Sf.

I ~

ASSOCIATES

ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT REVISED SHADOW FLICKER ANALYSIS FOR FINAL EN~RONMENTALIMPACT STATEMENT

Prepar'ed [or Acoiona Energy North America 165 Jordan Rd Troy, NY 12180

February 2, 2010

I,· ,

S~ adow Flicker Analysis

171f! following revision 10 the SI. Lawrence Wind En'Crgy Project Shadow Flicker Analysis Responds-to micrositing changes in the fillal project layaiu. This report is insorporated by reference into lite Final Envlronmental Impact Statement.

Wind turbinescan cause a flickering effect when the rotating turbine blades CMt shadows that move rapidly across the ground and ne-arby structures. This C~Ul cause a di turhance within structures when the rcpeating patrern of light and shadow falls acros the windows If buildings; particularly when occupants are trying to read or watch television. The effect, known as .hadow flicker. if; most conspicuouswhen window fate a rotating' wind turbine and when the son is low in the sky (e.g.,

hortly after sunrise or honJy before. unset).

While [he study Gf shadow mckee is a.relatively n~w di clplirre, evidence from operationalturbines suggesn that the imensity of shadow flicker is only an issue at short distances. It is generally accepted that shadow flicker will have no affect OT] properties at a distance further than len (I Q) turbine rotor diameters from the turbine (approximately 2,700'feet for l'llls Project), I

Shadow flicker willonly occur when certain conditions coin ide:

~ Daylight hours (sunriseto SUfi set) - shadow Dicker does not occur at 'night;

> Sunshine - rucker will net occur on overcast days when duyli,ghl is not ufficiently bright to cast shadows:

> Receptor is within ten (10 rotor diameters of the turbine - beyond this distance a person bould not perceive 1.I wind turbine [{ be chopping through unlight, but rather as an bjcct with [he sun behind it. !

> Windows face the turbine ~ turbine shadows can only enter a structure through un- haded windows: and

> Turbine is rotating -no flicker willoccur when the turbine is ShU1 down.

Because of constantly changing solar aspect and azlmuth, shadows will be cast 00 specific W1Y of the year andwill pass a stationary receptor relatively quickly. Flicker will nOI be an-everyday e. ent or be of extended duration when it does occur. For receptors located [0 the west of a turbine, a residence is more Likely to fall within the hade zane shortly after unrise 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 r tor plane is in-line with [he sup and receptor (a' seen from the receptor). the cast shadows will be very narrow, of low intenslry, and will move quickly past the stationary receptor. When the rotor plane i _Pe:IJ1cndicular to the sun-receptor "view Line," the cast hadow ,of lhe blade,' will m, ve within a Larger elliptical area.

Thedistance 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 mote intense, distinct and "focu ed." This i because a greater proportion of the sun's disc is interrnlttentl • blocked.

j h np :/lwww .merid ianenergy,co.I17JWin£iProjccrs/project +west+wind/appertd i xcpage&690. pdf

! htll.:!lwww.beIT.gov.uklenergyJsources/rcIlCWtlblesJpian1ling/onsho.re-wi.ncl/sh:1.dow.fljcker/page I 8736.html

S/l R "TOGA fit Lawrence Wind EnBrgyPrOject SLlpplernelital Shadow Flicker An~lysl'S - Fep~uBI'Y 2, 2Q10

ASSOCIATES page 2

Similarly, flickering is more intense if created by the area of a blade closer to, the root and further from the- tip. Beyond ten (to) turbine diametersIapproximarely 2,700 feet f0r LIn Project) the intensity of the blade sbadov is considered negligible.

S adow FlIcker Melhodology

Shadow-flicker analysis wa. conducted using WindPRO 2.4 Basis software (WindPro). and assoclated shadow module, a widely accepted modeling oftware package developed specifically for 111e design. and evaluation of wind. power projeets. Variablesused for shadow calculations include:

> Sunshine probabilities (percentage of Lime from unrise to sunset with sunshine). The WindPro model calculates .hadow frequency based on monthly sunshine probabilities. The following sunshine probabilities were used for this analy is and are based On historic rneteorological data for Syracuse, NY, approximately 70 mites south of the Project si re':'

