixcpage8690.pdf
15
http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/renew_3.5.1.4.htm
#06-115.10M 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 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0.33 0.39 0.46 0.49 0.55 0.59 0.63 0.59 0.53 0.44 0.26 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 NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW Calm
511 517 739 352 187 215 427 1008 658 499 469 880 740 621 423 445 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
http://ggweather.com/ccd/avgsun.htm (data for Syracuse, NY)
17
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_history.php?station=GLLN6
#06-115.10M 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;

! 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.
#06-115.10M Page 44
000312
4.0 MITIGATION PROGRAM
Professional Design
! 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.
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.
#06-115.10M 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)
#06-115.10M 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.
#06-115.10M 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.
#06-115.10M 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,
#06-115.10M 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.
#06-115.10M 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.
#06-115.10M 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:

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).
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.
#06-115.10M 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.
#06-115.10M 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.
#06-115.10M 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.
#06-115.10M Page 55
000323
Appendix A
Photographic Simulations
000324
Figure A1a
Existing Condition Photo Simulation
VP2 Broadway Historic District
Village of Cape Vincent, NY
St. Lawrence 1.0 miles from nearest turbine (T1)
Wind Farm
000325
Figure A1b
Proposed Condition Photo Simulation
VP2 Broadway Historic District
Wind Farm
000326
Figure A2a
VP#
24 Village of Cape Vincent Boat Launch
Wind Farm
000327
Figure A2b
VP#
24 Village of Cape Vincent Boat Launch
Wind Farm
000328
Figure A3a
VP#27 Cocaigne, Nicholas, House
Town of Cape Vincent, NY
Wind Farm
000329
Figure A3b
VP#27 Cocaigne, Nicholas, House
Wind Farm
000330
Figure A4a
VP#
3Inters
etcion e
Mrc
hant Rd
.&C
R6
Wind Farm
000331
Figure A4b
VP#
3Inters
etcion e
Mrc
hant Rd
.&C
R6
Wind Farm
000332
Figure A5a
VP#24 D
yer,Reuter,oHuse
Wind Farm
000333
Figure A5 b
VP#24 D
yer,Reuter,oHuse
Wind Farm
000334
Figure A6a
VP#8
3 iW
ls
on,a
Wrren,o
Hus
e
Wind Farm
000335
Figure A6 b
VP#8
3 iW
ls
on,a
Wrren,o
Hus
e
Wind Farm
000336
Figure A7
a
VP#
9
3n
I ters
etcion Favret Rd
.&e
Hll St.
Wind Farm
000337
Figure A7
b
VP#
9
3n
I ters
etcion Favret Rd
.&e
Hll St.
Wind Farm
000338
Figure A8a
VP40 NY Rte 12E-Seaway Trail at Burnham State Park
Wind Farm
000339
Figure A8b
VP40 NY Rte 12E-Seaway Trail at Burnham State Park
Wind Farm
000340
Figure A9a
VP#43 Vautrin, Claude, House
Wind Farm
000341
Figure A9b
VP#43 Vautrin, Claude, House
Wind Farm
000342
Figure A10a
VP#45 NY Rte. 12E-Seaway Trail Near Millen Bay
Town of Clayton, NY
Wind Farm
000343
Figure A10b
VP#45 NY Rte. 12E-Seaway Trail Near Millen Bay
Town of Clayton, NY
Wind Farm
000344
Figure A11a
VP#48 Docteur, Joseph, House
Wind Farm
000345
Figure A11a
VP#48 Docteur, Joseph, House
Wind Farm
000346
Figure A12a
VP#58 Intersection Macomb Settlement Rd. & St. Lawrence Rd. (CR9)
Wind Farm
000347
Figure A12b
VP#58 Intersection Macomb Settlement Rd. & St. Lawrence Rd. (CR9)
Wind Farm
000348
Figure A13a
VP#59 Intersection Rosiere Rd. (CR4) & St. Lawrence Rd. (CR 9)
Wind Farm
000349
Figure A13b
VP#59 Intersection Rosiere Rd. (CR4) & St. Lawrence Rd. (CR 9)
Wind Farm
000350
Figure A14a
VP#59.1 NY Rte. 12E-Seaway Trail at Cedar Point State Park
Wind Farm
000351
Figure A14b
VP#59.1 NY Rte. 12E-Seaway Trail at Cedar Point State Park
Wind Farm
000352
Figure A15a
VP#61 NY Rte. 12E—Seaway Trail Near Pelo Rd.
Town of Clayton, NY
Wind Farm
000353
Figure A15b
VP#61 NY Rte. 12E—Seaway Trail Near Pelo Rd.
Town of Clayton, NY
Wind Farm
000354
Figure A16a
VP#36.1 Long Point State Park
Town of Lyme, NY
Wind Farm
000355
Figure A16b
VP#36.1 Long Point State Park
Town of Lyme, NY
Wind Farm
000356
!
PROPOSED TURBINE
149
!
70
!
71
!8 9
!
! !
146 147
!!
150
151 "
)
94 SHADOW LIMITS -
!
TOPOGRAPHY ONLY
69
! 144 "
)
90 !!
152
196
"
)
95
! 143 ! 197
!
141
"
)
91
!
67 !
! 68 "
)
86
154
!
155
!6 Figure C1
"
) !
! !
140
92 156
139 "
)
87
"
)
93
10 !
! 158
! 138
!
66 "
)
81
!
64
"
)
82 "
)
88
60 !
62
!
!
58
"
)
75
"
)
December 2006
! 89
"
) !5 !
57
83 193
"
)
76
!4 !192
"
)
77 "
)
84
90 !
! 87
"
)
69
!
190 KEY
92 !
! 91
!
86 "
)
70 !191
"
)
85 "
1 EXISTING STRUCTURE LOCATION
"
)
71
!
19
"
)
78 1 PROPOSED TURBINE (425' BLADE TIP HEIGHT)
!!
136
134 !
18
"
)
63
!
85
"
)
72
!95 ! !
84 83 "
)
79 3000 FT. BUFFER OF TURBINES
! ! !
21
"
)
133 56
!
22 "
)
64
"
)
73
80
! ! EXPECTED HOUR OF SHADOW FLICKER PER YEAR
55
!
108
94
!
93
!
81
!
159
!
110
! "
)
60 "
)
65 <1
23
!!
78 "
)
74
!
160
! 109 "
)
56
!
137
"
)
61
"
)
66
!
77
79
1 - 10
!!! 113 112
!
!16
! ! !161
11 - 20
!
132
114
!111 "
)
49 ! 103
"
)
57
15 80 189
"
)
62 21 - 30
"
) "
)
50
"
) 31 - 40
!
54 "
)
35
43
!
104
"
)
58
!
75
67
!
163
!
131
"
)
36
"
)
44
"
) "
)
41 - 50
!
105
51
!
72 !
76 68
> 50
!! "
) !
45
129
130
"
)
37
!
106
"
)
52
73
"
)
27
"
)
38
!
74
!
53 "
)
28
!
99 "
)
53
52 !
!
128 "
)
39 !
100
!
47 !
"
)
29 187
! 49
"
)
46
!!! "
) "
) "
)
46
127
1
22 30
"
)
40 ! 101
54
!
!44
"
)
23 "
)
41
! "
)
47
41
"
)
31
98
!
"
)
24 ! !
117
116
96
"
)
48 "
)
55
!
39 !
125
!
118
!115
"
)
16
"
)
25
"
)
17 !2 !
97
!!
121 122
"
)
"
)
42
!
"
)
18
!
32 186
PROJECT # 2006 - 06115.10P
!!
123
124
119
!184
!3 Copyright © 2006 Saratoga Associates. All Rights Reserved.
"
)
14
"
)
19
"
)
26
"
)
33
!
185
"
)
15 "
)
34
and presentation purposes. This map is not intended for and should not be
"
)
20 used to establish boundaries, property lines, location of objects or to provide
!
181
!! "
)
21
!
!
!
32 182
183
26
"
)
11 "
)
12 File Location: S:\GIS\06115\CapeVincent_Shadow_Flicker_Topo_Only.mxd
!
180
28 !
!
176 !
178
!179
! !
36
"
29
"
)8 )
13
!
169 "
)9
!
30
"
)1 "
)5
!
35 "
)
10
"
)6 !
167
!
174
"
)2 !
34
"
)3 !
168
"
)7 !
33
!164
! 170
"
)4
!
31
!!
172
171
0 0.5 1
Miles
¯
000357
!
PROPOSED TURBINE
149
!
70
!
71
!8
!9
! !
146 147
!!
150
151 "
)
94 SHADOW LIMITS -
!
VEGETATED*
69
! 144 "
)
90 !!
152
196
"
)
95
! 143 ! 197
!
141
"
)
91
!
*Assumes a uniform tree hieght of 40' (12.192 m) in forested areas.
67 !
! 68 "
)
86
154
!
155
!6
"
) ! Figure C2
! !
140
92 156
139 "
)
87
10 !
! 158
! 138
!
66 "
)
81
"
)
93
!
64
"
)
82 "
)
88 St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project
60 !
62
! "
)
75
!
December 2006
58
!
57
"
)
83
!5 !193 "
)
89
"
)
76
!4 !192
"
)
77 "
)
84
"
)
69
90 !
! 87 !
190
KEY
92 !
! 91
!
86 "
)
70 !191
"
)
85
"
)
71 1
" EXISTING STRUCTURE LOCATION
!
19
"
)
78
!! 1 PROPOSED TURBINE (425' BLADE TIP HEIGHT)
136
134 !
18
"
)
63
!
85
"
)
72
!95 ! !
84 83 "
)
79
! ! !
21
"
) 3000 FT. BUFFER OF TURBINES
133 56
!
22 "
)
64
"
)
73
80
! !
55
!
108
94
!
93
!
81
!
159
EXPECTED HOUR OF SHADOW FLICKER PER YEAR
!
110
! "
)
60 "
)
65
23
!!
78 "
)
74
!
160
<1
! 109 "
)
56
!
137
"
)
61
"
)
66
!
77
79
!16
! 11 - 10
!!! !
161
114
113 112
"
)
49 ! 103 !
15 !
80
! 189
11 - 20
!
132
111
"
)
57
"
)
62
"
)
50 21 - 30
"
) "
)
43
"
)
58
! "
)
67
!
163
!
54 35
!
104
75
31 - 40
!
131
"
)
36
"
)
44
"
) "
)
!
105
51
!
72 !
76 68 41 - 50
!! "
) !
45
129
130
"
)
37
!
106
"
)
52
73
> 50
"
)
27
"
)
38
!
74
!
53 "
)
28
!
99 "
)
53
52 !
!
128 "
)
39 !
100
!
47 !
"
)
29 187
! 49
"
)
46
!!! "
) "
) "
)
46
127
1
22 30
"
)
40 ! 101
54
!
!44
"
)
23 "
)
41
! "
)
47
41
"
)
31
98
!
"
)
24 ! !
117
116
96
"
)
48 "
)
55
!
39 !
125
!
118
!115
"
)
16
"
)
25
"
)
17 !2 !
97
!!
121 122
"
)
"
)
42
!
"
)
18
!
32 186
PROJECT # 2006 - 06115.10P
!!
123
124
119
!184
!3 Copyright © 2006 Saratoga Associates. All Rights Reserved.
"
)
14
"
)
19
"
)
26
"
)
33
!
185
"
)
15 "
)
34
"
)
20 used to establish boundaries, property lines, location of objects or to provide
!
181
!! "
)
21
!
!
!
32 182
183
26
"
)
11 "
)
12 File Location: S:\GIS\06115\CapeVincent_Shadow_Flicker_Veg.mxd
!
180
28 !
!
176 !
178
!179
! !
36
"
29
"
)8 )
13
!
169 "
)9
!
30
"
)1 "
)5
!
35 "
)
10
"
)6 !
167
!
174
"
)2 !
34
"
)3 !
168
"
)7 !
33
!164
! 170
"
)4
!
31
!!
172
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 e-
mail to ethan.proutts' tteci.corn.
Sincerely,
Te tra Tech EC, Inc.
r .- r-; ,...
r ,.
!....-. -
tJ'lr yJ(\
J-
Ethan E. Prout, PG
Project Manager
SGS
1000 The American Road, Morris Plains, NJ 07950
Tel 973.630.8000 F:lX 973.630.8025
WWN.tteci.com
000370
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, ©Copyright All Rights Reserved Saratoga Associates

Engineers and Planners, P.C. #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 Supplemental Shadow Flicker Analysis – May 18, 2007
#06-115.10M Page 2
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 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0.33 0.39 0.46 0.49 0.55 0.59 0.63 0.59 0.53 0.44 0.26 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 NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW Calm
511 517 739 352 187 215 427 1008 658 499 469 880 740 621 423 445 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
http://ggweather.com/ccd/avgsun.htm (data for Syracuse, NY)
3
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 Page 3
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
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.
! 89 (10.2%) will be impacted less than 1 hr/yr;

! 12 (1.4%) will be impacted 41-50 hrs/yr; and
5
NYS GIS Clearinghouse, Statewide Digital Orthoimagery Program. 2003 imagery.
#06-115.10M Page 4
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
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.
! 89 (10.2%) will be impacted less than 1 hr/yr;

! 12 (1.4%) will be impacted 41-50 hrs/yr; and
5
NYS GIS Clearinghouse, Statewide Digital Orthoimagery Program. 2003 imagery.
#06-115.10M Page 4
000375
The eight (8) receptors that will theoretically be impacted more than 50 hours per year include:
! Structure #24 54 hrs/yr

#06-115.10M Page 5
000376
Table C1 Shadow Impact on Existing Structures
Shadow Hrs/Year Shadow Hrs/Year Shadow Hrs/Year Shadow Hrs/Year
Excluding Including Excluding Including
Screening Effect Screening Effect Screening Effect Screening Effect of
Existing of Existing Forest of Existing Forest Existing of Existing Forest Existing Forest
Structure Vegetation Vegetation Structure Vegetation Vegetation
# (see Figure C1) (see Figure C2) # (see Figure C1) (see Figure C2)
1 10.1 10.1 55 1.2 1.2
2 25.8 25.8 56 3.3 3.3
3 2.0 2.0 57 12.0 12.0
4 37.9 37.9 58 5.4 5.4
5 38.5 38.5 59 6.2 6.2
6 3.1 3.1 60 5.4 5.4
7 0.6 0.6 61 8.9 8.9
8 0.6 0.6 62 8.9 8.9
9 1.9 1.9 63 8.3 8.3
10 9.7 9.7 64 7.8 7.8
11 6.6 6.6 65 11.4 11.4
12 8.6 8.6 66 11.8 11.8
13 9.0 9.0 67 7.9 7.9
14 15.8 15.8 68 8.5 8.5
15 44.4 44.4 69 6.6 6.6
16 36.2 36.2 70 0.6 0.6
17 9.2 9.2 71 1.2 1.2
18 8.7 8.7 72 15.8 15.8
19 4.5 4.5 73 8.6 8.6
20 2.7 2.7 74 8.3 8.3
21 4.5 4.5 75 42.4 42.4
22 6.6 6.6 76 11.6 11.6
23 9.0 9.0 77 28.0 28.0
24 53.8 53.8 78 29.0 29.0
25 3.4 3.4 79 22.3 22.3
26 3.5 3.5 80 34.6 34.6
27 6.3 6.3 81 45.9 45.9
28 5.8 5.8 82 47.0 47.0
29 2.3 2.3 83 49.1 49.1
30 28.0 28.0 84 36.7 36.7
31 0.8 0.8 85 31.9 31.9
32 11.8 0.0 86 19.1 19.1
33 5.5 5.5 87 10.4 10.4
34 21.3 21.3 88 11.4 11.4
35 25.5 25.5 89 9.8 9.8
36 4.2 4.2 90 8.6 8.6
37 0.0 0.0 91 8.1 8.1
38 0.0 0.0 92 7.6 7.6
39 0.0 0.0 93 32.7 32.7
40 0.0 0.0 94 31.9 31.9
41 0.0 0.0 95 9.0 9.0
42 0.0 0.0 96 43.3 43.3
43 0.0 0.0 97 22.3 22.3
44 0.0 0.0 98 58.5 58.5
45 5.8 5.8 99 44.5 44.5
46 9.6 9.6 100 32.1 32.1
47 9.4 9.4 101 43.9 43.9
48 9.1 9.1 102 93.0 93.0
49 8.0 8.0 103 81.5 81.5
50 10.7 10.7 104 46.1 46.1
51 9.4 9.4 105 38.9 38.9
52 9.5 9.5 106 67.2 67.2
53 12.8 12.8 107 6.9 6.9
54 4.8 4.8 108 6.5 6.5
#06-115.10M Page 6
000377
109 3.4 3.4 164 6.4 6.4
110 6.7 6.7 165 9.6 9.6
111 6.3 6.3 166 20.1 20.1
112 2.8 2.8 167 30.7 0.0
113 2.8 2.8 168 34.7 34.7
114 1.8 1.8 169 20.2 20.2
115 14.8 14.8 170 22.6 22.6
116 9.0 9.0 171 27.6 27.6
117 41.0 41.0 172 23.0 23.0
118 15.4 15.4 173 11.8 11.8
119 18.0 18.0 174 11.8 11.8
120 38.0 38.0 175 7.6 7.6
121 21.6 21.6 176 1.4 0.0
122 21.8 21.8 177 4.6 4.6
123 17.1 17.1 178 3.6 3.6
124 16.4 16.4 179 11.4 11.4
125 16.2 16.2 180 5.0 5.0
126 4.5 4.5 181 44.9 44.9
127 7.7 7.7 182 13.4 13.4
128 10.7 10.7 183 15.8 15.8
129 4.7 4.7 184 34.2 34.2
130 9.5 9.5 185 6.0 6.0
131 12.2 12.2 186 5.0 5.0
132 7.9 7.9 187 29.3 29.3
133 1.1 1.1 188 6.1 6.1
134 1.3 1.3 189 5.6 5.6
135 1.5 1.5 190 20.7 20.7
136 0.9 0.9 191 20.8 20.8
137 36.9 36.9 192 17.5 17.5
138 5.5 5.5 193 37.4 37.4
139 3.9 3.9 194 25.0 25.0
140 7.2 7.2 195 28.9 28.9
141 6.2 6.2 196 25.0 25.0
142 4.4 4.4 197 28.9 28.9
143 3.7 3.7 198 3.7 3.7
144 3.1 3.1 199 3.4 3.4
145 1.3 1.3 200 2.1 2.1
146 1.2 1.2 201 2.1 2.1
147 2.7 2.7 202 2.7 2.7
148 0.6 0.6 203 2.7 2.7
149 1.3 1.3 204 2.7 2.7
150 21.0 21.0 205 2.5 2.5
151 22.9 22.9 206 2.5 2.5
152 25.7 25.7 207 2.5 2.5
153 34.5 34.5 208 3.0 3.0
154 32.2 32.2 209 3.0 3.0
155 15.0 15.0 210 4.3 4.3
156 17.7 17.7 211 3.1 3.1
157 8.7 8.7 212 5.3 5.3
158 7.9 7.9 213 5.3 5.3
159 5.5 5.5 214 3.8 3.8
160 0.7 0.7 215 3.4 3.4
161 1.7 1.7 216 3.4 3.4
162 0.7 0.7 217 3.4 3.4
163 0.6 0.0 218 2.8 2.8
#06-115.10M Page 7
000378
219 2.8 2.8 274 4.6 4.6
220 2.8 2.8 275 5.3 5.3
221 4.0 4.0 276 4.7 4.7
222 4.0 4.0 277 5.4 5.4
223 4.6 4.6 278 4.1 4.1
224 3.6 3.6 279 5.2 5.2
225 4.3 4.3 280 5.2 5.2
226 4.3 4.3 281 4.6 4.6
227 5.4 5.4 282 5.0 5.0
228 5.3 5.3 283 5.0 5.0
229 4.6 4.6 284 5.4 5.4
230 3.4 3.4 285 3.8 3.8
231 3.4 3.4 286 3.8 3.8
232 3.4 3.4 287 4.7 4.7
233 4.1 4.1 288 5.3 5.3
234 4.1 4.1 289 5.3 5.3
235 4.7 4.7 290 5.3 5.3
236 2.8 2.8 291 9.8 9.8
237 5.4 5.4 292 4.6 4.6
238 4.6 4.6 293 4.6 4.6
239 4.6 4.6 294 6.0 6.0
240 4.6 4.6 295 6.0 6.0
241 4.3 4.3 296 5.2 5.2
242 4.3 4.3 297 4.5 4.5
243 4.3 4.3 298 4.5 4.5
244 5.3 5.3 299 5.0 5.0
245 5.9 5.9 300 5.0 5.0
246 4.6 4.6 301 5.0 5.0
247 4.0 4.0 302 5.3 5.3
248 5.1 5.1 303 6.0 6.0
249 5.0 5.0 304 5.7 5.7
250 8.2 8.2 305 7.6 7.6
251 9.3 9.3 306 7.9 7.9
252 12.2 12.2 307 6.3 6.3
253 13.3 13.3 308 6.1 6.1
254 11.1 11.1 309 6.2 6.2
255 11.1 11.1 310 6.2 6.2
256 10.9 10.9 311 7.4 7.4
257 10.9 10.9 312 7.7 7.7
258 10.9 10.9 313 6.8 6.8
259 10.9 10.9 314 6.8 6.8
260 11.5 11.5 315 7.5 7.5
261 11.5 11.5 316 7.1 7.1
262 14.9 14.9 317 7.1 7.1
263 14.9 14.9 318 6.1 6.1
264 14.0 14.0 319 7.3 7.3
265 12.1 12.1 320 6.8 6.8
266 12.1 12.1 321 7.2 7.2
267 12.1 12.1 322 7.4 7.4
268 11.7 11.7 323 7.5 7.5
269 10.4 10.4 324 6.8 6.8
270 10.4 10.4 325 6.3 6.3
271 2.0 2.0 326 5.9 5.9
272 4.7 4.7 327 5.9 5.9
273 4.6 4.6 328 5.8 5.8
#06-115.10M Page 8
000379
329 5.5 5.5 384 0.0 0.0
330 4.2 4.2 385 0.0 0.0
331 5.5 5.5 386 0.0 0.0
332 5.9 5.9 387 2.1 2.1
333 4.4 4.4 388 2.1 2.1
334 3.6 3.6 389 2.1 2.1
335 4.4 4.4 390 1.3 1.3
336 0.6 0.6 391 2.1 2.1
337 2.1 2.1 392 1.8 1.8
338 4.3 4.3 393 2.1 2.1
339 3.3 3.3 394 4.7 4.7
340 3.4 3.4 395 1.2 1.2
341 2.1 2.1 396 2.6 2.6
342 1.2 1.2 397 0.4 0.4
343 4.3 4.3 398 0.4 0.4
344 2.1 2.1 399 0.0 0.0
345 2.9 2.9 400 0.0 0.0
346 0.4 0.4 401 0.0 0.0
347 0.0 0.0 402 0.0 0.0
348 0.0 0.0 403 3.4 3.4
349 0.0 0.0 404 0.0 0.0
350 0.0 0.0 405 0.0 0.0
351 0.6 0.6 406 0.6 0.6
352 0.9 0.9 407 0.6 0.6
353 1.5 1.5 408 1.6 0.0
354 0.6 0.6 409 1.2 1.2
355 0.6 0.6 410 0.6 0.6
356 0.6 0.6 411 7.2 7.2
357 1.1 1.1 412 7.1 7.1
358 1.3 1.3 413 5.1 5.1
359 1.3 1.3 414 0.6 0.6
360 1.1 1.1 415 0.6 0.6
361 0.9 0.9 416 1.1 1.1
362 0.8 0.8 417 1.1 1.1
363 0.9 0.9 418 1.1 1.1
364 1.2 1.2 419 1.1 1.1
365 0.8 0.8 420 1.2 1.2
366 0.8 0.8 421 1.2 1.2
367 0.9 0.9 422 2.7 2.7
368 0.9 0.9 423 1.9 1.9
369 1.7 1.7 424 1.8 1.8
370 1.2 1.2 425 1.8 1.8
371 1.2 1.2 426 1.7 1.7
372 1.7 1.7 427 2.3 2.3
373 2.5 2.5 428 1.7 1.7
374 2.5 2.5 429 2.5 2.5
375 3.1 3.1 430 2.1 2.1
376 2.0 2.0 431 2.2 2.2
377 1.7 1.7 432 3.4 3.4
378 1.7 1.7 433 3.4 3.4
379 1.7 1.7 434 3.3 3.3
380 0.0 0.0 435 3.8 3.8
381 0.0 0.0 436 3.8 3.8
382 0.0 0.0 437 4.6 4.6
383 0.0 0.0 438 6.3 6.3
#06-115.10M Page 9
000380
439 6.3 6.3 494 3.3 3.3
440 6.6 6.6 495 3.5 3.5
441 3.7 3.7 496 3.8 3.8
442 3.6 3.6 497 4.8 4.8
443 4.2 4.2 498 0.0 0.0
444 4.6 4.6 499 8.1 8.1
445 4.6 4.6 500 7.7 7.7
446 4.6 4.6 501 6.8 6.8
447 3.7 3.7 502 6.2 6.2
448 1.9 1.9 503 2.0 2.0
449 4.6 4.6 504 3.3 3.3
450 4.6 4.6 505 2.7 0.0
451 2.1 2.1 506 4.0 4.0
452 2.1 2.1 507 3.4 3.4
453 1.0 1.0 508 4.9 4.9
454 3.6 3.6 509 4.6 4.6
455 1.9 1.9 510 4.1 4.1
456 0.6 0.6 511 4.5 4.5
457 1.9 1.9 512 5.9 5.9
458 0.6 0.6 513 6.1 6.1
459 0.6 0.6 514 4.7 4.7
460 0.6 0.6 515 5.9 5.9
461 0.6 0.6 516 5.1 5.1
462 0.6 0.6 517 5.5 5.5
463 0.0 0.0 518 6.5 6.5
464 0.0 0.0 519 5.7 5.7
465 0.6 0.6 520 5.7 5.7
466 0.0 0.0 521 5.7 5.7
467 0.6 0.6 522 5.6 5.6
468 0.6 0.6 523 0.0 0.0
469 0.0 0.0 524 6.2 6.2
470 0.6 0.6 525 6.2 6.2
471 0.6 0.6 526 6.7 6.7
472 0.6 0.6 527 5.6 5.6
473 0.6 0.6 528 5.6 5.6
474 0.6 0.6 529 6.4 6.4
475 0.6 0.6 530 5.2 5.2
476 0.6 0.6 531 5.8 5.8
477 0.6 0.6 532 6.3 6.3
478 0.6 0.6 533 6.3 6.3
479 0.6 0.6 534 6.6 6.6
480 1.1 1.1 535 6.6 6.6
481 1.3 1.3 536 8.1 8.1
482 0.8 0.8 537 5.2 5.2
483 2.9 2.9 538 3.7 3.7
484 0.0 0.0 539 3.0 3.0
485 0.0 0.0 540 2.4 2.4
486 6.4 6.4 541 3.0 3.0
487 5.1 5.1 542 3.0 3.0
488 4.2 4.2 543 4.2 4.2
489 4.9 4.9 544 1.9 1.9
490 0.0 0.0 545 1.3 1.3
491 2.7 2.7 546 1.9 1.9
492 2.7 2.7 547 1.1 1.1
493 3.8 3.8 548 1.2 1.2
#06-115.10M Page 10
000381
549 1.2 1.2 604 0.0 0.0
550 1.2 1.2 605 4.8 4.8
551 1.2 1.2 606 9.4 9.4
552 1.1 1.1 607 7.0 7.0
553 2.3 2.3 608 0.7 0.7
554 2.2 2.2 609 0.0 0.0
555 2.7 2.7 610 0.7 0.7
556 0.0 0.0 611 9.5 9.5
557 0.0 0.0 612 3.0 3.0
558 0.0 0.0 613 20.5 20.5
559 1.2 1.2 614 42.1 42.1
560 0.0 0.0 615 37.3 37.3
561 1.3 1.3 616 4.3 0.0
562 0.0 0.0 617 5.8 5.8
563 2.1 2.1 618 4.2 4.2
564 3.8 3.8 619 3.4 3.4
565 0.0 0.0 620 2.2 2.2
566 0.0 0.0 621 0.0 0.0
567 0.0 0.0 622 1.3 1.3
568 0.0 0.0 623 0.7 0.7
569 0.0 0.0 624 1.4 1.4
570 0.0 0.0 625 1.4 1.4
571 0.6 0.6 626 2.1 2.1
572 1.2 1.2 627 1.2 1.2
573 0.6 0.6 628 1.2 1.2
574 0.0 0.0 629 1.5 1.5
575 0.6 0.6 630 1.5 1.5
576 1.2 1.2 631 1.4 1.4
577 0.6 0.6 632 0.0 0.0
578 1.2 1.2 633 3.7 3.7
579 0.6 0.6 634 3.8 3.8
580 0.8 0.8 635 2.8 2.8
581 1.2 1.2 636 3.3 3.3
582 0.0 0.0 637 2.8 2.8
583 1.7 1.7 638 3.5 3.5
584 3.5 3.5 639 2.8 2.8
585 0.0 0.0 640 5.4 5.4
586 0.0 0.0 641 5.4 5.4
587 0.0 0.0 642 5.2 5.2
588 0.0 0.0 643 5.9 5.9
589 0.0 0.0 644 4.9 4.9
590 0.0 0.0 645 5.0 5.0
591 0.0 0.0 646 3.8 3.8
592 0.0 0.0 647 1.7 1.7
593 0.0 0.0 648 1.7 1.7
594 0.9 0.9 649 3.3 3.3
595 0.8 0.8 650 1.8 1.8
596 0.0 0.0 651 1.7 1.7
597 0.0 0.0 652 1.7 1.7
598 0.0 0.0 653 4.1 4.1
599 0.0 0.0 654 3.9 3.9
600 0.0 0.0 655 6.3 6.3
601 0.0 0.0 656 6.9 6.9
602 0.0 0.0 657 2.5 2.5
603 8.4 8.4 658 2.5 2.5
#06-115.10M Page 11
000382
659 2.5 2.5 714 10.1 10.1
660 1.8 1.8 715 10.1 10.1
661 1.3 1.3 716 8.8 8.8
662 2.1 2.1 717 7.8 7.8
663 2.1 2.1 718 7.3 7.3
664 1.2 1.2 719 6.9 6.9
665 0.4 0.4 720 6.9 6.9
666 0.0 0.0 721 8.3 8.3
667 0.0 0.0 722 8.3 8.3
668 0.0 0.0 723 8.4 8.4
669 0.0 0.0 724 11.6 11.6
670 0.8 0.8 725 9.0 9.0
671 0.8 0.8 726 9.0 9.0
672 0.8 0.8 727 7.8 7.8
673 0.8 0.8 728 8.2 8.2
674 1.5 1.5 729 8.2 8.2
675 0.7 0.7 730 11.3 11.3
676 0.7 0.7 731 11.3 11.3
677 0.6 0.6 732 11.6 11.6
678 0.7 0.0 733 9.0 9.0
679 0.0 0.0 734 9.0 9.0
680 0.0 0.0 735 10.1 10.1
681 1.7 1.7 736 10.1 10.1
682 1.7 1.7 737 9.9 9.9
683 7.4 7.4 738 11.5 11.5
684 4.6 4.6 739 11.1 11.1
685 0.0 0.0 740 10.2 10.2
686 7.4 7.4 741 11.1 11.1
687 7.0 7.0 742 9.2 9.2
688 10.3 10.3 743 9.9 9.9
689 8.2 8.2 744 9.9 9.9
690 5.0 5.0 745 9.7 9.7
691 8.2 8.2 746 9.7 9.7
692 9.0 9.0 747 9.7 9.7
693 8.0 8.0 748 8.5 8.5
694 11.4 11.4 749 7.5 7.5
695 11.6 11.6 750 8.6 8.6
696 10.7 10.7 751 8.6 8.6
697 12.1 12.1 752 7.2 7.2
698 10.8 10.8 753 7.5 7.5
699 7.8 7.8 754 5.3 5.3
700 9.1 9.1 755 5.3 5.3
701 6.3 6.3 756 5.3 5.3
702 15.4 15.4 757 4.2 4.2
703 8.7 8.7 758 5.2 5.2
704 6.3 6.3 759 4.3 4.3
705 6.3 6.3 760 4.3 4.3
706 7.8 7.8 761 4.3 4.3
707 8.7 8.7 762 3.4 3.4
708 7.8 7.8 763 4.3 4.3
709 6.3 6.3 764 5.4 5.4
710 6.9 6.9 765 4.3 4.3
711 6.9 6.9 766 5.0 5.0
712 8.8 8.8 767 4.1 4.1
713 7.8 7.8 768 5.4 5.4
#06-115.10M Page 12
000383
769 4.8 4.8 824 5.6 5.6
770 4.7 4.7 825 5.6 5.6
771 4.1 4.1 826 5.6 5.6
772 4.1 4.1 827 6.0 6.0
773 4.8 4.8 828 5.4 5.4
774 4.8 4.8 829 4.9 4.9
775 3.4 3.4 830 6.7 6.7
776 4.1 4.1 831 6.7 6.7
777 4.7 4.7 832 7.7 7.7
778 4.8 4.8 833 7.2 7.2
779 4.7 4.7 834 5.8 5.8
780 6.7 6.7 835 8.2 8.2
781 4.7 4.7 836 6.8 6.8
782 4.7 4.7 837 6.8 6.8
783 4.1 4.1 838 7.6 7.6
784 4.7 4.7 839 7.6 7.6
785 4.1 4.1 840 6.9 6.9
786 4.1 4.1 841 6.9 6.9
787 4.7 4.7 842 7.4 7.4
788 4.7 4.7 843 7.4 7.4
789 4.7 4.7 844 7.7 7.7
790 5.8 5.8 845 7.7 7.7
791 5.8 5.8 846 7.7 7.7
792 5.8 5.8 847 7.7 7.7
793 6.1 6.1 848 6.8 6.8
794 4.7 4.7 849 6.8 6.8
795 3.9 3.9 850 6.8 6.8
796 3.9 3.9 851 6.8 6.8
797 3.2 3.2 852 6.5 6.5
798 6.2 6.2 853 7.1 7.1
799 6.2 6.2 854 7.1 7.1
800 6.2 6.2 855 7.1 7.1
801 5.1 5.1 856 7.1 7.1
802 3.2 3.2 857 7.7 7.7
803 5.0 5.0 858 25.9 25.9
804 5.1 5.1 859 14.7 14.7
805 5.6 5.6 860 59.3 59.3
806 5.0 5.0 861 65.8 65.8
807 3.6 3.6 862 70.1 70.1
808 5.6 5.6 863 36.0 36.0
809 5.6 5.6 864 2.3 2.3
810 5.6 5.6 865 0.0 0.0
811 5.6 5.6 866 0.0 0.0
812 5.7 5.7 867 2.3 2.3
813 6.2 6.2 868 8.5 8.5
814 6.6 6.6 869 8.5 8.5
815 6.6 6.6 870 0.6 0.6
816 6.6 6.6 871 0.6 0.6
817 4.9 4.9 872 1.1 1.1
818 3.6 3.6 873 5.3 0.0
819 3.6 3.6
820 5.0 5.0
821 4.7 4.7
822 3.6 3.6
823 4.9 4.9
#06-115.10M Page 13
000384
213
" 212
211 229
210
"" 209 228
227 245
208 244
207 226
"" """ "
243
" 206 225
242 284
224 241
"" """"" "
204 205
203
222
223 240
239
282283
281
PROPOSED TURBINE
202 238 280 299 384
383385
220 221
"
"" """""" """
" 201 279 298
237 278 297
"""
200 219 236 380 381 382
218 296
" " 199 235 277 386
377
"" """" ""
" 198 217
"" 399
247 216 234
"""" " "" 276 294 295
215 233
" " " " 376
214 275 293 375 378 379 387 388 397
232
" "" "" " " "" 249 274 398
292 390
248 273 400401
230 231 272 290 374 389
" " "" "" """ ""
"" "" "" 251
250 271 289
287 288 395
"" "" "" """""
" " "" "
372
391 392
402
600 599
SHADOW LIMITS -
"" 246 286 396 " "602
371
" " " 393 405 601 598 597
416
" 285 369 370 373
"" " "
" " 404 417 587
409 418 590
" ""
254 414 415
"
""" "
588
255
270 54
" " ""
" 589
" 291 269 366 364 365
" 410
" "
256 268 362 394 406 419 585 592 596
420 586
"""
252 582 591 593
367
257 581 594
"
580 149
" " 258 267266 584
"" "" ""
421
259 265
" 403
"
407
""" ""
"""" " " 595
352
260 253
"" " " " "
TOPOGRAPHY ONLY
583
"""""""" "
261 264
" " "
353 574
262
263 131
" 413 569568 71
"
350 351 570
856 368 "" 571 573 576
575
""" " " "
855
" 854
"" " " """ ""
567 70
354 408
" " 349 363
"" "" 572 577 579
853 348 357
" 852 355 565 578
361 566
"
" 851 857
" 7
850 8
148
" "" " " " "" 347
"" """" "
849 564 563
" " 848 843
356
""
842
" 847 841 412
""
9
556 562
" " 846
" "
" 845
840
839 411 " " 558557
553
"
549 552
559
" ""
838 560 555
""
550867 554
" " 844 837 358
"" ""
" 561 548
551
344
" " "
""" 604
Figure C1
359
" "" 836 345 346
"" "" "
547
834
" " " " 603
545 147
" " 146
"
829 343 336
"" 821 835 340
" 145
"
828 94
""
544
827 831 833 339 546 150
820
" " " 330 " " 151
!
(
826 341
342
" """"" " " "
825 338
" " " 819 824
823
822
830
"" " 337 " " 543
69
334
" ""
818 832 331 360 113 95
" """ "
807 810 329 333 112 542 152
!
(
809 811 332 335 90
" 808
" " " 144 !
( "
328
803 806805
817
"" 196
194
" ""
541
" " " " ""
804 812 816
"""""" "
796802 801 815
" 327 325 324 114
114
" "
153195
197
795 797 814 " """ 96
540539538
"" 813
" "" " 523 143 142
!
(
786 794 798 800 326
"""
787
788 130 323 524
522525530
531
" """
775 785 799 521
520 532
533
534
""" " " """""" ""
784 790 793
" """ 519 527 526 535 537
320
" 111
"
""" "
" 518
517 528
141
774
"""""""" "
" 783 789 792
"
506 507 " " "" " 529 91
773 782 791
" " 515 !
( 154
776 319
"" ""
321 516
" """ 772 508
""
509510 86
" 781 68
"
777 322
""" " 513
512 514 155
" " " "" 771 770 780
129779
" ""
" 318 """
" ""
" 511 67 536
!
( " 6
"
May 2007
132
" "" " 769 140 92 156
"" 762 767 778 " " !
( "
761
760
" "" " 766 317 503 139 87
"
" " 759 763 !
( " 157158
502 10
" 765
" 315
" "
504
505
755758 768 764
313 316 " ""
757 311 314
""
" "
308 501 500 93
"" "
754 756 " " !
(
307
"" "" 499
213 312 138 81
""" "
748 753
212 310 309 66 !
(
304 496 497
"747 749
"211
"" ""
""
" " "
65
752 229 303
210
" 494
228
746
""" 750 209
"" " 498
495
" " " " """
493
"" "" "" " 88
64
757
!
(
" 63
" 754 756 492 491 " 62 82
!
(
61
"" " " "
"
748 753
490 60
747 749 " 75
"" 752
" 59 !
(
750 58 89 Key
744 746 "" !
(
743 745 751
""" " "
742 57
""
83 193
740
"
5 17
""" " 741
!
( " " !
723 724 76 4
(
"" " 722 739 53
!
( "
" 721 725 192
"" " " 720
719 727
726 730 731
729 733
732
84
" 10 IDENTIFIED EXISTING STRUCTURE **
738 !
(
718 717 728 734 77
""""""""" "
""" " " 716 735 737
!
(
711
712 715736 489 69
"" 488 !
(
710 "" 487 11 1
486
"" """ 705
709 713 714 485 88 87
PROPOSED TURBINE (425 FOOT BLADE TIP HEIGHT)
12
" " " " 706 708 484 868
"" """"
" 13 90
89 190
"" 869
704 707 "
" " " """
703
"""" 701 702 91 70
191
"
!
(
128 92 !
( 85
86
" " " 700
" " " !
( 3,000 FOOT BUFFER OF TURBINES
" 698
699
" " " 52 71
693
!
(
51
697
" " 19
" 692 50 " 78
EXPECTED HOURS OF SHADOW FLICKER PER YEAR
" " 696
!
(
136
49 135
18
" " 691 695
"" 17 63
134
48 !
( 85
""
" " 72
" " " !
(
690 694 79 <1
84
95
!
(
20
" " " " 83
47 482
"
483 21
" " 82
133 " "
872 56
" 80
481 " 22 64 !
(
"" "
" 864
" !
( 73
!
( 1 - 10
46 475 479480
474
473
"
" 467469
468 478
477 871 55
""
" 466 476
472
471 94
470
462
""
" ""
"
"
"""
465460
464 461
" 81
45
"""" 463 459 870
" 159
452
453 458 108
" " "
""" 456
451 455
" "
" " " 450
449 454 " 605
457
"""" 443 448
442447 93 606
444
"
" "436 446445
"
434 107
433
"
432
"""
""" 438 440 441
" " "
383
384
385 431 60
689 381
377 380382
386 399
430
429
""
428
""" "
435 437 110
439
" !
( 65
11 - 20
426
"" " """
425
424
"""" !
(
376378
375 379387
388 397 427 23
"""
398 607
" " 374 389390 400 423 608
391
392401 74
""""""" "" 395 402
""""
422
" 160
"
372
"""" 371 393396 416
" 78
!
(
127 370
369 373
" ""
404 405
" "" "" 409 415417418
414
687
366364
365 362 406 410 419
"
367 394 403 420 79
""" "" " "" """
352 407 421 77 609
"""" """ " " 351
""
688 """
" " " " " ""
" 350 353
363
368 413 56 137 61
" " " 21 - 30
" " 348
347 357
349355354
361 408 !
( "
109
" """ """ " 356
!
(
66
"""" " 411 412
1
" "" 345344 346 359 358
!
(
343 340 336 16 610
339
330338 341 161
342
"""" """ "
337
"" "" 31 - 40
"""" "
329331 333334 360 113 112
" "" " " 328 332 335 15 80 189
327325324 114
126
"" " " 326 103
" " 188
"""" " 323
320 49
" " " 111
" ""
" 319 321 ! 102
322
44 683
" 318
(
" """"" 132 " 57
!
(
317
43
" 315316
313
41 - 50
684 " 311
308 314
307
" " " 213229
212 304310 312 62
" "" 211
210
42
" " " ""
209 227
228245303 306 309 !
(
685
" 208
207 244 305
" "" 226243
206 225
""
" "
"
" ""
"" 205 224
223 241
242 283
284 302
301
"
" """
""" "" 204 222 240 282300
203 281299 862
202 221238
239280
41
" ""
""
" """" 201 220 298 "
279297
237 278 50
" " "
""" " " 199
219236
200 218 235 277 296
295
198
""
" " """"""" 247 216
217234
215 43 276 294
!
( 162
> 50
275
" "
" ""
"" """ 249 214 232
231
233274 293
292 67
40 686 """"" """"
""" 250 248 230 271
!
( 273290
272289 58
"
163
288 863
" " """
"" 251 287
246286
!
( !
( "
35 285
" """ " ""
""
" " 75
!
( 255
291254
270
269 252 54 104
"
256
257 268
266
258267
"""" " " 260 265 "
856259
261
262
"" 264 253 131
263
"" " 855 44
854
"""""""""
" 853
852
851
" 850
849 843
857
!
(
84836
"" " 847
846
842
841
840
845 839
"
""
""
" 844 838
!
(
837
836
834
51
"
" 821 829
828 68
827 833 835 76
""
831 14
"" " 826830
820 825
824 105
!
( !
(
823
" """"" 819822
818 807 832
" " "
" " 806 810
809 45 72
808
""" " 803 805
804
811 817
812 816
802
"
""" 796 801 814815
!
( "
795797
"" " 787 813
"
""
" """"
786
785
775
794798800
788 130 73
790
"
"
""" "" 784
774783789793799
792
773776782791
""""
""""
" "
772 777781 37
" ** Structure locations obtained from NYS GIS Clearinghouse,
780
""
" "
"
"""
""
" 771 770
769 129779
!
( 861
762767 778
" "
" 761
760 106
" 759
758 763 766
765
52
""
755 482
27
"""""""
"" 754757 764
756
!
( 74
"" 748753768 !
( "
747
"
""""" 746
744
743
749 752
750
751 38 16
" Statewide Digital Orthoimagery Program. 2003 imagery,
742 745
" "" 740
741
!
( 483
133
"" 724739 28
!
( 611
723
""
722 53 53
"" 721 725731 !
( 99
720 726
" " " 719 730732
727729
! " " " 56
718
"""
""
717 733738
728734
" ( and field verification as discussed in the report.
737 24 872
"" "" " 711716 735
736
"
710712715
714 100
709713
""
""
" "
"" 705 708
706
"
707
" """ 704
703
"" 481
""" 701 128 702
700
""
" "
" " 699 52 698 39 "
693 51 29 !
( 187
692 50 696 697 !
( "
" 691 49 695 864
"""""""
48
"" " 690 694 46
47 !
( 480
"
46 475
" """"
473474 479
45
860 469
"
"" 689 30 477478
22 467468 871
" !
( " 55
127 472
687
!
( 40 101
""""""" 466 "
471 476
"" 688 1
!
( " """ """ 462470
"
" " 465 460
126 54 464
44
" 683 47 !
( 463 461 870
" 43 " 684
453
42 685 41
!
( 459
" """" "
41
"" "" 23 !
( 98 452 458
PROJECT # 2006 - 06115.10P
40 686 !
( 456
"""
451
"" " 31
"
!
( 450
449 455
454
" """
96
442
117
" 443 448
447
" "
""" "" "
444
24 116 55 434 445
!
( 858 48 !
(
"" ""
441
" " !
( " ""
118
433 435 436 440
125 " 432 438 This map is computer generated using data acquired by Saratoga Associates
39
38
" " "" " "" 431 110
115
37
" 430
"" " 859
"" " 437 439
" "" 429 from various sources and is intended only for reference, conceptual planning
25
""
426428
!
( 97
425
424
2
" "" 427
" 120
42 423
" 122
"" "
121 !
( used to establish boundaries, property lines, location of objects or to provide
" " "
422
32
!
( 186
" "
" 119
18 123 184
680 677 " " 3
676
!
( " "
668 678
"""
666667 124
"" 681 669 "
665 670671
"" "
651 682 664
652 672
" "" "
"" 647650 663 673
" "" "" " 648 662 675 19 33 185
660
"
""
649 661
!
( !
( " File Location: S:\GIS\06115\CapeVincent_Shadow_Flicker_Topo051707.mxd
659 674
654 658 14
" """" " 653
645" 657 26
638 " !
(
639 655
637 656
!
(
635
""" ""
636
633
" 646
634
"" 640
641 34
" " ""
" 642 !
(
643
"""
"
" 644 15
!
(
20
!
(
181 25
" 21
!
( "
182 26
"32 59
!
( " "
183
"
679
632
620
11 12
"
" 625 629
630
!
( !
(
624 " 619
" 631
180
"" "" 627
" 618
626 "
623 617
" " 628
622
621 179
" "
""" " "
178 680
177
873 176 677
""
676
" " " "
28 27 "
""
36
175 668 678
29 "" 667
666
" 13
" "
!
( 669
616
!
(8 "" "
670
681
"
665
671
"
682 664
" ""
" 652 651 672
169
!
(9 "" " "
" 650 673
663
647
" " "
!
(5 675
30
" 662
648
660
" !
(1 "
674
10
"
649
!
(
" " " 661
35 " 659
" 614
"
" "
167 658
" 654
!
(6 " 653
645 657
615 " " 638
174
" " "
" 166
613
173
" " 639 655
34
" "
" 637
656
!
(2 " " 635
""
633 636
"
646
168
""634
" !
(7 " 640 641
!
(3 165 33
"
"" ""
164 612
" " 642
" 643
" 644
!
(4 "
170
"
171
31 172
"
" "
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
865
"
866
"
¯
000385
213
" 212
211 229
210
"" 209 228
227 245
208 244
207 226
"" """ "
243
" 206 225
242 284
224 241
"" """"" "
204 205
203
222
223 240
239
282283
281
PROPOSED TURBINE
202 238 280 299 384
383385
220 221
"
"" """""" """
" 201 279 298
237 278 297
"""
200 219 236 380 381 382
218 296
" " 199 235 277 386
377
"" """" ""
" 198 217
"" 399
247 216 234
"""" " "" 276 294 295
215 233
" " " " 376
214 275 293 375 378 379 387 388 397
232
" "" "" " " "" 249 274 398
292 390
248 273 400401
230 231 272 290 374 389
" " "" "" """ ""
"" "" "" 251
250 271 289
287 288 395
"" "" "" """""
" " "" "
372
391 392
402
SHADOW LIMITS -
"" 246 286 396
371
" " " 393 405 416
" 285 369 370 600 599
373 404 " "
417
" ""
254
" " 409 418 602 601
598 597
414 415
""" " " "
255
"" " "
54
""
270 587
" 291 269 366 364 365
" 410
" 590
256 268 362 394 406 419 "
420
"""
252 588
257 367 589
" " 258 267266 " "
421 585
259 265
" 403
"
407
""" ""
592 596
352 586
260 253
"" " " " 582 591 593 "
VEGETATED *
581 594
"""""""" "
261 264
" " " 580 149 584
"" "" ""
353 595
262
263 131
" 413
"""" " "
856 350 351 368 583
"
""" " " "
855 574
" 854
"" " " 569 71
"
354 408 568
570
" " 349 363 576
853 348 357 571 573
" 852 355
"" 575
361
" 851 857
" "" " ""
567 572 70 577 579
" 850
"" " " " """
347
"" 849
"" "" 565
566
578
843
" " 848 842 356 7
8
847 412 148
"" """ "
841
" " 846
" "
564 563
840 411
845 "" ""
839
"" ""
556 9
838 562
" " 844 837 358
"" 558557
344
" " " " 553
"
549 552
559
" ""
834
836 " " 345 346 359
""
"
" 561560
"" 555
550867 554
548
551
Figure C2
604
" " " """
"" ""
829 343
"" 336 547 603
"
821 835 340 "
828 545 146 147
"
827 831 833 339
820
" " " 330
" 145
"
826 341 544 94
""
342 546 150
" """"" "
825 338
" " " 819 824
823
822
830
"" " 337
" " " " 151
(
! Visual Resource Assessment
334 543
" ""
818 832 331 69
360 113
" """ "
807 810 329 333 112
" "
809 811 332 335
" 808
" " " 95
542
803 806805
817 328 152
(
!
" ""
90
" " " " ""
804 812 816 144 "
"""""" "
796802 801 815
" 327 325 324 114
114
541
"" (
! 194
196
"" 795 797 814 " " " "
813 153195
197
"""
786 794 798 800
" "" 326 96
787
788 130 323 540
539538
""" (
!
" """
775 785 799 523
"""
143 142
" 784 790 793
" " 524
320
"""" 774
" 111
"" """ "" 522525530
521
520
531
532
533
783 789 792 ""
" 534
"""" "
" 773 782 791
" " " ""
"" 519 527 526 535 537
518 141
776 517 528
"""
319
"" """ 772 321
"
506 507""" " 529 91
777 781 515 (
! 154
322
"" "" May 2007
780 318 516
771 770
""
508
509510 86
"
129779
""" " 513
514 68 155
512
(
!
" " " "" " ""
" "" " "" 769
" 132
" 511 67 536
" 6
762 767 778 " """""" "
761 140 92
(
! 156
760 "
" "" " 766 "
317
"
" " 759 763
765 315 87
" " 316 503 139 157158
313
755758 768 764 (
! "
502 10
757 311 314
" "
504
" "
308 505
"" "
754 756 " "" ""
307
"" "" 501 500 93
213 312
""" "
748 753
" " (
!
212 310 309 499
304 138 81
"747 749
"
211
"" ""
66
229
752 210 303
" 496 497
(
!
228
" " "
746 750 209
""" "" "" 65
494
" "" "" "" " " " " 498 495
"""
493
757 " 88
64
754 756 (
!
63
""" 492 491
" 62 82
(
!
748 753 "" "" 61
"
747 749
"" 752 60
490
750 " " 75 Key
744 746 59 (
!
""" " " 743 745 751 58 89
(
!
"" 742
""
740 57
83 193
""" " 741
"
5
723 724
!
( " " 17
739 76 4
(
!
722 53
"" " " 721 725 (
! "
"" " " 720
719 727
726 730 731
729 733
732 " 192
10 IDENTIFIED EXISTING STRUCTURE **
738 84
718 717 728 734
""""""""" (
!
77
""" " " 711 716 735
736
737 (
!
"
712 715
"" 69
""
" " "
"""
" 710
705
709 713 714
706 708 485
487
486
489
488
12
11
88 87
(
! 1 PROPOSED TURBINE (425 FOOT BLADE TIP HEIGHT)
"" 484 868 13 90
""" ""
704 707 89 190
869
" " "" "
703 "
" ""
"""" 701 702
""
191
!
(
" 128 91 70
"
700 92 (
! 85
86
" " " 698
" " " (
! 3,000 FOOT BUFFER OF TURBINES
699
52
71
" " "
693 (
!
51
697
" "
" 692 50 19
EXPECTED HOURS OF SHADOW FLICKER PER YEAR
" " 696
" 78
(
!
49 136
135
" " 691 695 18
63
48 134
"" 17 (
! 85
" " " " ""
72
694 " (
!
690 79
" " 95 84
(
! <1
47 20 " " 83
" 482
"21
"
133 483 " 82
872 56
" 80
481 22 64 (
!
"" " ""
" 864
" (
! 73 1 - 10
46 !
(
" 473475 479480
474
"
467469
468 478
477 871 55
""
" 466 476
472
471 94
470
462
45
""
" "
"
""
"""
465
464460
461
" 81
"""
" 463 459 870
" 159
452
453 458 108
" " """ 451 456
455
" "
" " 450
449 454 605
457
"""" 443 448
442447
" 93 606
444
" ""
436 446 445
" " 434 107
""""
"""433
432 438 440 441
" " " 11 - 20
689 383
384
385 431
430
" " 60
381
382 429
435 437 110 65
""
377 380 439
428
" """
"
"" 386 399
"
"
""""
426
425
(
! (
!
424
375
376378
379387
388 397
""""
427 23
398 607
" 389390 400 423 608
374 391
392401
" 74
""""""""
" 395 402
""""
422 160
"
372
127 """
" 371 393396 416
" 78
(
!
370
369 373
" ""
404 405
" "" "" 366364 409 414415417418 "
687 367
365 362 394 403 406 410 419
420 79
""" "" " "" """
352 407 421 77 609
""
688
"""" """ " " " " "
" " "" 351
350 353 368 413 56 137
" " "
21 - 30
"""
" " 348
349355354357 361363 408 (
! 61
347
" " 109
" (
!
356
""" """ "
66
1
"""" " 411 412
344 346
345 359 358
" "" (
!
343 340 336 16 610
339
330338 341 161
342
"""" """ "
337
""
"
""" "
328
329331 333334 360 113 112 15
"" 31 - 40
" "" " " 332 335 80 189
126 327325324 114
"" " " 326 103
" " 188
"
"""" " 323
320 49
" " " 319 321 111
" "
322 102
44 683
" " 318
(
!
" """"" 132 " 57
(
!
317
43
" 315316
41 - 50
684 " 313
308311314
307
" "" 213
212 229 304310 312 62
" "" 211
210
42
" " " ""
209 227
228245303 306 309 (
!
685
" 208
207 244 305
" "" 226243
206 225
""
" "" " ""
"" 224
223 241
242283
284 302
204 301
"
" """
""" ""
203
205 222 240
239 282300
281 862
202 221238 280 299
41
" ""
""
" """" 201 220 279 298 "
237 278 297 50
" " "
""" " " 200 218
199
219236
235 277 296
295
198
""
" " """"""" 247 43216
215
217234 276 294
(
! 162
> 50
275
" "
"" "
"
" """ 249 214 232
231
233274 293
292 67
40 686 """"" "
" ""
""" !
(
250 248 230 271
273290
272289 58
"163
288 863
" " "
" "
"" 251 287
246286
(
! !
( "
285 35 75
" """ " """
""
255 252
"
(
! 291254270
269 54 104
"
256
257 268
267
266
258
"""" " " " 260 265 253 "
856259261
262
"" 131
263264
"" " 855 44
854
""""""""
853
852
851 857
" 850
849
(
!
"
" " 848
847
846
843
842
841
840
36
" " 844845
(
! 839
838
" 837
836
834
"
""
"" 51
821 829
828
827 76 68
833 835
""
" 820 825 831
826830 105
(
! 14
824
" """
""
"" " 819822823 " " (
!
818 807 832
"" " 806 810
809
808 45
" 72 * Assumes a uniform tree height of 40 feet (12.192 meters)
803 805 811 817
812
" "
" 796804
802 816
815
(
! "
795 801 814
797
"" " 787794798 813
""
786
""" """
785
775 788 800 130 73
784790
"
"""
" "" 774783789793799
792
773776782791
"
"
""""
""""
" "
772 777781 37
"
771 770 780
"
""
"""
"" 769 129779
(
! 861 in forested areas.
"" 762767 778
761 106
760 766 52
"""" 763
759 765
""
755
758 764
757 27
"" "" 754
756
!
( 74 482
748753768
""
""" 747
749 752
(
! "
16
"""" 746
744 750
"
"
" " 743
742 745
751 38 (
!
" 740
741
(
! 483
""
" 723724739 28 611 133
""
722 53 53
"" 721 725731 (
! 99
720 726
" " 719 730732
727729
(
! " "
718 56
"
"""
""
717 733738
728734
" 24
"
737
" " "" 711716 735
736 872 " ** Structure locations obtained from NYS GIS Clearinghouse,
712715
"
" ""
"" 710709 714
713 100
"" " 705 708
706
" 704 707
703
""
"" "
"" 701 128 702
"
"
" 700 481
39
"" ""
" 699 52
187
29
" ""
692
693 51 698
697
50 696
(
! !
( "
" Statewide Digital Orthoimagery Program. 2003 imagery,
49 695
" 691 864
48
"""""
" "" 690 694 46
47 (
! 480
" and field verification as discussed in the report.
46
" """
45
475
860 473474 479
"" 689 30 469
"
22
" 477478
467468 871
" 127
(
! (
! 101 55
687 40 472
"
""""""" 466 "
471 476
"" 688
(
! "
1
" " 462470
126 54
""" """ 465 460
44 683
43 684
47 (
! 464 461 870
463
" "" (
!
42 685 41
41 23 98 453 459
(
!
" """" "
452
"" ""
40 686 458
"" " (
!
31
" """
456
PROJECT # 2006 - 06115.10P
(
! 451
96 450
449 455
454
" """
117
" 446 457 Copyright © 2007 Saratoga Associates. All Rights Reserved.
" 442
443 448
24 55 447
116
"
""" "" "
444
(
! 858 " 48
(
! (
! 434 445
"
"" ""
441
125 118
" "" 433 435 436
39
" " 432 438 440
38
" 115
37 431 110
" "" " ""
859
"" " 430
" "" " 437 439
429 from various sources and is intended only for reference, conceptual planning
25
"" ""
426428
!
( 97
" 425
2
424
" 120
"" 427
42
" 122
121
423
" " (
! "" "
" used to establish boundaries, property lines, location of objects or to provide
32
(
! 186 422
679
" " "
119
680 677 18 123 184
any other information typically needed for construction or any other purpose
3
676
(
! " " " "
668
667 678
"""
666 124
"" 681 669 " when engineered plans or land surveys are required.
"" " 665 670671
651 682 664
652 672
" "" "
"" 647650 663 673
662 675 19 33 185
648
""" "" """ 660
(
!
649 661
" 659 674
!
( "
654 658 14 File Location: S:\GIS\06115\CapeVincent_Shadow_Flicker_Veg051707.mxd
" """" " 653
645" 657 26
638 " (
!
639 655
637 656
(
!
635
""" ""
636
633
"" "" 646
634
" 640
641 34
642
"" """ (
!
" 643
"
" 644 15
(
!
20
(
!
181 25
" 21
(
! "
182 26
"32 59
(
! " "
183
"
632
620
11 12 679
" 625 629
630
!
( (
!
624 " 619
" 631
"" " " 618 180
"
627
" 626
617
"
" " 623 628
622
621 179
" "
""" " "
178
177
873 176
""
" " 680
28 27 677
"" 676
" "
175
36 "
29 ""
" 13 668 678
(
! 667
666
(8
! " "
616
" "" " 669
670
681
665
671
"
(9
! 682 664
" ""
169 672
" " " " 652 651
"" 650 673
(5
! 663
30 647
" " " "
675
(1
! "
648 662
10
(
! " 660
35 674
614
"
649
" "
" " " 661
167
" " " 659
(6
! "
654 658
615
" " 653 657
174
" 166 645
173 613
"
"34
" " " 638
"
2
" (
! " " 639 655
637
656
" " 635
168
"
""
633 636
"
(7
!
646
(3
! 165 33
""
""
634
164
" 612
" " 640 641
" ""
642
" 643
(4
! " 644
170
" "
171
31 172
"
" "
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
865
"
866
"
¯
000386
94
95
90
96
91
86
92
87
93
81
St. Lawrence
88
Windpower, LLC
82
75 89
Proposed
76
83 17
St. Lawrence
84
Wind Energy
77 Project
69
FIGURE 2-1
70 85
Proposed St. Lawrence