Jon 0.33

Feb C~J9

Mur 0146

Af1l' O.4'i

Mlly uss

Juh 0.59

Jul 0.63

AIIJ; 0.59

Stp Oj3

O~L .+1

Nov U.26

D".;: '0.25

> Operational Time/Rotor OrieL1laLJOl1- TIle WindPro model assume' there will be no shadow nicker 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 B. shadow cast area, To more accurately calculate the amount of time a shadow will be over a specific location (bused on rotor orieruation . theW.inrlPru model consider' typical wind direction, 111e cperalional ti me (hours per year [1m;lyr]) of wind direction is based onmereorological data collected by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Buoy 'Data Center at the GaJlO{) lsland, NY monitoring station" (approximately 15 miles outhwest of the Village of Cape Vincent) over a one year period in 2000? us follows:

i'! .N',Il:. I'IE HNE'. E ESE SE

51,1 517 739 352 187 215 427

SSE. S

HI(I~ 658

ssw Sy.i 499' 469

wsw W

8BO 740

WNW NW NNW

621 ~2J 4-~5

C.LI'm ~4

Shadow flicker analy is ha been undertaken for the 53-turbine layout using a turbine rotor 82 meter (m (269 fe-et) in diameter (with the exception of turbine #28. which will have a rotor 77 In [252.6 feet] in diameter) and 80 rn (262.5 feel) hub height. The analysis has been completed for distances of up to 820 Hv(2,700 feet) from each turbine Iecation (reo Limes the rotor diameter of the proposed turbines). ThL analys isal 0 includes the effect of topography all. shadow area The shadow flicker modelincorporates the same digital elevation model (DEM) of the : tudy area used for views bed analysis (see sec tion 3. L 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 2,700-foOL turbine radius. This calculation includes the cumulative sum of shadow hours for all turbines and is; accurate-to a lO-meter grid cell resolution .

• J http://ggweather.comlcccUl.lvgson.btm (datil for Syracuse, NY)

~ The Gal109 Island is' the closest weather monitoring stationIer which [ull ye.2.r wind data is available. , htlp:!/www.nd.bc.rtoaa,goy!statiorl_rustory.php?stalion,=GLLN6

;, RA roc A. st. Lawrence 'Mnd Energy Pl:l)jecl SUpplemental Slla\klw Fli~.ker Analysis - febr-uary 2, 2010

Figure C I , Illustrates the geographic area of cumu Iatlve harlow impact usi ng the follow] ng increments;

> <I br/yr;
> 1-1 n hrs/yr;
> 11-20 hr lyr;
> 21-30 hrszyr:
> > 30 hrs/yr WindPro does not have the capability to incorporate the pos ible screening effect of exi ling vegetation, 1'0 account .for ibjs more realistic condition, a second shadow limit map was prepared excluding areas determined through viewshed analysis (see Figure 2 ill the Visual Resource Assessment) to be screened from turbine visibility b existing vegetation. Thi vegetated condition shadow Iimi ts map. although not consi dered absolu te . .ly defi nitive, acceptab Iy klCl1Li ttes [he geographic area within which one would expect to be substantially screened Irom urrbineshadews by intervening forest vegetation. Figure G2, illustrates the geographic area of cumulative shadow Impact including the screening effect of existing vegetation.

SARATOGA J\SSOCII\TE5

St LDwrence Wind Energy Project S,ipplemerTrcll Shadow Fllcker Analysls- February 2, :W.IO"

P~ge 4

Shadow Flicker AnalysIs

There.are no regulations or guidelines that e. tabli h a threshc ld fer ignificaru adverse shadow-flicker impact on a potential receptor, However, in part of Europe, 30 hours is used as a maximum limit to the number of acceptable shadow flicker hour. "

Existing residential structures generally located within a 2,700-foot radius of a proposed turbine were identified through air-photo interpretation. as well as field verification. ill addition, supplemental data was generated in [11 Iield using a CPS (Global Positioning Syste-m . Each existing residential structure was evaluated to determine potential shadow impact, Table 1 summarizes the number of hOUTS per year each inventoried structure would theoretically fall within the shadowzone of one or more propose I turbines, The location of in ventoried structur is in luded in Figure eland C2.

Of 177 studied s hadow receptors J ocated within 1 {) rotor diameters:

> 75 (42.4'1() will be impacted less than I hr/yr; )0 75 42_4%) will be impacted 1~lO hrs/yr;

> 20 (11.3%) 'will be irnpucted 11-20 hrs/yr;

> 6 (3.4-%) will be impacted 21-30 hrs/yr, and

> 1 (0.6%) wilJ be impacted more than 30 brs/yr.

One (1) residence will be impacted more than 30 hours per year ( 'tmcture # 8 will be impacted 30-1 hrs/yr), Based '(10 Llae 1 irnited number of hours any tructure will be impacted, shadow flicker is not expected to cr-eate an adverse impact 011 most nearby residential dwellings. For residence where shadow flicker is greatest, this impact might be considered an annoyance by . orne, and unnoticed by others.