71
Wind Energy Project
78 over 7.5 Minute USGS
Topographic Maps
63
72 79
Towns of Cape Vincent
80 and Lyme
64 73 Jefferson County, NY
60 65 JANUARY, 2007
74
56 61
66
53
Turbine Locations
with 200 foot Temporary
49 Radius Laydown Area
57
62
Existing Temporary
Meteorological
50 67 Tower
43 58
35 Proposed Temporary
44
O&M Meteorological
Tower
36 Building 68
51
Buried Interconnect
45
37 Access Roads and
52
Temporary Construction
27 16 Turnarounds
38 53
28
Temporary
Construction Area
39
29 Operations
46 and Maintenance
Building
30 (To Be Determined)
22 40
54
47 Proposed Substation
41
23
31
Existing Substation
55
48
24
25
42
32
New York State
18
33
19
14 26
34
15
20
21
Overhead Transmission
59 Route To Be Determined
11 12 Jefferson County
13
8
9
5
1
10
Proposed
6
St. Lawrence
Wind Energy Project
2
7
3
4
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Miles
0 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.
Projection:
Overhead Transmission State Plane New York Central (feet)
NAD 83
Route To Be Determined
P:\Cape Vincent Wind Farm\GIS\Spatial\MXD\
DEIS_Figures\REV1\SLW_Topo_REV1.mxd
000387
61
56
40.00-1-21
40.00-1-11
40.00-1-9 Bates, Alta J.
Lawrence, Richard J.
McNeill, Douglas M. 53.2 acres
51.2 acres 40.00-1-22.2 40.00-1-25.1
42.3 acres
May, John Milton (Milt) Docteur, Donald H.
111.63 acres 210.2 acres
40.00-1-8
Radley, James G. 40.00-1-10.2
116.8 acres VanVliet, Andrew G.
106.6 acres 40.00-1-10.1
Bell, Michael R.
40.00-1-8
Radley, James G.
49 42.4 acres St. Lawrence
57
116.8 acres
40.00-1-12 Windpower, LLC
40.00-1-8 74.8 acres 40.00-1-23.1 62
Radley, James G.
40.09-1-47
Radley, Jarvis
116.8 acres
Mason, Ennis L.
185.54 acres Proposed
71.7 acres
St. Lawrence
43
50
58
Wind Energy
40.09-1-49.111
Radley, Lionel 40.00-1-13
40.00-1-23.3 Project
Mason, Troy
96.2 acres Lawrence, Richard J. 2 acres
35 24.72 acres
FIGURE 2-2
40.00-1-7 40.00-1-20
Turbines 1-55
44 Giaquinto, Frank J. Mason, Ennis L.
O&M 217.76 acres 244.9 acres
36 40.00-1-7 Building Proposed St. Lawrence
Giaquinto, Frank J. 51 40.00-1-36
Wind Energy Project
217.76 acres 40.00-1-7 Ruggieri, Thomas J.
40.09-1-49.117
Giaquinto, Frank J. 108.1 acres with Turbine Buffers
217.76 acres
Radley, Lionel A.
45
over 7.5 Minute USGS
123.2 acres
40.00-1-14
Topographic Maps
Lawrence, Richard J. 40.00-1-37.2
141.3 acres Hanrahan, Kim
10 acres
37
40.00-1-37.1 Towns of Cape Vincent
52 40.00-1-20 Mason, Gary E.
40.00-1-7
Mason, Ennis L. 40 acres
and Lyme
Giaquinto, Frank J.
217.76 acres
244.9 acres Jefferson County, NY
27 16
JANUARY, 2007
38
53
28
39.16-1-17.1 53
Docteur, Michael J. 40.00-1-6 Turbine Locations
64.2 acres Lawrence, Richard J.
39.16-1-16 125.3 acres
Burns, Rockne E.
189.6 acres 39 40.00-1-15.2
39.16-1-14.2 Lawrence, Rick J. 75 foot Buffer
Radley, Gerald M. 29 24.72 acres
0 acres
64.2 acres
46
615 foot Buffer
0 acres
40.00-1-15.1
Giaquinto, Frank J.
50.92 acres 40.00-1-15.3
Giaquinto, Frank J.
30 68.6 acres
22 40
54 1200 foot Buffer
40.00-1-3.1 40.00-1-5
39.16-1-19.1 Bourcy, Mary Lou Aubertine, Darrel J. 47
Parkinson, Stewart E. 219.5 acres 24.8 acres
100.7 acres 40.00-1-16
40.00-1-4.2
41 Aubertine, Darrel
Aubertine, Darrel 50 acres
24.8 acres 40.00-1-19
23 Mason, Marty Existing Temporary
31 Meteorological
53.27 acres
Tower
40.00-1-2
Bourcy, Wesley A. 40.00-1-4.1 55
135.62 acres Aubertine, Paul 40.00-1-17
40.00-1-4.3 47.54 acres
Aubertine, Darrel J.
24 Aubertine, Patrick J. Meteorological
50.54 acres
2.38 acres Tower
39.20-1-11.1 40.00-1-39
Docteur, Robert 40.00-1-40 40.00-1-18 Mason, Ennis L. Buried Interconnect
103 acres Mason, Marty Aubertine, Darrel J. 67.83 acres
33.52 acres 40.42 acres 40.00-1-47
Doctore, Wayne J.
40.00-1-42.2 71.42 acres Access Roads and
Aubertine, Gene L. Temporary Construction
5.11 acres Turnarounds
40.00-1-41.2
25 Carson, Neal
40.00-1-40
40.00-1-1.1 Mason, Marty
39.20-1-12.21 Votra, Donald 0 acres Temporary
Napier, Roger P. 33.52 acres
137.46 acres Construction Area
72 acres 42
40.00-1-1.2 Operations
Florek, Robert J. and Maintenance
5.51 acres Building
32 40.00-1-46
(To Be Determined)
40.00-1-41.1
49.00-1-11.3 Aubertine, Paul Brown, James L.
40.00-1-42.1 76.79 acres
Bourcy, Mary Lou 174.34 acres Proposed Substation
39.20-1-12.1 Aubertine, Terry L.
65.91 acres
Constance, James T. 192.1 acres
60.9 acres
18 10.00-4
Parcels Within
Smith, John
1.5 acres Project Area
40.00-1-43
49.00-1-10.2 Mason, Donald J.
Kyle Thomas M, 33
184.5 acres
239.63 acres 49.00-1-11.1
19 Bourcy, Wesley A.
15.08 acres 40.00-1-1.1
Votra, Donald
49.00-1-12 137.46 acres
26
14 Burke, Patrick B.
2 acres Structures
50.00-1-18 34
Aubertine, Terry L.
23.9 acres
49.00-1-13
Cape Vincent Town Of, RESIDENCE
15 7 acres
50.00-1-1
49.00-1-14 Aubertine, Terry L. 50.00-1-17
BUSINESS
Cape Vincent, Town Of 53.5 acres
49.00-1-9 3.1 acres Aubertine, Darrel
Votra, Donald 20 42.71 acres SCHOOL
133.4 acres
50.07-1-7
Mason Marty T & Annette M, BARN
40.00-1-44 27.9 acres
21 Mason, Donald J.
49.00-1-10.1 49.00-1-15.1
9.5 acres SHED/GARAGE
Votra, Marvin F. Bourcy, Mary Lou 50.00-1-16
8.14 acres 163.3 acres Aubertine, Darrel J.
20.6 acres
NON EXTANT HOUSE
59 ABANDONED HOUSE
49.07-1-11.1
Jacobs, Ronald
166.2 acres
49.00-1-10.2
Kyle Thomas M,
49.00-1-15.2 Overhead Transmission
Bourcy, Wesley A.
11 12 239.63 acres 12 acres Route To Be Determined Proposed
St. Lawrence
49.00-1-18
Wind Energy Project
Gonzales, John Sheila
14.73 acres
50.00-1-3.4
Mason, Marty
25 acres
49.07-1-15.21
Iron Horse Farms Inc, 49.07-1-15.21
55.5 acres Iron Horse Farms Inc, 49.00-1-7
55.5 acres White Farms LLC,
135.13 acres
49.00-1-17 49.00-1-27.3
49.07-1-22 13 White Farms LLC, White, Kenneth J.
Cape Vincent Town Of, 105.15 acres 301.8 acres
18.9 acres 8
49.00-1-6.1
White Farms LLC,
49.06-1-39
16.8 acres 49.00-1-8.1
Brennan, Donald M.
5.3 acres 49.00-1-57 49.00-1-6.2 White Farms LLC,
Blodgett, James E. Cape Vincent Mini Storage Inc, 100.97 acres
49.06-1-30.1
35.27 acres 3 acres
49.06-1-30.3 Barnard, Robert R.
Border Intl Broadcasting Inc, 39 acres
9
11.77 acres
49.00-1-19.1
Maloney, Michael W. Turbines 1-55
187.45 acres
5
49.00-1-56
Benvenuto, James Jr
72.67 acres 1
10
49.00-1-8.2
White, Harvey 49.00-1-20.2
0 acres Stumpf, Willard J.
132.57 acres
49.00-1-7
6 White Farms LLC,
135.13 acres
49.00-1-5.3 Feet
Kieff, Michael L.
49.00-1-25
0 500 1,000
310.17 acres 49.00-1-19.2
Maloney, Matthew P. Stumpf, Willard Jr
49.00-1-2.24
Liparula, Frank
83.41 acres
2 Miles
0 0.125 0.25
49.00-1-4
Wiley, Harold 7
93.46 acres 49.00-1-5.3
Kieff, Michael L. 49.00-1-19.1
3 310.17 acres Maloney, Michael W.
187.45 acres
49.00-1-5.1
Fralick, David B.
88.42 acres
NOTES:
49.00-1-20.2 REVISION 1
4 JANUARY, 2007
Stumpf, Willard J.
132.57 acres
49.00-1-5.1
Fralick, David B.
Sources:
88.42 acres USGS 7.5 Minute
St.Lawrence,Clayton and Dexter, 1958.
49.00-1-5.2 Tax Parcel Data: Jefferson County
Mortensen, Peter V. Planning Department
245.69 acres
Projection:
State Plane New York Central (feet)
NAD 83
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 30.00-1-21.1
19.9 acres Aubertine, Francis
90.6 acres
94 St. Lawrence
Windpower, LLC
30.00-1-23.31
Wood, Henry
95
Proposed
30.00-1-8.2 152.2 acres
Wood, Gary H.
3.7 acres
St. Lawrence
90
30.00-1-12.3
Docteur, Mildred As Trste
10 acres
30.00-1-19
Wood, Gary
0 acres 30.00-1-23.1
Wind Energy
30.00-1-9.1
Lennox, Mark S.
7.36 acres
30.00-1-20.1
96 Project
Wood, Henry Wood, Henry
FIGURE 2-3
Turbines 56-96
91
30.00-1-23.322 30.00-1-21.1
Wood, Alan N.
30.00-1-20.2
Aubertine, Francis Proposed St. Lawrence
Garnsey, Robert
0 acres 0 acres 90.6 acres Wind Energy Project
30.00-1-7 86
Mason, Paul C. with Turbine Buffers
173.6 acres over 7.5 Minute USGS
92 Topographic Maps
0 acres
30.00-1-23.31
30.00-1-21.3 Towns of Cape Vincent
87 Aubertine, Keith A.
Wood, Henry 31.66 acres and Lyme
152.2 acres
Jefferson County, NY
30.00-1-6 93
Mason, Elaine JANUARY, 2007
213.7 acres
53
81 Turbine Locations
30.00-1-23.31
30.00-1-2
Wood, Henry
Lamora, David
152.2 acres
38.1 acres 30.00-1-22.1
Wood, Joseph H.
69.7 acres 75 foot Buffer
88
30.00-1-1
Boss, Sarah F. 30.00-1-21.2
70.7 acres Estelle, Douglas
82 124.5 acres
615 foot Buffer
40.00-1-31.1
Boss, Sarah F. 89
75 35.9 acres 30.00-1-24.1
Wood, Henry
93.78 acres 1200 foot Buffer
30.00-1-24.2
Hubbard, Brock T.
83 3.52 acres 17
0 acres
76 Existing Temporary
40.00-1-29.2 Meteorological
Trottier, Ronald J.
1.4 acres Tower
41.00-1-5.1
Gisel, Robert J. Jr
4.35 acres 41.00-1-5.2
84 Wood, Henry Proposed Temporary
176.4 acres Meteorological
Tower
40.00-1-28 77
Wood Farms LLC,
130.6 acres 30.00-1-26 Buried Interconnect
Wood, Henry
69 47.77 acres
Access Roads and
30.00-1-25 Temporary Construction
40.00-1-29.1 Bourcy, Donald Turnarounds
Laun Trust, H Thomas 2.23 acres
26.06 acres
41.00-1-4.1
Mckeever, Audrey Temporary
1.1 acres Construction Area
85
70
40.00-1-32 Operations
Brown, Seldon L. Jr
26.37 acres
and Maintenance
Building
(To Be Determined)
41.00-1-4.3
40.00-1-27.2 71 Wood, Henry
Docteur, Dennis C. 94.4 acres Proposed Substation
192.6 acres
78
Existing Substation
41.00-1-3 10.00-4
40.25-1-63 40.00-1-27.1 30.00-1-27 Smith, John Parcels Within
Kusse, Ronald 63 Docteur, Mary Hubbard, Sandra Wood, Henry
72
1.5 acres Project Area
23.7 acres 6.08 acres 232.5 acres 36.06 acres
79
41.00-1-1.1
Mcdowell, Wallace
40.00-1-25.1 40.00-1-33.2 148.27 acres
Docteur, Donald H. Wood Farms LLC,
40.00-1-24
40.06-1-7.1 Boyle, Timothy John
80
Robinson, Rick E.
15.5 acres 64
0 acres
41.00-1-13
Cape Vincent, Town Of
Structures
73
13.8 acres
30.00-1-27
Hubbard, Sandra
232.5 acres
40.00-1-21
Bates, Alta J. 40.00-1-23.2 41.00-1-15.2 RESIDENCE
53.2 acres Priestly, Frederick Ricco, Sigrid E.
21.68 acres
15.16 acres BUSINESS
40.00-1-22.2
May, John Milton (Milt)
111.63 acres SCHOOL
60 65
41.00-1-16 BARN
74 St Lawrence Un Cemetery Assoc,
40.00-1-33.1 22.5 acres
Wood Farms LLC, SHED/GARAGE
1.47 acres
NON EXTANT HOUSE
40.00-1-21
Bates, Alta J.
40.00-1-9 53.2 acres 61 ABANDONED HOUSE
McNeill, Douglas M. 56
40.00-1-11
42.3 acres 66
51.2 acres Mcdowell, Wallace 41.00-1-2.2
148.27 acres Pacific, Bruno
41.00-1-1.2
69.4 acres Proposed
40.00-1-10.2
VanVliet, Andrew G. Switzer, Richard A. St. Lawrence
40.00-1-8 106.6 acres 2.53 acres Wind Energy Project
Radley, James G. 40.00-1-34.2 40.00-1-35
116.8 acres Mason, Ennis Henchy, Christopher J.
40.00-1-10.1 53 acres
94.87 acres
Bell, Michael R.
49 42.4 acres
40.00-1-8 57
Radley, James G. 40.00-1-12
116.8 acres Lawrence, Richard J. 40.00-1-23.1
40.00-1-8 74.8 acres Mason, Ennis L. 62
Radley, James G. 185.54 acres
40.09-1-47 116.8 acres
Radley, Jarvis
71.7 acres
40.00-1-80
50 67 Mcdowell, Wallace
93.08 acres
58
40.00-1-23.3
40.00-1-13
Mason, Troy
2 acres
24.72 acres
40.00-1-7
44 O&M Giaquinto, Frank J.
40.00-1-20
Mason, Ennis L.
40.00-1-7 Building 217.76 acres 244.9 acres
Giaquinto, Frank J.
68
40.00-1-7 51 Turbines 56-96
217.76 acres
Giaquinto, Frank J.
217.76 acres
45
40.00-1-14
141.3 acres Hanrahan, Kim
10 acres 40.00-1-36
Ruggieri, Thomas J.
52 40.00-1-20 108.1 acres
40.00-1-3.1 40.00-1-7
Mason, Ennis L.
Bourcy, Mary Lou Giaquinto, Frank J.
244.9 acres
16
53 Feet
40.00-1-37.1
Mason, Gary E. 0 500 1,000
40 acres
40.00-1-6
Miles
125.3 acres
0 0.125 0.25
39 40.00-1-15.2
Lawrence, Rick J.
0 acres
24.72 acres
46
40.00-1-15.1
Giaquinto, Frank J.
50.92 acres 40.00-1-15.3 0 acres
Giaquinto, Frank J.
68.6 acres
40
54
40.00-1-5
Aubertine, Darrel J. 47 NOTES:
24.8 acres REVISION 1
40.00-1-16
40.00-1-4.2
41 Aubertine, Darrel JANUARY, 2007
Aubertine, Darrel 50 acres
24.8 acres 40.00-1-19
Mason, Marty 40.00-1-39
Mason, Ennis L. Sources:
53.27 acres USGS 7.5 Minute
67.83 acres
40.00-1-4.1 55 Tax Parcel Data: Jefferson County
Aubertine, Paul 40.00-1-17 Planning Department
40.00-1-4.3 47.54 acres 48
Aubertine, Darrel J.
Aubertine, Patrick J. 50.54 acres 40.00-1-40 Projection:
2.38 acres State Plane New York Central (feet)
Mason, Marty 40.00-1-47 NAD 83
33.52 acres Doctore, Wayne J.
40.00-1-42.2 40.00-1-42.1 40.00-1-41.1 40.00-1-18 40.00-1-46 71.42 acres
Aubertine, Gene L. Aubertine, Terry L. Aubertine, Paul Aubertine, Darrel J. Brown, James L. P:\Cape Vincent Wind Farm\GIS\Spatial\MXD\
DEIS_Figures\REV1\SLW_Buffers2_REV1.mxd
5.11 acres 192.1 acres 174.34 acres 40.42 acres 76.79 acres
000389
k al 94
lsc pm
95
90
96
91
86
92
87
St. Lawrence
93 Windpower, LLC
81
t Proposed
lsc r 82
88
k St. Lawrence
75 89
Wind Energy
83
Project
17
76 FIGURE 3-1
77
84
pm Proposed St.Lawrence
Wind Energy Project with
69
al Surficial Geological Data
85 Topographic Maps
70
71
sf
and Lyme
78
63 JANUARY, 2007
72 79
80
53
64 73 Turbine Locations
Radius Laydown Area
Existing Temporary
60 65
Meteorological
74
Tower
56 61 Proposed Temporary
66 Meteorological
Tower
Buried Interconnect
49
57
62 Access Roads and
Turnarounds
50 67
43 58
Temporary
35 O&M Construction Area
44 Building
36 68 Operations
51 and Maintenance
Building
37
27 16
38 53
28 Existing Substation
39
29
46
Surficial Geology
MATERIAL
30
22 40 al: Recent alluvium
54
47 k: Kame deposits
41
23
31
lsc: Lacustrine
silt and clay
55
48 pm: Swamp deposits
24
r: Bedrock
sf: Subaqueous fan
25
42
t: Till
32
New York State
18
33
14
pm 19
26
34
15
20
r 21 Overhead Transmission
59
lsc
pm
13
8
9
5
1
10
Proposed
6 St. Lawrence
Wind Energy Project
2
7
3
4
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Miles
0 0.25 0.5
pm
NOTES:
al REVISION 1
JANUARY, 2007
Sources:
USGS 7.5 Minute
Surfical Geological Data:
NYS Museum / NYS Geological Survey,
http://www.nysm.nysed.gov, 1999
Overhead Transmission Projection:
r
r
NAD 83
DEIS_Figures\REV1\SLW_Surfical_REV1.mxd
000390
94
95
90
96
91 OCth
86
92
87
93
81
St. Lawrence
Obr 88 Windpower, LLC
82
75 89
Proposed
83
St. Lawrence
17
76 Wind Energy
84 Project
77
69 FIGURE 3-2
70 85
Wind Energy Project with
Bedrock Geological Data
78
Topographic Maps
63 Towns of Cape Vincent
72 79 and Lyme
80
64 73 JANUARY, 2007
60 65 53
Turbine Locations
74 with 200 foot Temporary
Radius Laydown Area
56 61
Meteorological
Tower
Proposed Temporary
49
57 Meteorological
Tower
62
50 Buried Interconnect
67
35
43 58
Obr Access Roads and
44 Turnarounds
36 68
51
Temporary
45 O&M Construction Area
Building
37 Operations
52
and Maintenance
27 16 Building
38 53 (To Be Determined)
28
Proposed Substation
39
29
30
22 40
47
54
Bedrock Geology
41
23 MATERIAL
31
55 OCth: Theresa Formation
48
24
Obr: Black River Group
25 Ot: Trenton Group
42
32
New York State
18
33
19
14 26
34
15
20
21
59 Overhead Transmission
13
8
9
5
1
10
Proposed
6 St. Lawrence
Wind Energy Project
2
7
3
4
Ot
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Miles
0 0.25 0.5
NOTES:
REVISION 1
JANUARY, 2007
Sources:
USGS 7.5 Minute
Ot Topographic Quadrangles:
Bedrock Geological Data:
Overhead Transmission NYS Museum / NYS Geological Survey,
http://www.nysm.nysed.gov, 1999
Projection:
NAD 83
DEIS_Figures\REV1\SLW_Bedrock_REV1.mxd
000391
94
95
90
96
91
86
92
87
93
81
St. Lawrence
88
82 Windpower, LLC
75 89
Proposed
83 17
76
St. Lawrence
84
Wind Energy
77
Project
69
85
FIGURE 3-3
70
71
Wind Energy Project
Topographic Maps
63 72 and Aerial Photography
79
80
64 73
and Lyme
60 65
74
JANUARY, 2007
56 61
66
53
Turbine Locations
57 Radius Laydown Area
62
Existing Temporary
50 67 Meteorological
43 58 Tower
44 Meteorological
36 68 Tower
51
O&M
45 Building Buried Interconnect
37
52 Access Roads and
27 Temporary Construction
16 Turnarounds
38 53
28
Temporary
Construction Area
39
29
46 Operations
and Maintenance
Building
22 40
54
41
23
31
48
24
25
42
32
New York State
18
33
19
14 26
34
15
20
21
59
11 12
Route To Be Determined Jefferson County
13
8
9
5
1
10
Proposed
6
St. Lawrence
Wind Energy Project
2
7
3
4
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Miles
0 0.25 0.5
NOTES:
REVISION 1
JANUARY, 2007
Sources:
USGS 7.5 Minute
Jefferson County 24-inch Resolution
Color Infrared Orthoimagery: April, 2003
http://www.nysgis.state.ny.us
Route To Be Determined NAD 83
DEIS_Figures\REV1\SLW_Aerial_REV1.mxd
000392
RhA RhA
RhB HuB
RhB HuB RhB
RhB
HuC
Lc 95 CmB
Lc HuB
90
Cp RhA 96
RhA HuB
HuB
Ma
GaB
HuB 91
RhA
86 Cp ChB RhA
HuB
Lc 92
Gv RhB
HuB Ma
HuB GaB
CnB HuB HuB
RhB 87 93
CmB
NoA 81
Ma
WnB Ma
GbB HuB 88 HuB Soils Within Proposed St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project St. Lawrence
RhA
BgB WnB ClA
RhA
Area Windpower, LLC
82
BgB GbB
Unit Soil Series Description
75 CnB 89
CnC CmB
ClA BgB Benson-Galoo complex, very rocky, 0 to 8 percent slopes
CnB 83 17 ChB Chatfield loam, rocky, 0 to 8 percent slopes Proposed
76
CnB RhB ClA Chaumont silty clay, 0 to 3 percent slopes St. Lawrence
Ma RhB
84 ClB Chaumont silty clay, 3 to 8 percent slopes
Nn 77
CmB CmB Claverack loamy fine sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes
Wind Energy
HuB
69
Ma
Ma
CnB Collamer silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Project
ElB
RhA CnC Collamer silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
70 85
RhB
CnB NoA Cp Covington silty clay
Cp
Ma
Dp Dumps FIGURE 3-4
71 RhA
RhA
ElA Elmridge fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
ElA 78
ElB Elmridge fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Proposed St. Lawrence
RhB
Ma
63
72 79
FaB Farmington loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Wind Energy Project
RhA Over Soil Data
HuB RhB Fu Fluvaquents-Udifluvents complex, frequently flooded
RhB 80
64 73
GaB Galen fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes
CnB
GbB Galoo-Rock outcrop complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes Towns of Cape Vincent
HuB RhB and Lyme
HuB
RhB
GlB Galway silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Jefferson County, NY
KgB
60
HuB GmC Galway very stony silt loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes
74
HuB
Cp
65 Gv Guffin clay
ClA JANUARY, 2007
56 61 HuB HuB Hudson silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes
VeB 66
Cp
RhA
HuC Hudson silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
RhB HyE3 Hudson and Vergennes soils, 15 to 35 percent slopes, severely eroded
HuB
VeB KgA Kingsbury silty clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes 53
Turbine Locations
VeB 57
HuB with 200 foot Temporary
49 62 HuB KgB Kingsbury silty clay, 2 to 6 percent slopes Radius Laydown Area
KgB Lc Livingston mucky silty clay
50 67 Existing Temporary
43 ClB 58 Ld Livingston silty clay loam, frequently flooded Meteorological
KgA Cp VeB Tower
Cp WnB KgA
KgA KgA Ma M adalin silt loam
35
FaB
KgB Nn Newstead silt loam Proposed Temporary
Lc BgB 68 Cp
Lc Meteorological
VeC
44 51
WnB
NoA Niagara silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Tower
VeB ClB O&M
WmB 45 NoB Niagara silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes
Building Cp Cp Buried Interconnect
52
RhA Rhinebeck silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
VeB Gv Nn ClA
KgB ClA RhB Rhinebeck silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes
ClB Access Roads and
KgA Lc 16
ClB 38 53 Temporary Construction
28 RhB BgB
Sa Saprists and Aquents, ponded Turnarounds
WmB KgA
VeB KgB VeB Vergennes silty clay loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes
HuB Temporary
FaB 39 VeC Vergennes silty clay loam 8 to 15 percent slopes
Gv KgA Construction Area
29
RhA HuB 46 Lc W Water
Nn Operations
Ma FaB
ClA 30 ClA
WmB Williamson silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes and Maintenance
FaB Building
22 40
WnB ClB Gv 54 WnB Wilpoint silty clay loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes (To Be Determined)
WnC ClA WnB 47
ClA
ClA 41 Cp WnC Wilpoint silty clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
ClA BgB Proposed Substation
23 HuB ClA
FaB 31 FaB VeB
ClB
55
Nn 48
ClB Gv ClB HuB Ma Existing Substation
24 KgB RhA
RhA
KgB
WnC NoA
VeB Lc
ClA 25 CnB
ClA GlB
Ma ClB 42
WnB
Lc KgA
ClB 32 FaB
ClB New York State
ClA FaB
18 ClB ClA
WnB
RhA Lc
KgA ClB
FaB 33
Cp 19 WnB
14 FaB KgA 26 ClB
RhB 34
BgB
Lc Lc
KgA Lc WnB
15
KgB Dp
KgB Ma
Ld ClB KgB Lc Cp
BgB 21 Cp
KgA Lc
WnB
59 Route To Be Determined
Ld
GbB 11 12 KgB Jefferson County
KgA
Fu
NoB
Cp Lc
BgB VeB
13
8
GbB KgB KgA Ma
VeB 9
5
Gv
1 BgB
ClA WnB 10
ClB FaB HuB Proposed
6 St. Lawrence
Gv ClB Wind Energy Project
KgB
2
ClA
Gv ClB ClB 7
Gv ClA VeB
3
VeB Cp KgA
VeB
WnB Gv
4
Gv
BgB
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Miles
0 0.25 0.5
NOTES:
REVISION 1
JANUARY, 2007
Sources:
USGS 7.5 Minute
Overhead Transmission Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO)
database for Jefferson County:
Route To Be Determined U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service
7/11/2006
Projection:
NAD 83
DEIS_Figures\REV1\SLW_Soils_REV1.mxd
000393
94 CL-1
CL-1
95
90
96
91
86 CL-1
92 ST-6
CL-1
87
93
81
St. Lawrence
88 Windpower, LLC
82
CL-1
75 89 ST-14 Proposed
83 17
St. Lawrence
76 Wind Energy
77
84 Project
ST-1 ST-14
69
FIGURE 3-5
70 85 Proposed St. Lawrence
Wind Energy Project
ST-7 with New York State DEC
71
ST-6 Wetlands and Streams
Topographic Maps
63
72 79
80 and Lyme
64 73 Jefferson County, NY
60 65 JANUARY, 2007
74 ST-13
56 61
66 ST-13
ST-15
53
Turbine Locations
49
57 ST-8 Radius Laydown Area
62
Existing Temporary
Meteorological
50 67 Tower
43 58
35 ST-6 Proposed Temporary
O&M Meteorological
44
Building Tower
36 68
51
45 Buried Interconnect
37
ST-9
52 Access Roads and
27 16 Turnarounds
38 53
28
Temporary
Construction Area
39
29 Operations
46 and Maintenance
Building
(To Be Determined)
30
22 40
47
41
23
31
ST-11 Existing Substation
55
48
24
NYSDEC Wetlands
CV-2 ST-10
NYSDEC
25 Classified Streams
42
ST-10
32
New York State
CV-2 18
33
19
14 26
34
15
20 CV-1
U-1
21
59 U-2
11 12
V-1 Route To Be Determined Jefferson County
X-9
X-9
V-1
V-1
13
8
9
X-2
5
1
10
U-3
Proposed
6
St. Lawrence
U-4 Wind Energy Project
2
U-11
7
3
4
V-2
U-5
V-3
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Miles
V-2 V-3 0 0.25 0.5
V-3 X-5
U-6
V-3
NOTES:
REVISION 1
JANUARY, 2007
Sources:
USGS 7.5 Minute
V-3 NYS Regulatory Freshwater Wetlands
and Streams For Jefferson County:
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation,1999
Route To Be Determined State Plane New York Central (feet)
NAD 83
V-4 U-6
V-5 P:\Cape Vincent Wind Farm\GIS\Spatial\MXD\
U-6 DEIS_Figures\REV1\SLW_DEC_REV1.mxd
000394
94
PFO1A
PSS1/EM1C PFO1A
95
90 PEM1A
PEM1E
96
PSS1E
R2RBH PSS1E PUBHhx 91
PFO1/SS1E PUB/FO5H
PEM1F PUBFx PFO1A
PFO1/SS1B 86
PFO1A
PEM1/FO5F PUBHx
R2RBH 92
PEM1/UBF
87
PFO1E
93
PEM1/UBF PEM1/UBF PEM1E
PEM1/UBF 81 PSS1A
PEM1/UBF
PFO1A
St. Lawrence
PUBH PUBHh
PSS1/EM1E
PFO1A
88
PSS1/EM1E
PEM1A
PEM1A
PUB/FO5Hb
Windpower, LLC
82 PFO1A PUBHx
PEM1B
PEM1Ad 75
PFO1A
PFO1A
89 Proposed
PFO1A
83 PFO1A
17
St. Lawrence
PFO1A
PEM1E
76 PUBFx Wind Energy
PEM1E
84
PEM1E PFO1B
PFO1/4E PEM1E
Project
77
69 PFO1E FIGURE 3-6
PFO1A
PFO1B
PFO1E
70 85 Proposed St. Lawrence
R2UBH PFO1E Wind Energy Project
R2ABH
PFO1E with National Wetlands
PEM5/1C 71
Inventory over 7.5 Minute
R2RSA
78 USGS Topographic Maps
63 PUBHh
PSS1/EM1Cx PUBHx 72 79
PUBHx PUBHx
80 and Lyme
64 73 PFO4E Jefferson County, NY
PUBHx PEM1Ed
PEM1C PFO1A
Pf Pf
PFO4B
60 65 Pf JANUARY, 2007
PSS1/EM1E 74 PSS1A Pf
PUBFhx PUBFx
PUBHx PFO1/4B
PEM1E PSS1B
PUBFx
PEM1/SS1E
PSS1/EM1E 56 PSS1E 61 PUBHhx
66 PFO1/EM1E
PFO4B
R2RSC PEM1E PUBF Pf
PEM1E PUBF PEM1/SS1E
PFO5Fb 53
R2RSC Turbine Locations
PFO1A PEM1E PEM1E
PEM1C PEM1E
PEM1E
PUBHx 49 PEM1E PFO4B Radius Laydown Area
PFO1E
PEM1A
57
PEM1EPEM1EPEM1E PEM1E PSS1B PFO4/1E
PUBHh 62 PEM1E
PUBFx PEM1E PEM1E
PEM1E PEM1E
PSS1Ad Existing Temporary
PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E
PEM1E Meteorological
PEM1E
50 PEM1E PEM1EPEM1EPEM1EPEM1E PSS1A PSS1E Tower
67 PEM1E PEM1E PFO1B
43 58 PEM1E
PEM1E PEM1E
PEM1E
PEM1E PSS1C
PEM1E PEM1EPEM1E PEM1E
PUBFx PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PSS1/EM1C PUBFx Proposed Temporary
PEM1B 35 PEM1E PEM1E
PEM1E Meteorological
PUBHx PSS1E PEM1E
PUBHx 44 PEM1A PEM1E
PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E Tower
36 68 PEM1E PEM1E PSS1C
PUBHx PUBHx 51 PFO1C
PUBHx PSS1C
PEM1E
45 O&M PSS1E Buried Interconnect
PSS1C PEM1A
PEM1E
Building PEM1E PEM1C
PUBFx 37 PEM1E
52 PEM1E PFO1C Access Roads and
PUBFx PEM1A Temporary Construction
27 16 PUBFx Turnarounds
38 53
PUBHx
28 PUBHx
PUBFh PEM1B
PFO1C Temporary
PUBHx PUBFx Construction Area
PFO1C
39
PUBHx PFO1/SS1E PEM1C
PUBHx PEM1A
Operations
46 PUBF and Maintenance
PFO1/SS1E PUBFx
29 Building
PUBHx PEM1E
PUBFx PEM1A PEM1/SS1C (To Be Determined)
PFO1E 30 PEM1E
22 40
47 PEM1E PFO1E PEM1E Proposed Substation
PUBFx PUBHx
PEM1A 41 PSS1Ed
23 PFO1B
31
PEM1A
PSS1E Existing Substation
55 PFO4/1A PEM1C
48
24
PSS1A
National Wetlands
PFO1E
Inventory
PUBHx PUBHx PUBHx
PEM1E PSS1A
PEM1A PUBHh
PEM1E PUBHh
25 PUBHx
PEM1A PSS1E PFO1A PFO1A
42 PEM1A
PFO1E PEM1E
PUBHx PUBHh
PFO1/SS1E 32
PFO1/SS1E PUBHx PEM1/SS1A PFO1A
PSS1A
PUBFx PEM1Bd
New York State
PUBHx PUSCx
PUBFx PEM1Bd PEM1A PFO1A
R2UBHx PFO1/SS1E PSS1A
PSS1/EM1E PEM1Ad
PEM1E PEM1Bd 33 PSS1/EM1E PUBFx
PSS1A
19 PFO1A
PFO1/SS1E PSS1E
PEM1Ad PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E 26
PUBFx PFO1E PEM1E PEM1Ed
PEM1E PSS1/EM1E PFO1A
PUBKHh PSS1E 34 PFO1Bd PFO1/SS1A
PEM1E 14 PEM1E PFO1E PUBHx
PEM1E PEM1A PEM1E
PUBKHh PEM1E PFO1E
PFO1/SS1E PSS1/EM1E PFO1/EM1E PFO1E
PEM1E PEM1E 15 PEM1E
PFO1A
PFO1/SS1E PSS1/EM1A
PUBKHh 20 PFO1E
PEM1E PEM1E PEM1E PFO1E
PEM1Bd PEM1E PFO1/SS1E
PUBHh 21 PFO1B PUBHx
PEM1B PFO1E
PFO1E
59 PSS1/EM1E PSS1/EM1Fb
PUBHx PSS1/EM1C PFO1E PUBHx PSS1C
PFO1/SS1E PSS1A
PEM1E PFO1E PEM1E
PFO1E PFO4/SS1C
11 12 PFO1E PEM1/UBHh Jefferson County
PFO1B PUBFx
PEM1E
PFO1C PEM1Bd PUBHx
PEM1/SS1E PFO1E PFO1E PFO1Ed PEM1E
PUBFx
PFO1B PUB/EM1F
PUBFx PSS1E
PFO1E PEM1Bd
PSS1E PSS1/5Fh
PEM1Ad 13 PUBHx
PUBHx PUBFx
PUBFh 8 PEM1A PFO1E PEM1B
PSS1/EM1C
Pf PEM1E PSS1Ch
Overhead Transmission PEM1E
PUBHx
PUBFh 9 PFO1/SS1C Route To Be Determined PEM1E
PEM1E
PUBHx
PFO1Ed
PFO1C Pf
PUBHx PEM1Ad
PSS1E 5 PSS1Eb
1 PUBHx
PFO1/SS1B 10 PEM1Ed
PUBHh PUBHx PUBHx PEM1/SS1Bd
PEM1A PUBFx PUBHx
PUBFx PEM1A PUBHx Proposed
6 PUBHx PUBHx
PUBFh PUBHx PUBHx St. Lawrence
PUBHx PFO1/SS1Ed
PEM1A PUBFx PUBHx PUBHx Wind Energy Project
PUBHx PUBHx PEM1A
PEM1A PUBHx
PFO1E PFO1E PEM1Ad
2 PUBFh PUBHx PEM1/UBFx PUBH PUBHx
PUBFh PUBHh
PUBFh PEM1E PUBHx PUBHx
PUBFh
PUBHx PEM1A PSS1/EM1C
7 PEM1E PEM1/SS1C
PUBHx PUBH
3
PUBHx PUBFx PEM1E PFO1/SS1Ed
PSS1E
PUBHh PEM1E PSS1/EM1Ed
PUBHx PUBHx
PUBFh PEM1E PFO1/SS1Ed
4 PUBFh
PUBFh
PEM1E
PUBFh
PUBFh PUBHx
Pf PFO1/SS1A
PSS1/EM1E
PUBHh PUBHh PUBFx
PEM1E
PFO1Ed
PFO1E PUBHh
PUBHhx PSS1/EM1E PUBHx
PUBHh PUBHh PSS1/EM1E PSS1Ed
PFO1E PEM1A
PUBFx PUBFh
PEM1Ad
PUBFx
PUBHx PEM1F PEM1/SS1Cd
PFO1E PUBHx
PEM1E PFO1/SS1C PUBH
PFO1E PEM1E
PUBH
PFO1E PUBFh PEM1E PEM1A
PSS1/EM1E PSS1E
PFO1/SS1E PEM1C
Feet
PUBHx PSS1Ed
PUBFh 0 1,000 2,000
PUBHx PUBHx PUBHx
PEM1/FO5Hh PEM1C PUBFx
PUBFh PSS1/EM1Ed PSS1/EM1Bd
PFO1C PFO1C PSS1/FO1C
PUBHx PEM1E Miles
PEM1E
PUBHx PUBFh 0 0.25 0.5
PUBFh PFO1/SS1E
PUBFh PEM1C
PFO1E PEM1E PFO1A PSS1/EM1C
PUBFh PEM1A PUBFx
Pf
PSS1A PFO1B
PUBHx
PEM1A PFO1E
Pf PUBFx
PUBHh R2UBH
PEM1Ad PSS1Ed
PUBFx PUBFx PEM1/SS1C
PUBHx
PSS1B PUBFx PUBHx
PUBHx PEM1F
PUSCx
PEM1E
PUBFh PUBFh
PEM1E PEM1F PUBHx NOTES:
PUBFh PSS1E
PFO1E
REVISION 1
PUBHx
PUBFh JANUARY, 2007
PSS1A PUBHx PUBHx
PUBHx PEM1A
PUBFx PFO1A Sources:
PFO1/EM1Bd PFO1A USGS 7.5 Minute
PUBHx Topographic Quadrangles:
PSS1A PEM1F
PFO1/4B Cape Vincent N & S, Chaumont,
PEM5/1C PSS1A PUBHx St.Lawrence,Clayton and Dexter, 1958.
NWI Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats:
PUBHx PFO1Ed PUBFx U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979
PEM1Ad PSS1/EM1E PUBFx
PUBHx PEM1E PUBFx
PSS1E
PUBFx Overhead Transmission
PEM1F PUBFx Projection:
Pf
Route To Be Determined State Plane New York Central (feet)
NAD 83
PEM1F PEM1A PUBFx
PUBFx P:\Cape Vincent Wind Farm\GIS\Spatial\MXD\
PEM1E PFO1/SS1B PEM1E DEIS_Figures\REV1\SLW_NWI_REV1.mxd
PEM1F PUSC
000395
94
95
90
96
91
86
92 St. Lawrence
87 Windpower, LLC
93
81 Proposed
88
St. Lawrence
82 Wind Energy
75 89 Project
83 17 FIGURE 3-7
76
84 Wind Energy Project with
77 National Land Cover Data
69
Topographic Maps
70 85 and Lyme
71 JANUARY, 2007
78
53
Turbine Locations
72 79 Radius Laydown Area
Tower
Proposed Temporary
74 Tower
Buried Interconnect
56 61
66
Access Roads and
Turnarounds
49
57 Temporary
62 Construction Area
Operations
50 67 and Maintenance
43 58
Building
O&M
44 Building
36 68 Proposed Substation
51
45
Existing Substation
37
52
27 16
38 53 National Land Cover Data
28
Open Water
39 Low Intensity Residential
29
46 High Intensity Residential
Commercial/Industrial/Transportation
30 Quarries/Strip Mines/Gravel Pits
22 40
54 Deciduous Forest
47
41 Evergreen Forest
23
31 Mixed Forest
55 Pasture/Hay
48
24 Row Crops
Urban/Recreational Grasses
Woody Wetlands
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
25
42
32
18
33 New York State
19
14 26
34
15
20
21
59 Overhead Transmission
11 12
Jefferson County
13
8
9
5
1
10
6
Proposed
2
St. Lawrence
Wind Energy Project
7
3
4
Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Miles
0 0.25 0.5
NOTES:
REVISION 1
JANUARY, 2007
Sources:
USGS 7.5 Minute
National Land Cover Data:
U.S. Geological Survey, 1992.
Route To Be Determined NAD 83
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)
TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT AND CLAYTON
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 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
000412
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:
x Establish a 5-mile Area of Potential Effect (APE) around the Project site, using a
topographic survey to determine the viewshed.
x Establish a “1-mile ring of study area” within the 5-mile APE.
x 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).
x 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
000413
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:
x Establish a 5-mile Area of Potential Effect (APE) around the Project site, using a
topographic survey to determine the viewshed.
x Establish a “1-mile ring of study area” within the 5-mile APE.
x 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).
x 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
000414
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 above-
ground 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
000415
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:
y Location
y Design
y Setting
y Materials
y Workmanship
y Feeling
y 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.
000416
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.

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.
000417
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
000418
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.
000419
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. 1880-
1910), 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 Mid-
Century 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).
000420
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.
000421
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
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 style-
dated 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
resources.
5.0 SOURCES CITED
and Weiskopf.
NY.
11
000424
resources.
5.0 SOURCES CITED
and Weiskopf.
NY.
11
000425
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
95
90
96
91
86
92
87
93
81
88
82
75
89
83
76
84
77
69
70 85
71
78
0 0.25 0.5
63 72 79
80 Miles
64 73
60 65
74
56 61 66
Existing
49
Meteorological Tower
57
62
50 67 Proposed
43 58 Meteorological Tower
35
36 44 51 68
Turbine Locations
45
37 52
27 38
28 53 200 ft Temporary Turbine
39 Laydown Radius
29 46
22 30 40 Buried Interconnect
47 54
41
23 31
48 55 Access Roads and
24
Turnarounds
16 25
17 42
18
33
19 Construction Area
14 26
34
15
Operations and
20 Management Building
21
59 Overhead Transmission Proposed Substation
11 12 Route To Be Determined
8 13
9
5
1 10
6
2
3 7
St. Lawrence
4 Windpower, LLC
Figure 1
Proposed
St. Lawrence
Wind Energy
Project Location
JANUARY, 2007
Sources:
USGS 7.5 Minute
Topographic Maps:
Cape Vincent N and S
St.Lawrence and
Overhead Transmission Chaumont, 1958
P:\Cape Vincent Wind Farm\GIS\
Spatial\MXD\archeology\
project_Location.mxd
000427
000428
000429
Taylor Ln
290 Na
ay pa
Legend
w 289
ad 288 Da
Bro
Inset 1 287
H ead
Ln no
Ln
bec
St Que
ph
Structures 24-290 286 Jose State Hig
hway 12E TURBINE
270 271
285
St INTERCONNECT
Elm
146 145 144 269