Residence. impacted 2J -30. t hours per year include (See Figure C2).

Existing Shadox
Structure #' Hours. Parcel ID Owner Name' Property Address
34 22.2 40,00-1-0 Lawrence Richard J 32905/989 HelJ St Town of Cape Vincent
35 28.4 40.00-1-6 Lawrence Richard J 3291;)$1989 Hell St 1'011>'11 . f Cnpe Vincent
36 25.8 40.00-1-1,4 Lawrence Richard J 33020 Hell S[ Town of Cape Vincent
45 21.1 40:00-1-23.3 Mason TIoy 33399 Mason Rd Town of Cape Vi nceni
49 23.8 40.00-1-35 Hench}' Christopher ] 17706 Co Ih~ 8 TOW]l of Cape Vincent
86 24,0 40:()O-'1-24 Bayle TImothy John 7278 Co Rte s T~)\"'1'1 of Cape Vincent
88 3(ll 40~O()-1-25.J DOCteuT Donald B 7242 C0 Rte S 'I'own. of Cape Vincent 6 hl"lp;!llNww. windpower ,orgJenJtourJenv!shadow!

SAR IITOGA St. Lawrel1ce Wmd Energy Project Supplemental Shadow Flillker AllalY:$is- FebruarY 2, 2010

Table 1 Shadow Impact on Existing Structures
Shadow H~s/year Shadow Hrs/year' Shadow. HrsjY~ar Shadow HrsjYear
Excluding Including Excludlng IncJuding
Screening Effect Screening Effect ScreenlngB'fect Screening Effect of
Existing of ExistiNt Forest of Existing forest Existing of Existing Forest Existing Forest
Structure Vegetation Vegetation Structure Vegetation Vegetation
# !see Figure Cil !see Figure C2) 11' Isee Figure. ell !see FI;ure c21
1 Q . .o ,0.:.0 49 23.8 23.e
2 0.0 0;0 50 2.1 2.1
3 (:).0 O~O 51 16.2 16.2
4 15 . .0 15 . .0 52 1.7 0.0
5 4.6 4.6 53 0.0 0.0
6 3.0 3,.0 54 16.6 16.6
7 3 .. 2. 3.2 55 3.2 3.2
8 4.1 4,,1 56 2.5 2.5
9 7.5, 7~5 57 .0.0 .0.0
10 15.2 152 58 0.0 0.0
11 3.1 3.1 59 11.2 11.2
12 15.9 15.9 60 0.0 0.0
13 0.0 0.0 61 0.0 0.0
14 0.0 0.0 62 7.7 7.7
15 0.0 0.0' 63 0.0 0.0
16 1R9 18.9 ,64 0.0 0.0
17 14.6 14.6 65 0.0 0.0
18 5.0 5.0 66 0.0 0.0
19 9.5 9.5 67 0,0 0.0
20 9.B 0.0 68 0.0 0.0
21 0.0 0.0 69 10.4 10.4
22 0.0 0.0 7.0 1.2 '.2
23 '5.7 5.7' 71 1] 1.7
24 1.9 1.9 72 1.8 t.s
25 2.:4 2.4 73 1.8 1.8
26 1 •. 8 1.8 74 7.5 0.0
27 8'.2 8.2 75 3.9 3.9
28 72 7.2 76 5.6 0.0
29 5.7 5.7 77 17.4 17.4
30 4.5 4.5 78 7.9 0.0
31 2.1 2.1 7S 9.1 9.1
32 4;0 4.0 80 1.8 1.8
33 9.0 9.0 81 17.6 17.6
34 22.2 22.2 82 0.0 0.0
35 28.~ 28.4 83 3.8 3.8
36 25.8 25.8 84 2.1 2.1
37 0.0 0.0 85 Ola 0.0
38 0.0 0.0 86 24.0. 24.0
39 13.5 13.5 87 0.0 0.0
40 0.0 0,0 88 30.1 30.1
41 5.9 5.9 89 0.0 0.0
42 5.3 5.3 90 5.5 5.5
43 4.7 4.7 91 14.2 14.2
44 16.4 16.4 92 .OJO Q,O
45 21.1 21.1 93 12,3 12.3
4fi'i 2.4, OJ) 94 2.7 2.7
47 2.8 2.8 95 0.0 0.0
48 4.0 4.0 96 6.3 6.3