135 143 221 268 Lake
Wile
273
Fo
St
222 272 xR
yB
274
136 147
142
218 220 223
267
Eu
u n ACCESS ROAD
lvd
266 275 ro
148 265 cli
141 276 ff
137 139 140 149 215 264
HISTORIC STRUCTURE
Ce
133 277
216 263
ntr
138 249 278

132 151 150 224 st
e
152 214
262 280 St Ea
St
e
153 217 219 248 261 279 Pin Ln
PROPERTIES RECOMMENDED AS NOT ELIGIBLE TO THE NRHP
131 130 211 212 213 225 281
229 es
Lee
134 154 230 232 d ad

210 260 282 sR lis
127 128 155 208
Pa PROPERTIES LISTED IN NRHP
S
231 233 258 re

ho
t
156 226 380

126 209 207 234 235 259 257 yS
124 129 159 283 ad 383
158 162 247 256 Sh
157 161 206 202 227 PROPERTIES RECOMMENDED AS POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE TO THE NRHP
123 125 119 204 236 284 379
163 205 201 228
121 255 382
Bay
122 118 238 378

120 160 198 252
117 n 164 254 374 381 CEMETERY
yL 203 237 239
St
113 se 251 Str 377

Kel 197 253 au B
165 199 200 ss
51 111 195 240
250 Blv reez
d yP
49
50
52 116
114 115
110 166 167
196 194 241 t Rd 376 1-MILE RING APE
112 242
48 53 108 168 193 192
56 375
47 54
55
109
106
169 170
190 191 243
244
MAP SECTION
189
A3
58 107 188
A4
28 29 46 245
57 171 373
27
45
44 105
103
Lake
St 187
246 369
C-4
371
384
STREET
101
26 43 61 104 368 372
Poi
42 100 367
25 60 102 STRUCTURES 349-369 STRUCTURES 370-391,
nt
41 59 186 366 Co
96 95
62 98
St
30 370 un 400-402, C-4

24 32 40 97 185 ty
93 364 Ro 385
ad
31 172 184 9
39 63 94 C-5 183 363 365
Vince
64 99 92 173
90 182 387 400 Be
38 v ins
nt St
91 174 362
Rea
34 35 R
36 37 R d2 d
nd 388
4
65 89
l St
88 Isla
ad
33 n Be
rleto
Ro
66 ad
Wile
181 les 361

Ca
ty
87 Pt
Rd
yP
un
Fr
355 Rd 360
67
en
e
Co
84 386 us
ark
359
Rd
354
z
86 180 389 Ho
D
82 390
lo
353 358
D
68 85
Pe
r
352 357
81
179 351 356 391 Sources:
83
80 178 USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangles:
St Cape Vincent North (1958, photo-inspected 1980)
350 La
Gra
79 w 401
177 348 349
ren
ce Cape Vincent South (1958, photo-inspected 1980)
nt S
Rd
78 77 176 347 St. Lawrence (1958)
t
392-399
175 402-410
Chaumont (1958)
76 346
340 345 413 Co
75 un
339 344 ty
Co
d1 338 343 Ro
unty
74 R ad
nd 337 9
d
414
Isla
kR
411
R
341
Jam
73 ton
oad
ree
rle
Ca 334
es
hC
Dr
See Inset 3
6
all 72 342
St
nc
415
de nw STRUCTURES 323-348, 412
Fre
Gar 71 331 336
333 Mil 427-430, 465-467, 470-472
Ln
330 335 le rs 416
n
Ba
Rd
tta
332 yR
Mu
er
Sta 327 d
ev
te 326 329 St
Ke
Rd
Hig
328
La
w Inset 3
Mc
y hw re
arr ay nc 402
18 Qu 417 eR
ne 12 427
B3 B4
69 325 Structures
Rd
Sto E 428 d
70
re
324 392-399
sie
403
Ro
429 392 402-410
323
465 418
STRUCTURES 392-399, JEFFERSON COUNTY,
B2 315-319
322
419
403-426, 431 393 NEW YORK STATE
Bac
313 430 420 394

Carleton Dr 321
STRUCTURES 308-322 C
h
on
sta
Ln
421
Gosiere Rd
C-3 312 314 320
nc
e Rd 404
395
396
424
422 Rd 405
d
470
nR
s
See 425 am 408
so
Ad
Ma
Inset 2 Sa
m 409 406 397
431 407
426
471 423 410
310 311
Ce
C-3 466 467 398
Inset 2
O&M
d
tR
ete
309 BUILDING 472 399
en
ry
m
308
Rd
ttle
318 319
Se
473 432
317 468 433
b
306 307 315
om
305
ac
316
M
304 474
469 434
303 475
435
Hell St
See Inset 1 302
299
300 301
476 436
298
C-2 297 477
295 478
294
C2
296
C3
293 481
C1 C4
C-1 Bra 479
nc
he
R
291
292
STRUCTURES 291-308,
481-488, C-1, C-2
d 483 482 480
STRUCTURES 436-455, 437
ST. LAWRENCE
WINDPOWER, LLC
287-290 485
STRUCTURES 18-290, C-5 468-469, 473-480 STRUCTURES 432-435
71-227 249-284
484
248
Fa
438
ils
vre
286
on
285 439
tR
24-68, C-5
R
Sw
d
d
227 alli
ST. LAWRENCE
a Rd
247
Ba
23 SUBSTATION
440
yS
WIND ENERGY
t
22 487 441
486
21 442
4 443
Vo
20
ad
PROJECT
tra
5
Ro
ad
19 444
R
ty
d
un
Ro
488 445-455 Co
JEFFERSON COUNTY
ty
18
un
d
Co
Rd
R
17 y 70
nd
arr
St NEW YORK
Qu 69
hla
16
nt
ne 456
Gra
Sto
As
459
458 457
See Inset 4
Co
d
tR
unty
vre
6 14
ad
Fa
Ro
Road
Co
un
ty 460
Inset 4 MAP 1
6
446
D2
15 13 Structures 447
445
12
C-6 445-455 448
463 462 461 449
d
STRUCTURES 9-14, 464
D1
kR 450
8 464 oc
HISTORIC
De
11 tR
ze
10 rn 451
R d Bu
ng
ick Ro
erl
re
452 bin
De
STRUCTURE
STRUCTURES 1-8, so
me
nR
lR
D3
d
15-17 7
d
9
d
tR
INVENTORY MAP
6 Sta 453
P oin te
on H igh
Tibbe ts Point Wils wa
STRUCTURES 456-463, C-6
Sw
Rd y1
2E 454
(1-MILE RING APE)
am
Mill
5
en
455
Rd
sB
4 d
tR
ay
d
an
R
R
ch JANUARY 2007
ot
r
d
yD
er
Ro
M
Ba
er
d
ll
2 ff R
Fu
r Rd Hu
mee 1,500 750 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 Feet
Sch
d
1
tR
Be
an
Rd
ec
rch
s
h
te
Me
Rd
Ba
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 Name: Captain Louis Peugnet House
Address: 2867 Favret Rd., Cape Vincent, Jefferson Address: 32115 County Rd. 6, Cape Vincent,
County, NY Jefferson County, NY
Map ID: 13 Map ID: 17
Name: Beechwood Name: Beechwood Outbuilding
Address: 31429 County Rd. 6, Cape Vincent, Address: County Rd. 6 (no address), Cape Vincent,
Jefferson County, NY Jefferson County, NY
000431
Name: Maple Grove Name: Bragden House
Address: 596 Broadway, Cape Vincent, Jefferson Address: 523 Broadway, Cape Vincent, Jefferson
County, NY County, NY
Name: Stone House Servant Quarters Name: Vincent LeRay House
Address: 523 Broadway, Cape Vincent, Jefferson Address: Broadway - N side, Cape Vincent,
000432
Name: St. Vincent of Paul Catholic Church Name: John Borland House
Address: Kanady/Lake St. Northwest corner, Cape Address: 127 Joseph St. , Cape Vincent, Jefferson
Vincent, Jefferson County, NY County, NY
Name: Lewis Building Name: Roxy Hotel
Address: 230 Market St. , Cape Vincent, Jefferson Address: Broadway/Market St. - Northeast corner, ,
County, NY Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY
000433
Name: Roxy Hotel [wing] Name: James Buckley House
Address: 123 Broadway, Cape Vincent, Jefferson Address: 169 Joseph St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson
Name: Otis Starkey House Name: General Sacket House
Address: 9500 Point St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson Address: 467 James St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson
000434
Name: Jean Philippe Galband du Fort House Name: The Glen Building
Address: James/Lake St. Southwest corner, Cape Address: 352 Broadway, Cape Vincent, Jefferson
Name: Erastus K. Burnham House Name: Cornelius Sacket House
Address: Broadway/Esseltyne St. Northeast corner, Address: 451 Broadway, Cape Vincent, Jefferson
Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY County, NY
000435
Name: The Aubertine Building Name: George Reynolds House
Address: East of 580 Broadway, Cape Vincent, Address: 34191 State Hwy. 12e, Cape Vincent,
Name: Union Meeting House Name: Joseph Docteur House
Address: County Rd. 8/st rd 12e Northeast corner, Address: 31469 Rosiere Rd., Cape Vincent,
Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Jefferson County, NY
000436
Name: Remy Dezengremel House Name: Xavier Chevalier House
Address: 30538 Rosiere Rd., Cape Vincent, Address: 6338 Gosiere Rd., Cape Vincent,
Name: Claude Vautrin House Name: Warren Wilson House
Address: 33110 Mason Rd., Cape Vincent, Address: 4670 Favret Rd., Cape Vincent, Jefferson
Jefferson County, NY County, NY
000437
Table 2 – Properties Recommended as Potentially Eligible to the NRHP (Sheet 1 of 17)
Address: 29766 County Rd. 6, Cape Vincent, Address: Deer Lick Rd. se corner County Rd. 6,
Jefferson County, NY Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY
Map ID: 4 Map ID: 7
Address: State Hwy. 12e, Cape Vincent, Jefferson Address: 3204 State Hwy. 12e, Cape Vincent,
000438
Address: 2481 State Hwy. 12e, Cape Vincent, Address: 31498 Lake St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson
Address: 266 Lake St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson Address: 254 Lake St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson
000439
Address: Northwest corner, Kanady/Joseph St., Address: Southwest corner, Broadway/Kanady St.,
Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY
Address: 139 Broadway, Cape Vincent, Jefferson Address: Broadway, west of 221, Cape Vincent,
000440
Address: 132 Real St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson Address: 144 Real St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson
Address: Real St., north of 178, Cape Vincent, Address: 178 Real St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson
000441
Address: 483 Market St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson Address: 461 Market St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson
000442
Address: 179 Lake St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson Address: Market St. south of 255, Cape Vincent,
000443
Address: 110 Joseph St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson Address: 130 Joseph St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson
Address: 172 Broadway, Cape Vincent, Jefferson Address: 151 Gouvello St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson
000444
Address: Gouvello St. w of 119Cape Vincent, Address: Northeast corner, Market St./Gouvello St.,
Jefferson County, NY Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY
Address: Club St. opposite 371, Cape Vincent, Address: Point St., North of 165, Cape Vincent,
000445
Address: 9505 Point St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson Address: 662 James St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson
Address: 561 James St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson Address: 437 James St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson
000446
Address: The United Church, Cape Vincent, Address: 285 Broadway, Cape Vincent, Jefferson
Address: 481 Broadway, Cape Vincent, Jefferson Address: 186 Esseltyne St., Cape Vincent,
000447
Address: 343 William St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson Address: William St., North of 248, Cape Vincent,
Address: 185 William St., Cape Vincent, Jefferson Address: Carrier Ln., North side, Cape Vincent,
000448
Address: Bay St./Carrier Ln., Southwest corner, Address: 32719 State Hwy. 12e, Cape Vincent,
Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Jefferson County, NY
No photo currently available.
Address: State Hwy. 12e, Cape Vincent, Jefferson Address: 33865 Mance Rd., Cape Vincent,
000449
Address: State Hwy. 12e, east of 34191, Cape Address: County Rd. 7, North of 34765, Cape
Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Vincent, Jefferson County, NY
Address: 35109 County Rd. 7,Cape Vincent, Address: 35361 County Rd. 7, Cape Vincent,
000450
Address: 35373 County Rd. 7, Cape Vincent, Address: 35381 County Rd. 7, Cape Vincent,
Address: 35438 County Rd. 7,Cape Vincent, Address: Beadles Pt. Rd. & Frenz Dr., Cape
Jefferson County, NY Vincent, Jefferson County, NY
000451
Address: State Rd. 12e Cape Vincent, Jefferson Address: State Rd. 12e, East of 36091, Cape
County, NY Vincent, Jefferson County, NY
Address: 36147 State Rd. 12e, Cape Vincent, Address: Cedar Point St. State Park Cape Vincent,
000452
Address: Rosiere Rd., East of 33143, opposite side Address: 31345 Rosiere Rd., Cape Vincent,
[south], Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Jefferson County, NY
Address: Rosiere Rd., West of Kents Creek, Cape Address: Constance Rd.Cape Vincent, Jefferson
000453
Address: Hell St./Favret Rd., Southwest corner, Address: 4609 Favret Rd., Cape Vincent, Jefferson
opposite 32152, Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, County, NY
NY
Map ID: 484
Map ID: 479
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 Name: Riverside Cemetery
Address: Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY Address: Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, NY
Map ID: C-1 Map ID: C-2, 297
Name: Judd Cemetery Name: Sand Bay Cemetery
Map ID: C-3 Map ID: C-4
000455
No photo currently available. One will be taken

during the second phase of surveying.
Name: St. John’s Cemetery Name: St. Vincent de Paul Cemetery
Map ID: C-5 Map ID: C-6
Name: Market Street Cemetery Name: St. Lawrence Union Cemetery
000456
No photo currently available. One will be taken

during the second phase of surveying.
Name: St. Vincent of Paul Cemetery Name: St. Vincent de Paul Cemetery
000457
St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006 ID: 1
LOCATION INFORMATION
Map ID: 1 Map Section: D1
Address: Merchant Rd.
Town/City: Cape Vincent
Village: Not applicable
County: Jefferson County
Date of Inventory: 11/30/2006
Geographic Coordinates: 4883004.95 / 393860.49 20
DESCRIPTION
Original Use: Residence
Current Use: Residence
Construction Date: 1865-1890
Type/Style: 19th century vernacular
Exterior Materials: Aluminum Siding
Other Exterior Materials: Not applicable
Roof Materials: Shingle Asphalt
Roof Form: Gable Front
Foundation Materials: Stone
Stories: 1
Structural System: Frame
Windows: Replacement
Chimney Placement: End Gable
Doorway: Gabled/Porch
Porch: Open
Decorative Elements: None
Alterations: Replacement Siding
Other Alterations: Replacement Porch P:\Cape
[30] Vincent Wi
Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06
Landscape Elements: Agricultural Field
Merchant Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Natural Features: Viewshed
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Type of Setting: Rural/Ag
Notes: No driveway or house
number
SIGNIFICANCE
Within Dense Grouping: No
National/State Register Listed: No
Local Landmark: Not applicable
Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890
Primary NR Criterion: Not Applicable
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Design: No Photo ID: No Second Image.
Feeling: No Merchant Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible
A-1
000458
Address: County Rd. 6 n of 29697
DESCRIPTION
Exterior Materials: Cement-Asbestos
Roof Form: Cross Gable
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Chimney Placement: Multiple
Porch: Enclosed
Decorative Elements: Window caps
Other Alterations: Non-Historic Addition P:\Cape
[31] Vincent Wi
County Rd. 6 n of 29697 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: Multiple Ag building
Condition: Fair
Notes: No house number
Many windows
replaced; others have
decorative surrounds
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Design: No Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [33] P:\Cape Vincent Wi
Feeling: No County Rd. 6 n of 29697 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-2
000459
Address: County Rd. 6 29697
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Colonial Revival
Roof Form: Gambrel
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
Other Alterations: Non-Historic Outbuildin P:\Cape
[34] Vincent Wi
County Rd. 6 29697 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Excellent
Notes: Dormers
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No County Rd. 6 29697 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-3
000460
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Greek Revival
Exterior Materials: Stone
Stories: 2
Structural System: Masonry
Windows: 6/9 DH
Doorway: Replacement
Porch: Added
Decorative Elements: Belt course, cornice
Alterations: None visible
Other Alterations: Not applicable P:\Cape
[35] Vincent Wi
Notes: Dormers
SIGNIFICANCE
Primary NR Criterion: C
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Design: Yes Photo ID: No Second Image.
Feeling: Yes County Rd. 6 29766 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible
A-4
000461
Address: County Rd. 6 south of 30011
DESCRIPTION
Current Use: Agricultural
Exterior Materials: Wood Clapboard
Roof Materials: Metal
Roof Form: Side Gable
Stories: 2
Windows: Not applicable
Porch: None
Alterations: Rear Addition
[29] Vincent Wi
County Rd. 6 south of 30011 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Natural Features: Trees
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Deteriorated
Notes: Abandoned house now
used for hay storage
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No County Rd. 6 south of 30011 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-5
000462
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[27] Vincent Wi
Condition: Fair
Notes: Porch removed except
for roof
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-6
000463
Address: Deer Lick Rd. se corner County Rd. 6
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: wooden shingle
Stories: 2
Windows: 12/12 DH
Porch: Open
[36]aVincent Wi
Deer Lick Rd. se corner County Rd. 6 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Notes: Porch partially enclosed
with flush board siding
At least one stone

outbuilding
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes Deer Lick Rd. se corner County Rd. 6 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-7
000464
Address: Deer Lick Rd. north side
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
Other Alterations: Rear Addition P:\Cape
[37] Vincent Wi
Deer Lick Rd. north side Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Deer Lick Rd. north side Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-8
000465
Address: State Hwy. 12e
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Foursquare
Roof Form: Hipped
Foundation Materials: Poured Concrete
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Chimney Placement: Other
Porch: Enclosed
Alterations: Non-Historic Addition
Other Alterations: Rear Addition P:\Cape Vincent Wi
State Hwy. 12e Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Natural Features: Open Space
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes State Hwy. 12e Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-9
000466
Address: State Hwy. 12e 3204
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: Wood clapboard
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: 9/9 DH
Doorway: Not visible
Porch: Enclosed
(1) Vincent Wi
State Hwy. 12e 3204 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Design: Yes Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (2) P:\Cape Vincent Wi
Feeling: Yes State Hwy. 12e 3204 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-10
000467
Address: State Hwy. 12e '3'
DESCRIPTION
Exterior Materials: Vinyl Siding
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: 1 Story
Decorative Elements: Decorative fretwork in pr
Other Alterations: Replacement Siding P:\Cape
(3) Vincent Wi
State Hwy. 12e '3' Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No State Hwy. 12e '3' Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-11
000468
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: shingle in gable
Stories: 2
Windows: See notes
Porch: 1 Story
Alterations: New steps to front door
(4) Vincent Wi
Condition: Fair
Notes: Windows 1/1 and 2/2
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No State Hwy. 12e 2935 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-12
000469
Address: Favret Rd. 2867
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: Composite shingle
Stories: 2
Porch: 1 Story
Decorative Elements: Cornice
Alterations: According to the NRHP
(5) Vincent Wi
Favret Rd. 2867 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Notes: Nicholas Cocaigne
House
Cross gable and porch

both new
SIGNIFICANCE
National/State Register Listed: Yes
Primary NR Criterion: C, B
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes Favret Rd. 2867 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Listed
A-13
000470
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Doorway: Fanlights/Transom
Porch: Enclosed
Decorative Elements: Other
Alterations: Historic Addition
Other Alterations: Storm Windows P:\Cape
(7) Vincent Wi
Condition: Fair
Notes: 1 chimney removed; 1
repaired; 1 added
new front steps
SIGNIFICANCE
Primary NR Criterion: C,B
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-14
000471
DESCRIPTION
Exterior Materials: Clapboard
Foundation Materials: Not visible
Stories: 2
Windows: Not visible
Porch: Not visible
Alterations: Not visible
[26] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: House down long
private drive
Barely visible from road
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-15
000472
DESCRIPTION
Current Use: Abandoned
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[43] Vincent Wi
Landscape Elements: Suburban Yard
Natural Features: Body Of Water
Type of Setting: Neighborhood
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-16
000473
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: Not visible
Porch: Open
Decorative Elements: Door surround
[42] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Barn
Notes: Captain Louis Peugnet
House
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: Yes
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-17
000474
Map ID: 18 Map Section: Inset 1
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Italianate
Other Exterior Materials: vertical siding in rear
Roof Form: Pyramidal
Stories: 2
Doorway: Other
Porch: Enclosed
[24] Vincent Wi
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-18
000475
Map ID: 19 Map Section: C1
Village: Cape Vincent
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: vertical siding in rear
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
Other Alterations: Replacement siding P:\Cape
[23] Vincent Wi
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-19
000476
DESCRIPTION
Exterior Materials: Brick
Other Exterior Materials: rear ell clapboarded
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
Alterations: New Portico
[22] Vincent Wi
Landscape Elements: Vistas
Outbuildings: Other
Notes: Beechwood -- building
burned in 1854 and
again in 1932
Front portico with giant

order piers added in
1932
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Design: Yes Photo ID: SLW 11-30-06 [41] P:\Cape Vincent Wi
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-20
000477
Address: County Rd. 6 no address
DESCRIPTION
Original Use: Other: See Notes
Current Use: Other: See Notes
Roof Materials: Wood Shingle
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Chimney Placement: None
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
Alterations: Not applicable
[21] Vincent Wi
County Rd. 6 no address Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: Other
Condition: Fair
Notes: Outbuilding associated
with Beechwood
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: Yes
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes County Rd. 6 no address Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-21
000478
Address: County Rd. 6 north side north of turn
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Boat House
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
[38] Vincent Wi
Landscape Elements: Body Of Water
County Rd. 6 north side north of turn Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
with Beechwood
On property included in
Broadway NRHP
District but not on map
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: Yes
Materials: No
Feeling: No County Rd. 6 north side north of turn Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-22
000479
Address: County Rd. 6 north side north of turn
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Bath House
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
[39] Vincent Wi
County Rd. 6 north side north of turn Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
with Beechwood
On property included in
Broadway NRHP
District but not on map
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: Yes
Materials: No
Feeling: No County Rd. 6 north side north of turn Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-23
000480
Address: Broadway 596
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: Flush board siding
Stories: 2
Windows: 6/6 DH
Chimney Placement: Offset
Porch: Open
Other Alterations: Garage Attached P:\Cape
[58] Vincent Wi
Broadway 596 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Maple Grove
SIGNIFICANCE
Within Dense Grouping: Yes
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes Broadway 596 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-24
000481
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
[60] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: Bragden House
Stable also included in

NRHP Broadway District
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: Yes
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-25
000482
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: End walls parged
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
Alterations: Side Addition
[57] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Servants quarters for the
Stone House
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: Yes
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-26
000483
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Queen Anne
Exterior Materials: Shingle
Foundation Materials: Brick
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
Decorative Elements: Corbelling
Other Alterations: Gable window P:\Cape
[63] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Garage
Condition: Good
Notes: 1/1 double hung
windows flanked by
fixed single panes
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Broadway 446 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-27
000484
Address: Broadway n side
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Federal
Roof Form: Hipped
Stories: 2
Windows: 8/8 DH
Porch: Open
Decorative Elements: See notes
Alterations: Storm windows
[55] Vincent Wi
Broadway n side Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Vincent Le Ray House
Quoins, water table,

balustrade and round
headed windows
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: Yes
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes Broadway n side Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-28
000485
Address: Broadway east of 446
DESCRIPTION
Foundation Materials: Concrete Block
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[64] Vincent Wi
Broadway east of 446 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: Barn
Condition: Good
Notes: Turned posts and
brackets on front porch
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Broadway east of 446 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-29
000486
Address: Vincent St. 185
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottage
Exterior Materials: Other: See Notes
Other Exterior Materials: Vertical boards
Stories: 1
Structural System: Log
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
[19]aVincent Wi
Vincent St. 185 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes: Novelty siding
Foundation not visible;

windows double hung
and picture
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Vincent St. 185 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-30
000487
Address: Joseph St. 378
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Structural System: Log
Windows: 1/1 DH
Chimney Placement: Center
Doorway: Other
Porch: Enclosed
[47] Vincent Wi
Joseph St. 378 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Joseph St. 378 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-31
000488
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[49] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-32
000489
Address: Lake St. 31498
DESCRIPTION
Foundation Materials: Parged
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[20] Vincent Wi
Lake St. 31498 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: Barn
Condition: Good
Notes: Foundation not visible
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes Lake St. 31498 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-33
000490
Address: Lake St. east of 31498
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: None
[21] Vincent Wi
Lake St. east of 31498 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes: Garage attached
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Lake St. east of 31498 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-34
000491
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
Other Alterations: Side Addition P:\Cape
[22] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Dormers and turned
posts on porch
Foundation parged
material not visible
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Lake St. 31512 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-35
000492
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Doorway: Plain
Porch: None
[24] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: Foundation parged
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-36
000493
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Enclosed
[25] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes:
9/9 windows
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-37
000494
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[17] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: Chimney at eaves in rear
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-38
000495
Address: Kanady/Lake St. nw corner
DESCRIPTION
Original Use: Institutional
Current Use: Institutional
Type/Style: Gothic Revival
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Doorway: In bell tower
Porch: None
Decorative Elements: Windows, bell tower
[39] Vincent Wi
Kanady/Lake St. nw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: St. Vincent of Paul
Catholic Church
Associated graveyard
behind
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes Kanady/Lake St. nw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-39
000496
Address: Kanady
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Porch: Enclosed
[38] Vincent Wi
Kanady Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Roof lines suggest it is
historic
Garage attached
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Kanady Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-40
000497
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[37] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Reoriented from Kanady

St.
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-41
000498
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
[50] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-42
000499
Address: Kanady/Joseph St. nw corner
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[36] Vincent Wi
Kanady/Joseph St. nw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Kanady/Joseph St. nw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-43
000500
Address: Kanady/Joseph St. ne corner
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: None
[41] Vincent Wi
Kanady/Joseph St. ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Natural Features: None
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Kanady/Joseph St. ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-44
000501
Address: Kanady 172
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
[43] Vincent Wi
Kanady 172 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Kanady 172 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-45
000502
Address: Kelsey Ln. 160
DESCRIPTION
Exterior Materials: Wood Shingle
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Doorway: Hood
Porch: None
[44] Vincent Wi
Kelsey Ln. 160 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Attributes removed but
appears historic
Faces Kelsey Ln. but

number appears to be
Kanady
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Kelsey Ln. 160 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-46
000503
Address: Broadway/Kanady St. sw corner
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Hipped
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Enclosed
Decorative Elements: Corbelling
[66] Vincent Wi
Broadway/Kanady St. sw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Notes: Windows:
9/1,12/2,9/2,6/1
Dormers, square bay,

faceted bay
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Broadway/Kanady St. sw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-47
000504
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Stick
Other Exterior Materials: vertical board siding
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
Decorative Elements: Bargeboards
[53] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Boathouse
Condition: Good
Notes: Brackets and decorative
window caps
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-48
000505
Address: Broadway/Kanady St. se corner
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[67] Vincent Wi
Broadway/Kanady St. se corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Broadway/Kanady St. se corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-49
000506
Address: Broadway west of 221
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: vertical board siding
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Side/Rear
Decorative Elements: Window caps, faceted ba
[51] Vincent Wi
Broadway west of 221 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Fair
Notes: Boathouse
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes Broadway west of 221 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-50
000507
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
[50] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Residence and
commercial
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-51
000508
Address: Real St. 119
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
Decorative Elements: Frieze, door surround, po
[68] Vincent Wi
Real St. 119 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes: Formerly the Arlington
Hotel
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Real St. 119 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-52
000509
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[3]a Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Real St. 132 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-53
000510
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[2] Vincent Wi
Condition: Fair
Notes: Modern chimney
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-54
000511
DESCRIPTION
Exterior Materials: Vertical Boards
Other Exterior Materials: Aluminum siding and as
Stories: 1
Porch: Open
[4] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes: Thoroughly renovated
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-55
000512
Address: Real St. north of 178
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Porch: Enclosed
[33] Vincent Wi
Real St. north of 178 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Real St. north of 178 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-56
000513
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[31] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes: Garage attached to s side
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-57
000514
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Side/Rear
[30] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: Concrete block chimney
on side addition
Enclosed porch on side
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-58
000515
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Replacement
[46] Vincent Wi
Notes: Also shingle asphalt
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-59
000516
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[51] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-60
000517
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Other
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Enclosed
[6] Vincent Wi
Notes: Gable-on-hip roof
Windows 6/1 double

hung
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-61
000518
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[28] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-62
000519
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[16] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-63
000520
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Side/Rear
[7] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Greek Revival door
surround
Garage addition
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-64
000521
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Doorway: Recessed
Porch: None
[12] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Almost nothing left
except one exterior door
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-65
000522
Address: Real St. north of 430
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[11] Vincent Wi
Real St. north of 430 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes: Also rear addition
Door probably replaced;

picture window
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Real St. north of 430 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-66
000523
Address: Real St. opposite 430
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[9] Vincent Wi
Real St. opposite 430 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Real St. opposite 430 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-67
000524
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[10]aVincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-68
000525
DESCRIPTION
Current Use: Landmark
Type/Style: Light House
Roof Form: Conical
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: None
Alterations: Moved
(12) Vincent Wi
Landscape Elements: Waterside
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Moved from the Cape
Vincent breakwater
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-69
000526
Address: State Hwy. 12e opp 1964
DESCRIPTION
Original Use: Commercial
Current Use: Commercial
Type/Style: Motor Court
Stories: 1
Windows: Picture Window
Doorway: Other
Porch: Open
(10) Vincent Wi
State Hwy. 12e opp 1964 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes: Hilltop Court
5 buildings, main one

has aluminum siding
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No State Hwy. 12e opp 1964 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-70
000527
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cape
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
(13) Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Design: No Photo ID: SLW 11-29-06 (14) P:\Cape Vincent Wi
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-71
000528
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: Clapboards -- wood and
Foundation Materials: Other
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
(15) Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Barn
Notes: Roof also metal
Carriage barn
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-72
000529
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Doorway: Plain
Porch: Side/Rear
(16) Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: 2 concrete block
chimneys
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-73
000530
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
(17) Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: Brick chimney
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-74
000531
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
(18) Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Cornice returns
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-75
000532
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: vinyl shingle
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
(19) Vincent Wi
Notes: Decorative shingle
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-76
000533
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cape
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Doorway: Plain
Porch: None
(20) Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: Picture window
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-77
000534
Address: State Hwy. 12e opposite 596
DESCRIPTION
Original Use: Cemetery
Current Use: Cemetery
Construction Date: Not applicable
Type/Style: Not applicable
Exterior Materials: Not applicable
Roof Materials: Not applicable
Roof Form: Not applicable
Foundation Materials: Not applicable
Stories: Not applicable
Structural System: Not applicable
Chimney Placement: Not applicable
Doorway: Not applicable
Porch: Not applicable
Decorative Elements: Not applicable
(21) Vincent Wi
State Hwy. 12e opposite 596 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Market Street cemetery
SIGNIFICANCE
Primary Period of Significance: Not applicable
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No State Hwy. 12e opposite 596 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-78
000535
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: Aluminum siding wood c
Stories: 2
Porch: None
(22) Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Roof may have been
raised
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-79
000536
Address: Market St. south of 510
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
(56) Vincent Wi
Market St. south of 510 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Market St. south of 510 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-80
000537
Address: Market St. 510
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cape
Stories: 1
Porch: Open
[1]a Vincent Wi
Market St. 510 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes: Shingle asphalt on walls
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Market St. 510 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-81
000538
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cape
Stories: 1
Porch: Enclosed
[2] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: Round window in
projection
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-82
000539
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottage
Stories: 1
Porch: Enclosed
[8]a Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Market St. 495 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-83
000540
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: vertical board
Roof Form: Saltbox
Stories: 1
Porch: Open
[3]a Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-84
000541
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottage
Stories: 1
Porch: Enclosed
Alterations: Replacement Windows
[9] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-85
000542
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottage
Stories: 1
Porch: None
Alterations: Front Addition
[10] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-86
000543
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
Decorative Elements: Bay window
(55) Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Barn
Condition: Good
Notes: Next to large parking lot
and modern motel
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-87
000544
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Enclosed
Alterations: New Outbuilding
(53) Vincent Wi
Condition: Fair
Notes: Also historic 6/6 double
hung windows
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Market St. south of 404 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-88
000545
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
(51) Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Barn
Condition: Fair
Notes: Cornice
Carriage barn
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-89
000546
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Doorway: Sidelights
Porch: None
(50) Vincent Wi
Condition: Fair
Notes: May be historic 6/6 on s
2nd fl
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-90
000547
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Craftsman
Other Exterior Materials: Wood shingle
Stories: 2
Windows: 3/1 DH
Porch: Open
Decorative Elements: Brackets
(48) Vincent Wi
Notes: Dormer
Garage same vintage,

1/1 double hung
windows on sides
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-91
000548
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
Decorative Elements: Cornice, parapet
(47) Vincent Wi
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-92
000549
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
Decorative Elements: Brackets and turned post
(46) Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Barn
Notes: An example of what the
McAlesters call "Folk
Victorian"
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-93
000550
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
(45) Vincent Wi
Attached garage
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-94
000551
Address: Market St./Lake St. sw corner
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
Decorative Elements: Brackets and turned post
(44) Vincent Wi
Market St./Lake St. sw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes: Folk Victorian
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Market St./Lake St. sw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-95
000552
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
(43) Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-96
000553
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cape
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Enclosed
[14] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Windows are casements
and 1/1 double hung
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-97
000554
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[15] Vincent Wi
Incised window caps

and chamfered posts
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-98
000555
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[26] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Side addition
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-99
000556
Address: Market St./Lake St. ne corner
Geographic Coordinates: 4886680.27 / 393108 29
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: Aluminum on addition
Stories: 2
Windows: See notes
Doorway: Plain
Porch: Side/Rear
Decorative Elements: Brackets and rail on porc
(39) Vincent Wi
Market St./Lake St. ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes: Board and batten siding
6/6,2/2, 3/1 windows
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Market St./Lake St. ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-100
000557
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: See notes
Porch: Open
(37) Vincent Wi
Condition: Fair
Notes: 6/6,2/2, 3/1 windows
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-101
000558
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
(41) Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Rafter tails and purlins
visible
Turned posts
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Market St. south of 255 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-102
000559
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
(36) Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: New concrete block
chimney
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-103
000560
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
(42) Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-104
000561
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
(35) Vincent Wi
windows
New concrete block

chimney
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-105
000562
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: None
(32) Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Interesting angular
window caps
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-106
000563
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: None
(34) Vincent Wi
Notes: Shed dormers
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Joseph St. 130 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-107
000564
Geographic Coordinates: 4886791 / 393062.92 23
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Federal
Other Exterior Materials: Flushboards
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
(30) Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: John Borland House
Front porch w\ turned

columns and decorative
scroll work
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: Yes
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-108
000565
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: None
(29) Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Very little historic trim
Dramatically altered,
parapet on side addition
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-109
000566
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: None
(28) Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Dramatically altered
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-110
000567
Address: Market St. St/Broadway se corner
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Motel
Other Exterior Materials: Stucco and vertical board
Stories: 1
Windows: See notes
Doorway: Multiple
Porch: None
(26) Vincent Wi
Market St. St/Broadway se corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Motel with 3 buildings
on property
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Market St. St/Broadway se corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-111
000568
Address: Market St. St/Kelsey Ln. ne corner
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Porch: Open
(24) Vincent Wi
Market St. St/Kelsey Ln. ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes: Elaborate brackets on
door hood
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Market St. St/Kelsey Ln. ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-112
000569
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[46] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Attached garage
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-113
000570
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[69] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-114
000571
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[71] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-115
000572
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[72] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-116
000573
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
[45] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Greek Revival cornice
French doors added
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-117
000574
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[73] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-118
000575
Address: Broadway e of 168
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: 19th century commercial
Roof Form: Shed
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Doorway: Plain
Porch: None
[1] Vincent Wi
Broadway e of 168 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Type of Setting: Commercial
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Broadway e of 168 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-119
000576
Address: Market St./Broadway se corner
DESCRIPTION
Original Use: Unknown
Stories: 2
Porch: None
(23) Vincent Wi
Landscape Elements: Commercial district
Market St./Broadway se corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Notes: Pent roof over first floor
No windows 2nd fl front
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Market St./Broadway se corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-120
000577
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Doorway: Under overhang
Porch: Side/Rear
[44] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-121
000578
Address: Real St. street 141/143
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: None
Alterations: Bays closed in
Other Alterations: New windows P:\Cape
[49] Vincent Wi
Real St. street 141/143 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes: Former carriage barn
turned into housing
Board and batten
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Real St. street 141/143 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-122
000579
Address: Real St. street 168
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
[47] Vincent Wi
Real St. street 168 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Real St. street 168 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-123
000580
Address: Real St. street 184
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
Decorative Elements: See notes
[48] Vincent Wi
Real St. street 184 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes: Labeled John Tucker
house on plaque
Octagonal window
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Feeling: No Real St. street 184 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-124
000581
Address: Gouvello St. 150
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Enclosed
Other Alterations: Front Addition P:\Cape
[12] Vincent Wi
Gouvello St. 150 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Gouvello St. 150 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-125
000582
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
[11] Vincent Wi
Notes: What the McAlesters
call "Folk Victorian"
Incised window caps
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes Gouvello St. 151 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-126
000583
Address: Gouvello St. w of 119
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
[10] Vincent Wi
Gouvello St. w of 119 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes: 12/8 windows
Foundation repaired
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Gouvello St. w of 119 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-127
000584
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Porch: Open
[20] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes: Being restored
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-128
000585
Address: Market St./Gouvello St. ne corner
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Tourist Cabins
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[11] Vincent Wi
Market St./Gouvello St. ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Owner says built starting
1947
6 similar tourists cabins

and one smaller
building --maybe office
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Market St./Gouvello St. ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-129
000586
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[14] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Owner said built c. 1947
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-130
000587
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[19] Vincent Wi
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-131
000588
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Porch: Open
[15] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Lewis House
Thoroughly modified
since being listed in the
NRHP
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-132
000589
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Porch: Enclosed
Decorative Elements: Corbelling, dormer
[17] Vincent Wi
Notes: Thoroughly modified
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-133
000590
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
[14] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes: Windows -- 6/1
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-134
000591
Address: Point St. on the river e side road
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Hipped
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Enclosed
[16] Vincent Wi
Point St. on the river e side road Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Vastly altered house
Now part of complex

including Buccaneer
Motel
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Point St. on the river e side road Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-135
000592
Address: Point St. 213
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[18] Vincent Wi
Point St. 213 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Point St. 213 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-136
000593
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[58]aVincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-137
000594
DESCRIPTION
Foundation Materials: Parged
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Doorway: Hood
Porch: None
[59]aVincent Wi
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-138
000595
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[60]aVincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Foundation has been
parged
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-139
000596
Address: Point St.
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cape
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: None
[15] Vincent Wi
Point St. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Point St. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-140
000597
Address: Club St. opposite 371
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
[32] Vincent Wi
Club St. opposite 371 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes Club St. opposite 371 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-141
000598
Address: Club St. east of 371
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Porch: None
[33] Vincent Wi
Club St. east of 371 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes: Marina building
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Club St. east of 371 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-142
000599
Address: Club St. 371
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[31] Vincent Wi
Club St. 371 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Club St. 371 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-143
000600
Address: Club St. west of 371
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: stone
Stories: 2
Porch: None
Decorative Elements: Stone facing
[30] Vincent Wi
Club St. west of 371 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Club St. west of 371 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-144
000601
Address: Club St. opposite captain jacks
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[29] Vincent Wi
Club St. opposite captain jacks Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Club St. opposite captain jacks Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-145
000602
Address: Club St. 335
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Commercial
Exterior Materials: Concrete Block
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
[27] Vincent Wi
Club St. 335 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Club St. 335 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-146
000603
Address: Point St. n of 165
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Factory
Stories: 1
Porch: None
Alterations: See notes
[26] Vincent Wi
Point St. n of 165 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Chamber of Commerce
and Historical Museum
New doors and infill

masonry
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes Point St. n of 165 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-147
000604
Address: Point St. opposite 165
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[25] Vincent Wi
Point St. opposite 165 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Point St. opposite 165 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-148
000605
Address: James St.165
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
Alterations: Non historic addition
[22] Vincent Wi
James St.165 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Garage addition
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No James St.165 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-149
000606
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
[35] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: Windows -- 6 narrow
vertical panes/1
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-150
000607
Address: Gouvello St. opposite
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: perhaps brick around fro
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[21] Vincent Wi
Gouvello St. opposite Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Gouvello St. opposite Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-151
000608
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Doorway: Plain
Porch: Replacement
[20] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Cross gable appears to
be result of addition
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-152
000609
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
[19] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Gouvello St. 215 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-153
000610
Address: Point St./Gouvello St. sw corner
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
[61]aVincent Wi
Point St./Gouvello St. sw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Front porch looks new
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Point St./Gouvello St. sw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-154
000611
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
[54]aVincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Point St. 134 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-155
000612
Address: Broadway w of fire station
DESCRIPTION
Roof Materials: Not visible
Roof Form: Shed
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
Decorative Elements: Brackets, window caps
Alterations: Siding
[60] Vincent Wi
Broadway w of fire station Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Broadway w of fire station Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-156
000613
Address: Broadway/Market St. ne corner
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: Aluminum siding
Roof Form: Flat
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Doorway: Multiple
Porch: None
Decorative Elements: Sculptural Relief, cornice
[72] Vincent Wi
Broadway/Market St. ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Roxy Hotel -- 1-story
addition in rear
Segmental arches over

windows and doors
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes Broadway/Market St. ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-157
000614
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Not visible
Stories: 2
Doorway: Multiple
Porch: None
Decorative Elements: Sculptural Relief, cornice
Alterations: Storefronts filled in
[71] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Listed as part of Roxy
Hotel in NRHP
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-158
000615
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: Wood shingles
Roof Form: Shed
Stories: 2
Doorway: Multiple
Porch: None
[70] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Broadway east of 123 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-159
000616
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: Brick
Roof Form: Shed
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Doorway: Multiple
Porch: None
[52] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-160
000617
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: Concrete blocks
Roof Form: Shed
Stories: 1
Structural System: Concrete
Windows: Picture Window
Doorway: Plain
Porch: None
[53] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-161
000618
Address: Broadway opposite fire station
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Shed
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
[63] Vincent Wi
Broadway opposite fire station Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Broadway opposite fire station Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-162
000619
Address: Point St. 124-126
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Second Empire
Other Exterior Materials: Wood clapboards
Roof Form: Other
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
Decorative Elements: Turret
[8] Vincent Wi
Point St. 124-126 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Multiple additions front,
rear, and side and siding
hide once elaborate 2nd
Empire building
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Point St. 124-126 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-163
000620
Address: Point St. 154-156
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Shed
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Doorway: Other
Porch: Open
[7] Vincent Wi
Point St. 154-156 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes: Multiple additions front,
rear, and side
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Point St. 154-156 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-164
000621
Address: Point St./Joseph St. ne corner
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
[5] Vincent Wi
Point St./Joseph St. ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Foundation parged may
be brick underneath
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Point St./Joseph St. ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-165
000622
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Other
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[9] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: James Buckley House
Board and batten,

brackets, scroll work
parapets [false front]
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-166
000623
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: Flush boards
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Doorway: Recessed
Porch: None
Decorative Elements: Pilasters
Alterations: See notes
[62]aVincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: New porch on second
entry
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-167
000624
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Federal
Other Exterior Materials: Flush board siding
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Side/Rear
[4]a Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Otis Starkey House
At least new window

caps in front
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-168
000625
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[63]aVincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: 1849 date plaque
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-169
000626
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[64]aVincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Side addition
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-170
000627
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[1]a Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: 1831 date plaque -- little
visible from this date
Folk Victorian
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-171
000628
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Enclosed
[65]aVincent Wi
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-172
000629
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[69]aVincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-173
000630
Address: Point St. south of 421
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
[68]aVincent Wi
Point St. south of 421 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Point St. south of 421 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-174
000631
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: vinyl siding
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
[76] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: Looks like stucco on
stones
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes James St.699 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-175
000632
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Hipped
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
[78] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: Eclectic: Neoclassical
(cf. McAlester, 352,
illus. 7)
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-176
000633
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
[73] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-177
000634
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Enclosed
[59] Vincent Wi
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-178
000635
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: Asphalt
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
Alterations: Replacement siding
[58] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Stucco
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-179
000636
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[57] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Asphalt shingles
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-180
000637
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Doorway: Recessed
Porch: Side/Rear
[56] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: Plaque says circa 1888
but in antis entry looks
earlier
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-181
000638
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Second Empire
Roof Materials: Slate
Roof Form: Other
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
[54] Vincent Wi
Notes: Gen. Sackett house 1878
Hipped roof barn turned

into garage
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: Yes
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-182
000639
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
[79] Vincent Wi
Notes: Door surround preceded
porch
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-183
000640
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
[53] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Bracketed caps on
windows and scroll
work brackets [possibly
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-184
000641
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[80] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: Shed dormers both sides
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-185
000642
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[81] Vincent Wi
Notes: 2 story bay on s side
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-186
000643
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Side/Rear
[82] Vincent Wi
Notes: Many decorative
elements but much lost
to aluminum siding
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-187
000644
Address: jams/Lake St. sw corner
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
[52] Vincent Wi
jams/Lake St. sw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Jean Phillipe Galband
du Fort House
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: Yes
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes jams/Lake St. sw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-188
000645
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[51] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
appears to be blocks and
poured underneath
Half columns suggest

date
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-189
000646
Address: James/Lake St. nw corner
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
[47] Vincent Wi
James/Lake St. nw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Garage may be integral
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes James/Lake St. nw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-190
000647
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Side/Rear
[84] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-191
000648
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[85] Vincent Wi
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-192
000649
Address: James St. s of 249
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Doorway: Double
Porch: Side/Rear
[46] Vincent Wi
James St. s of 249 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No James St. s of 249 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-193
000650
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
[86] Vincent Wi
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-194
000651
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
[87] Vincent Wi
Notes: Remnants of trim
remains above front steps
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-195
000652
Address: James St. 249
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
[45] Vincent Wi
James St. 249 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes: Patterned shingles and
original windows in
gables, projecting gable
on s side
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No James St. 249 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-196
000653
Address: Joseph St./ James St. sw corner
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Doorway: Recessed
Porch: Side/Rear
[44] Vincent Wi
Joseph St./ James St. sw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Notes: Flushboarded enclosed
porch sits on brick pier
Large dormer in ell
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Joseph St./ James St. sw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-197
000654
Address: James St. 9529
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
[43] Vincent Wi
James St. 9529 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Garage attached
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes James St. 9529 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-198
000655
Address: James/Joseph St. ne corner
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
[42] Vincent Wi
James/Joseph St. ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes James/Joseph St. ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-199
000656
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Hipped
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[12] Vincent Wi
Notes: Deep overhang and cube
form suggest it might
have been Italianate but
it has lost its details
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-200
000657
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[14] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes: Foundation seems at
odds w/ rest of building
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-201
000658
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: vertical board siding rear
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[15] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Walls covered w/
asphalt shingles
Mate to 355
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-202
000659
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottage
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[17] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-203
000660
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[16] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Mate to 347
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-204
000661
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[39] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-205
000662
Address: James St. opposite 163
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[41] Vincent Wi
James St. opposite 163 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes James St. opposite 163 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-206
000663
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Doorway: Plain
Porch: None
[38] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-207
000664
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Shed
Stories: 2
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
[67] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Center of Cape Vincent
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-208
000665
Address: The United Church
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Eclectic
Other Exterior Materials: stone
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
[64] Vincent Wi
The United Church Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Mix of Romanesque and
Gothic Revival along
with local vernacular
masonry
Very large addition to
rear
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: Yes
Materials: No
Feeling: No The United Church Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-209
000666
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Shed
Stories: 2
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
[66] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Asphalt shingles
Center of Cape vincent
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-210
000667
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Doorway: Other
Porch: Side/Rear
[62] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Looks like it was at one

time both residential and
commercial
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-211
000668
Address: Broadway/James St.se corner
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: Concrete block, wood shi
Roof Materials: Other
Roof Form: Other
Stories: 2
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
[68] Vincent Wi
Broadway/James St.se corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Large amalgamation of
buildings
Center of Cape vincent
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Broadway/James St.se corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-212
000669
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Shed
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
[70] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: The Glenn Building
Center of Cape vincent,

opposite open space
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-213
000670
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Flat
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
[71] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes: Center of Cape vincent,
opposite open space
Neither roof nor

foundation visible --
oriel windows on street
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-214
000671
Address: Broadway/Esseltyne St. ne corner
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Hipped
Stories: 3
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
[41] Vincent Wi
Broadway/Esseltyne St. ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Erastus K. Burnham
House
Boathouse and one other

outbuilding
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes Broadway/Esseltyne St. ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-215
000672
Address: Broadway/Esseltyne St. se corner
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: Flush board, aluminum si
Roof Form: Shed
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
[43] Vincent Wi
Broadway/Esseltyne St. se corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes: Center of Cape vincent
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Feeling: No Broadway/Esseltyne St. se corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-216
000673
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: None
[44] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Walls reinforced w/
modern buttresses
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-217
000674
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
[45] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-218
000675
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: wood clapboards on fron
Roof Form: Shed
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
[46] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Frontdoor under full

width pent roof
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-219
000676
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
[51] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Dormers, cornice
moldings, varieety of
windows -- also 2
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-220
000677
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[47] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-221
000678
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: Asphalt shingles
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: None
[49] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Corner boards/frieze
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-222
000679
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: Asphalt shingles
Roof Form: Shed
Stories: 3
Windows: 2/2 DH
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
[48] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes: The Aubertine Building
Two store fronts on

ground floor
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Broadway east of 580 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-223
000680
Address: Murray St. 143
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[53] Vincent Wi
Murray St. 143 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes: Shed dormer
Garage appears to have

apartment in it
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Murray St. 143 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-224
000681
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[55] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Dormer
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-225
000682
Address: Joseph St. 485 [nw corner Murray St.]
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: wood shingles
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 1
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Side/Rear
[22] Vincent Wi
Joseph St. 485 [nw corner Murray St.] Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Faces Murray St.,
number on Joseph St.
New concrete blocks

under ell
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Joseph St. 485 [nw corner Murray St.] Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-226
000683
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
[20] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Fieldstone chimney
Garage attached by short

breezeway
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-227
000684
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[56] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-228
000685
Address: Esseltyne St./Kelsey Ln. nw corner
DESCRIPTION
Current Use: Unknown
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
Alterations: Unknown
[89] Vincent Wi
Esseltyne St./Kelsey Ln. nw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Primary Period of Significance: Unknown
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Esseltyne St./Kelsey Ln. nw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-229
000686
Address: Esseltyne St. 140
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[10] Vincent Wi
Esseltyne St. 140 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Large addition to se
including attached garage
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Esseltyne St. 140 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-230
000687
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[91] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-231
000688
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: None
[92] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-232
000689
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[9] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Decorative scroll work

on porch
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Esseltyne St. 176 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-233
000690
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[93] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-234
000691
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: wood shingles on porch
Roof Form: Hipped
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[7]a Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-235
000692
Address: Esseltyne St./Joseph St. se corner [n of 236]
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[6]a Vincent Wi
Esseltyne St./Joseph St. se corner [n of 236]Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Many additions to east
including attached garage
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Design: No Photo ID: SLW 12-03-06 [8]a P:\Cape Vincent Wi
Feeling: No Esseltyne St./Joseph St. se corner [n of 236]Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-236
000693
Address: Esseltyne St./Joseph St. sw corner
DESCRIPTION
Construction Date: Other: See Notes
Type/Style: Octagon
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[94] Vincent Wi
Esseltyne St./Joseph St. sw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: 1 story octagonal
building w/central
lantern, foundation not
visible
Current or original use
unknown
SIGNIFICANCE
Primary Period of Significance: Unknown
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Esseltyne St./Joseph St. sw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-237
000694
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[3]a Vincent Wi
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Image Issue
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-238
000695
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[2]a Vincent Wi
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-239
000696
Address: Esseltyne St. s of 280
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Doorway: Other
Porch: Enclosed
[1]a Vincent Wi
Esseltyne St. s of 280 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Notes: Decorative door hood
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Esseltyne St. s of 280 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-240
000697
Address: Esseltyne St./Lake St. nw corner
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
[95] Vincent Wi
Esseltyne St./Lake St. nw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Esseltyne St./Lake St. nw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-241
000698
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[96]aVincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-242
000699
DESCRIPTION
Roof Materials: Asphalt
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[100]Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-243
000700
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[99] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-244
000701
Address: Esseltyne St. south of 354
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
[98] Vincent Wi
Esseltyne St. south of 354 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Esseltyne St. south of 354 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-245
000702
Address: Esseltyne St. south end
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Moderne
Roof Form: Other
Stories: 2
Structural System: Unknown
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
[97] Vincent Wi
Esseltyne St. south end Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Formerly Cape vincent
central school
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Esseltyne St. south end Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-246
000703
Address: Lake St./Murray St. ne corner
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
[57] Vincent Wi
Lake St./Murray St. ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes: Boarded up -- perhaps
related to fisheries
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Lake St./Murray St. ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-247
000704
Address: Joseph St./lee [se corner]
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
[25] Vincent Wi
Joseph St./lee [se corner] Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Joseph St./lee [se corner] Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-248
000705
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: shingle on garage
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[26] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Front door moved,
several additions made
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-249
000706
Address: William St. 386
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Replacement
[58] Vincent Wi
William St. 386 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Thoroughly restored
Just n of fishery ponds

on map
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No William St. 386 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-250
000707
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
[59] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-251
000708
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
[60] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-252
000709
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
[62] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-253
000710
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
[80] Vincent Wi
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes William St. 343 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-254
000711
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[63] Vincent Wi
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-255
000712
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[64] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Garage added
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-256
000713
Address: William St./Lake St. sw corner
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: None
[79] Vincent Wi
William St./Lake St. sw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes William St./Lake St. sw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-257
000714
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[65] Vincent Wi
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-258
000715
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[66] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Other
Condition: Fair
Notes: Garage and board and
batten barn
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-259
000716
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
[78] Vincent Wi
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-260
000717
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Porch: Side/Rear
[68] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes: In antis door w/ pilasters
and sidelights
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-261
000718
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[77] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: Foundation parged so
material not clear
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-262
000719
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cape
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Replacement
[76] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Very modest
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-263
000720
Address: William St. north of 248
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: Clapboards on addition
Stories: 2
Porch: Side/Rear
[69] Vincent Wi
William St. north of 248 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes William St. north of 248 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-264
000721
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
[75] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Barn
Condition: Fair
Notes: Side windows
replaced -- front not
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-265
000722
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: None
[70] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-266
000723
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
[74] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: Asphalt shingle siding
Scroll work on porch
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-267
000724
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottage
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Porch: Enclosed
[72] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
windows in porch mix
of replaced elsewhere
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-268
000725
Address: Carrier Ln. n side
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: 2/2 DH
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
[81] Vincent Wi
Carrier Ln. n side Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes Carrier Ln. n side Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-269
000726
Address: Bay St./Carrier Ln. sw corer
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottage
Stories: 1
Windows: 3/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[82] Vincent Wi
Bay St./Carrier Ln. sw corer Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes Bay St./Carrier Ln. sw corer Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-270
000727
Address: Bay St. south of 150
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[83] Vincent Wi
Bay St. south of 150 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Bay St. south of 150 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-271
000728
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[28] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Other
Notes: Front doot moved,
reoriented from Bay
St. -- dormer on that side
Remarkable concrete
block building behind
w/ few windows and 3
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-272
000729
Address: Joseph St. opposite 773
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[30] Vincent Wi
Joseph St. opposite 773 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Joseph St. opposite 773 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-273
000730
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[84] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Garage added
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-274
000731
Address: Bay St. 233
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[86] Vincent Wi
Bay St. 233 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Bay St. 233 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-275
000732
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[87] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-276
000733
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: wooden shingles arrange
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
Decorative Elements: Patterned shingles
[88] Vincent Wi
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-277
000734
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[89] Vincent Wi
Condition: Fair
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-278
000735
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: None
[90] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-279
000736
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cape
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Doorway: Other
Porch: Open
[99]aVincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-280
000737
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cape
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
Alterations: New porch
[98]aVincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-281
000738
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[91]aVincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
material not visible --
garage attached
Floor of former porch

visible through cladding
flanking door
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-282
000739
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
Alterations: New chimney
[96]aVincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Owner said built in 1949
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-283
000740
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[92]aVincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: Historic barn and more
rrecent garage
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-284
000741
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Gambrel
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[31] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Other
Condition: Fair
Notes: River close to rear but
on edge of trailer park
Shed close to e wall
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-285
000742
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottage
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[33] Vincent Wi
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-286
000743
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Replacement
[34] Vincent Wi
Notes: Little original material
left
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-287
000744
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[35] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-288
000745
Address: Joseph St. east of 1071
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottage
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Doorway: Other
Porch: Side/Rear
[40] Vincent Wi
Joseph St. east of 1071 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes: Very modest cottage
River across open space

and road at rear
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Joseph St. east of 1071 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-289
000746
Address: Elm St. 9599
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: 2/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[38] Vincent Wi
Elm St. 9599 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Fair
Notes: Very modest cottage
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Elm St. 9599 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-290
000747
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
(37) Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes: Old structure --
boathhouse -- greatly
enlarged
6/1 windows
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-291
000748
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Enclosed
[39] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: Across street from river
6/1 windows
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-292
000749
St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006 ID: 292.1
Map ID: 292.1 Map Section: C2
DESCRIPTION
Original Use: Agricultural
Type/Style: Barn
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Enclosed
(41) Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: Outbuildings associated
with ID 292
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-292.1
000750
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Enclosed
[44] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
barns adjacent
6/1 windows
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-293
000751
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cape
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Doorway: Plain
Porch: None
[47] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Across street from
river,farm land behind
Joined by deck to trailer
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-294
000752
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[46] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Barn
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-295
000753
Address: State Hwy. 12e east of 32358
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottage
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
[48] Vincent Wi
State Hwy. 12e east of 32358 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Foundation not visible,

maybe stuccoed
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No State Hwy. 12e east of 32358 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-296
000754
Address: Riverside Cemetery, also listed as C-2
DESCRIPTION
Original Use: Cemetery
Current Use: Cemetery
Construction Date: Not applicable
Type/Style: Not applicable
Foundation Materials: Not applicable
Structural System: Not applicable
Chimney Placement: Not applicable
Porch: None
Decorative Elements: Not applicable
(50) Vincent Wi
Landscape Elements: Not applicable
Riverside Cemetery, also listed as C-2 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Natural Features: Not applicable
Outbuildings: Not applicable
Condition: Not applicable
Type of Setting: Not applicable
Notes: Riverside Cemetery
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Riverside Cemetery, also listed as C-2 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-297
000755
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Porch: Open
[51] Vincent Wi
Notes: Maybe new but roofline
and outbuildings suggest
it is not
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-298
000756
Address: Branche Rd. 3129
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[55] Vincent Wi
Branche Rd. 3129 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Branche Rd. 3129 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-299
000757
Address: Branche Rd. 3128
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
[53] Vincent Wi
Branche Rd. 3128 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: Barn
windows on front, 2/2
on side
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Branche Rd. 3128 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-300
000758
DESCRIPTION
Roof Materials: Asphalt
Roof Form: Other
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
[13] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Right on river -- boat
house -- roof is hipped
w /perpendicular wings
Closed for winter --

windows boarded snow
hides roof and foudation
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-301
000759
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Trailer
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: None
051 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: One of several trailer --
appears to be the oldest
not on usgs
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Design: No Photo ID: SLW 12-07-06 054 P:\Cape Vincent Wi
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-302
000760
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Trailer Park
Porch: None
055 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Vincent's landing
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No State Hwy. 12e Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-303
000761
Map ID: 303.1 Map Section: C2
DESCRIPTION
Porch: None
058 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Continuation of ID 303,
Vincent's Landing
Trailer Park
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-303.1
000762
Address: State Hwy. 12e opposite Wapen lane
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Barn
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: None
[14] Vincent Wi
State Hwy. 12e opposite Wapen lane Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Barn -- associated house
seems new
Roof seem to be plastic

sheeting
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No State Hwy. 12e opposite Wapen lane Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-304
000763
Address: Wapen Rd.
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: House not visible
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: None
[15] Vincent Wi
Wapen Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Right on river
Snow cover -- roof may

be corrugated metal
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Wapen Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-305
000764
Address: Wapen Rd.
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cape
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Replacement
[16] Vincent Wi
Wapen Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Right on river
Foundation not visible
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Wapen Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-306
000765
Address: State Hwy. 12e -- Sunset Shores
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottages and trailers
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: None
[17] Vincent Wi
State Hwy. 12e -- Sunset Shores Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: Other
Condition: Good
Notes: Farm right on river
converted into trailer
park and rental
cottages -- historic farm
Asphalt siding
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No State Hwy. 12e -- Sunset Shores Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-307
000766
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[19] Vincent Wi
Notes: Farm right on river
Foundation under porch

is poured concrete -- not
sure elsewhere
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-308
000767
Map ID: 309 Map Section: B2
Address: State Hwy. 12e -- Bud Ln.
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Trailers and cottages
Porch: None
065 Vincent Wi
State Hwy. 12e -- Bud Ln. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Sunset Shores -- seems
to have some cottages
along shore
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No State Hwy. 12e -- Bud Ln. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-309
000768
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[23] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Barn
Notes: Farm right on river --
converted to trailer park
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-310
000769
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Doorway: Plain
Porch: None
[24] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Barn
Condition: Fair
Notes: Barn subsiding -- no
longer looks like
working farm
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-311
000770
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[28] Vincent Wi
Notes: Brandy Rock Farms
Lionel A Radley & Sons
since 1936
Cottages & trailers along

river -- farm flanking
12e -- house looks
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-312
000771
Map ID: 312.1 Map Section: B2
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[30] Vincent Wi
Notes: Brandy Rock Farms
Lionel A Radley & Sons
since 1936

12e -- house looks
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-312.1
000772
Address: State Hwy. 12e 4481 [Sunset Pt.] --
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottages and trailers
Porch: None
086 Vincent Wi
State Hwy. 12e 4481 [Sunset Pt.] -- Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Sunset Point St. -- mix
of cottages and trailers --
those along river seem
oldest
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No State Hwy. 12e 4481 [Sunset Pt.] -- Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-313
000773
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[32] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Roof not visible
cottages & trailers along

12e -- house looks
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-314
000774
Address: Mance Rd. 33865
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottage
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[40] Vincent Wi
Mance Rd. 33865 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Novelty siding
Garage & boathouse
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes Mance Rd. 33865 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-315
000775
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottage
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Doorway: Plain
Porch: None
(37) Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Modern roof shape
Cottages along river
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Mance Rd. 33889 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-316
000776
Address: Mance Rd.
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Modern
Roof Form: Flat
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Doorway: Plain
Porch: Open
Alterations: New Outbuilding
(36) Vincent Wi
Mance Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Roof material not visible
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Mance Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-317
000777
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottage
Foundation Materials: Concrete Piers
Stories: 1
Windows: Boarded
Doorway: Plain
Porch: Open
096 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-318
000778
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Porch: Full
[39] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Other
Condition: Good
Notes:

river
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-319
000779
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[42] Vincent Wi
Notes: House north of road
barns south
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-320
000780
Map ID: 320.1 Map Section: B2
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[45] Vincent Wi
Notes: Barns for map number
320
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-320.1
000781
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cape
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[44] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
from road
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-321
000782
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: None
100 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Other
Condition: Good
Notes: Farm converted to
Warren's Trailer Park
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-322
000783
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
103 Vincent Wi
Notes: George Reynolds
[House]
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-323
000784
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottages
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Porch: None
107 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Merlin's Cottages -- mix
of buildings
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes State Hwy. 12e east of 34191 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-324
000785
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottage
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
110 Vincent Wi
Landscape Elements: Roadway/Pathway
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-325
000786
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
111 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Barn
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-326
000787
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
113 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: -eap---- garage
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-327
000788
Address: State Hwy. 12e opposite 34404 @ river road
DESCRIPTION
Porch: None
114 Vincent Wi
State Hwy. 12e opposite 34404 @ river roa Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No State Hwy. 12e opposite 34404 @ river roa Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-328
000789
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
123 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Barn
Notes: Garage addition
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-329
000790
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cape
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
124 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Attached garage
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-330
000791
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottage
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
125 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-331
000792
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
127 Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-332
000793
Address: Riverview Dr. 620
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
128 Vincent Wi
Riverview Dr. 620 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Riverview Dr. 620 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-333
000794
Address: Riverview Dr. ne of turn
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
139 Vincent Wi
Riverview Dr. ne of turn Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Notes: Faces river
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Riverview Dr. ne of turn Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-334
000795
Village: Millens Bay
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottage
Exterior Materials: Concrete Block
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
142 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Other
Condition: Good
Notes: Faces river
Boathouse
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-335
000796
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: tourist cabins
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Doorway: Other
Porch: Enclosed
145 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: 6 tourists cabins on Bay
St.
Foundation not visible
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes County Rd. 7 n of 34765 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-336
000797
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Hipped
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: None
143a Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Other
Condition: Fair
Notes: Right on river -- looks
like boathouse w/living
quarters
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-337
000798
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
147 Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes County Rd. 7 n of 34806 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-338
000799

ST. Lawrence Wind DEIS I

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ST. Lawrence Wind DEIS I

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Project Description

1.2 Project Applicant

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

1.3 Summary of Project Purpose and Need

1.4 Summary of Environmental Effects and Proposed Mitigation

1.5 Summary of Alternatives Analysis

1.6 List of Required Permits and Approvals

Table 1-1 (Sheet 1 of 7)

Table 1-1 (Sheet 2 of 7)

Table 1-1 (Sheet 3 of 7)

Table 1-1 (Sheet 4 of 7)

Table 1-1 (Sheet 5 of 7)

Table 1-1 (Sheet 5 of 7)

Table 1-1 (Sheet 6 of 7)

Table 1-1 (Sheet 7 of 7)

Table 1-2 (Sheet 1 of 2)

Table 1-2 (Sheet 2 of 2)

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION

The Applicant, SLW, is proposing to develop a wind-powered electrical-generating facility of up

2.2 Purpose and Scope of Environmental Impact Statement

2.3 Project Purpose, Public Need and Benefits

2.4 Project Description and Location

2.5 Proposed Facility Layout and Design

2.5.1 Wind Turbines

2.5.2 Turbine Spacing

2.5.3 Access Roads

2.5.4 Underground Interconnect Line

2.5.5 Substation and Interconnection Facilities

substation structural elements would be installed on concrete foundations. In addition, SLW

2.6.1 Geotechnical Investigation

2.6.2 Design and Construction Specifications

2.6.3 Access Road Installation

2.6.4 Foundation Construction

2.6.5 Underground Interconnect Line Installation

2.6.6 Wind Turbine Assembly and Erection

2.6.8 Overhead Transmission Line

2.6.9 Operations and Maintenance Facility

2.7 Operations and Maintenance Plan

Wind turbines would receive scheduled preventative maintenance inspections. In certain

2.9 Regulatory Approvals

Table 2-1 (Sheet 1 of 2)

Table 2-1 (Sheet 2 of 2)

2.10 Public and Agency Involvement

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

3.1.1.2 Bedrock Geology

3.1.1.3 Soils and Floodplain Designations

3.1.1.4 Unusual Landforms or Geologic Formations

3.1.2 Potential Impacts

3.1.2.2 Potential Long-Term Impacts

3.1.3 Proposed Mitigation

3.1.3.2 Soils in Agricultural Areas

3.1.3.3 Shallow Bedrock, Blasting and Geotechnical Investigation

Geophysical investigation, coupled with a limited number of geotechnical borings, would be

3.1.3.4 Management of Oil and Hazardous Materials

3.2 Water Resources

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

3.1.1.2 Bedrock Geology

3.1.1.3 Soils and Floodplain Designations

3.1.1.4 Unusual Landforms or Geologic Formations

3.1.2 Potential Impacts