SARATOGA St. laWrence WI~d Ene(gy Projsct SUPp.lel~B~lal Shadow Facker AnalySIS - February 2, 20l 0
ASSOCIATES Page 6 Table 1 Shadow Impact on Existing Structures
Shadow HrsjYear ShadoW HrsjYear Shadow Htsj'(ear Sbadow HrsjYear
E>:cluding Inoluding Excluding Including
Screening Effect Screening Effei:t Screenirig Effect Screening Effect of
Existing of ExJstJng Forest of Eld sting Forest Existing of ElCisting Forest Existing Forest
Structure Vegetation Vegetation Struct~re Vegetation Vegetation
.J: !see Fi~re CII '!see FI~lJre e21 41 Isee Fi~url! Cll (see FigLife C21
97 0.0 0.0 1.46 4.1 4.1
98 11.8 1.1.8 147 7.9 7.9
99 0.0 0.0 148 7.9 7.9
100 0.0 0.0 149 8.6 8.6
101 0.0 0.0 150 0.0 0.0
102 13.4 13.4 151 0.0 0.0
103 14.1 14.1 152 1.8 1.8
104 2.9 2.9 153 2.2 2.2
105 16.0 16.0 1.54 3.4 3.4
10S 17.2 1.7.2 155 2.6 2.6
107 5.2 5.2 156 8.8 8.8
108 7.3 7.3 157 3.3 3.3
109 6.8 6.8 158 4.7 4.7
110 6.3 6.3 159 4.8 4.8
111 5.5 5.5 160 2.8 2.8
112 6.0 6.0 1.61 0.0 0.0
113 6.6 6.6 162 0.0 0.0
114 9.8 9.8' 163 0.0 0.0
115 4.0 4.0 164 0.0 D.. 0
116 0.0 0.0 Hi5 0.0 0.0
117 1.9 1.9 166 0.0 0.0
11 B 0.0 0.0 167 0.0 0.0
119 3.8 3.8 168 0.0 0.0
120 0.0 0.0 169 0.0 0.0
121 1.4 1.4 170 0.0 0.0
122 0.0 0.0 171 0.0 OLD
123 0.0 0.0 172 0.0 0.0
124 0.0 0.0 173 0.0 0.0
125 0.0 0.0 174 0.0 0.0
126 0.0 0.0 175 0.0 0.0
127 0.0 0.0 176 0.0 0.0
128 0.0 0.8 177 0.0 0.0
129 0.0 0.0
130. 0.0 0.0
131 0.0 0.0
132 0.0 0.0
133 0.0 0.0
134 0.0 0.0
135 0.0 0.0'
136 0.0 0.01
137 0.0 0.0
138 0.0 0.0
139 0.0 0.0
140 0.0 0.0
141 0.0 D.O.
142 5.3 5'.3
143' 0.0 0.0
144 2.5 2.5
145 7.6 7.6
S,..,R DC" St. l.awrence Wiod EnerflY ProjeGt Slipplemeri~IShadow Flicker Ah_aJysls - F ebmary2, 2010
.. ~~"""_I • ...,... ... r 0 ... _ ... .., w P'H • I
z: t ~ _D~~ i: ~
OJ Cl
i5' ! di-~ ~ V"l m E
I:l:: C/) ~,~ ~ ~ w o
c
::J l- E r;;;. ~ .. .~ ~ ;:!-sl i I-
0> ;l! EUih"
I- ~ ~ "' ~ 10 c.. «
'" oJ II! '5 .. =. ~ s, ;
0 _l 0 "',;] ~ t: ':! j] t !l ,,~ . j
~'g ~ 0 _~ £ ~ :iE. .,..~p .. ~;, . UU
w W Jl !Hut ;
en :s: ~ ~~ 0::: §~:-rt: ~ ~'! i .. ; .] ~ 00
0 0 g [Ij 0 ~~~~i 1: ",.11 1f"- -.(1 ~ r-Vl
a 0 ~ ~~ii 5 .3ilg~;;; " ~! !Hhi ~ <lI'l
ui '" I i:( .,. :; '*- '<i ~ :<llil
0 <:( (..!) u[C.~ 1:- ~i ~§ e!i"~l! ~<
0:: --,- t'!-;;;~ '" 5: t- g ft t I I I ~ .~ <
uJ &O~Qj '" -=r;;- ... ~ ~·E~2.g .... ~] . df1!~- ;e
(L CJ1 > <: ~ ~~.p ~~~ t 'I'"
~ '-: D j- z I J. !!'~ dH1.'~~ '\
/' ·
·
( · <t-

~
,._
, -
·
<
~

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful