Virginia Offshore Wind Advanced Technology Demonstration ... · Virginia Offshore Wind Advanced...

Virginia Offshore Wind Advanced Technology Demonstration Site Development A *DRAFT* Final Report to the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy on Work Performed under Contract # C11-6073 August 10, 2012 Principal Investigator:

Jonathan J. Miles, Ph.D. Virginia Center for Wind Energy Department of Integrated Science and Technology James Madison University Harrisonburg, VA

Principal Partners:

Rick Thomas Timmons Group Richmond, VA

Jay Titlow WeatherFlow, Inc. Poquosson, VA

John Klinck, Ph.D. Old Dominion University Norfolk, VA

Ann Kirwin Principle Advantage, LLC Virginia Beach, VA

Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy

Virginia Offshore Wind Advanced Technology Demonstration Site Development

Acknowledgements

IN PREPARATION



ii | P a g e

Section 1 Executive Summary ..................................................................................... 1

Section 2 Introduction .................................................................................................. 2

Section 3 Site Selection and Concept Development .................................................. 4

3.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Site Locations and Descriptions .......................................................................................... 7

3.2.1 Newport News Site .............................................................................................................. 8

3.2.2 Suffolk Site .......................................................................................................................... 9

3.2.3 Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Site ................................................................................ 10

3.3 Site Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 11

3.3.1 Data Set Compilation and Analysis ................................................................................... 11

3.3.2 Geoscience Focused Desktop Analysis ............................................................................ 11

3.3.3 Geoscience Conclusions and Implications ........................................................................ 14

3.4 Concept Development ....................................................................................................... 18

3.4.1 Newport News Concept Development .............................................................................. 18

3.4.2 Suffolk Site Concept Development .................................................................................... 22

3.4.3 Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Concept Development ................................................... 23

Section 4 Stakeholder Engagement .......................................................................... 25

4.1 Outreach Plan ................................................................................................................... 25

4.1.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 25

4.1.2 Strategy ............................................................................................................................. 25

4.2 Stakeholder Groups .......................................................................................................... 26

4.2.1 Regulatory ......................................................................................................................... 26

4.2.2 Maritime ............................................................................................................................ 26

4.2.3 Military ............................................................................................................................... 26

4.2.4 Public Safety ..................................................................................................................... 27

4.2.5 Environmental ................................................................................................................... 27

4.2.6 Viewshed ........................................................................................................................... 27

4.3 Process and Procedures ................................................................................................... 28

4.3.1 Initial correspondence ....................................................................................................... 28

4.3.2 Meetings and Conference Calls ........................................................................................ 28

4.3.3 Follow-Up .......................................................................................................................... 28

4.3.4 Minutes/Notes and Materials ............................................................................................. 28

4.4 Outcomes .......................................................................................................................... 28



iii | P a g e

4.4.1 Status ................................................................................................................................ 28

4.4.2 Documentation .................................................................................................................. 31

Section 5 Preliminary Engineering and Interconnection ......................................... 33

5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 33

5.2 Suffolk Site ........................................................................................................................ 33

5.2.1 Turbine Cable Routing ...................................................................................................... 34

5.2.2 Interconnection .................................................................................................................. 34

5.3 Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Site ................................................................................ 34

5.3.1 Turbine Cable Routing ...................................................................................................... 35

5.4 Interconnection .................................................................................................................. 37

5.5 Other Construction and Material Delivery Considerations ................................................. 39

Section 6 Regulatory Permitting ................................................................................ 40

6.1 Regulatory Overview ......................................................................................................... 40

6.1.1 Federal Agencies – Jurisdiction and Process Description................................................. 40

6.1.1.1 Federal Aviation Administration......................................................................................... 40

6.1.1.2 Department of Defense ..................................................................................................... 42

6.1.1.3 U.S. Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Marine

Fisheries Service ............................................................................................................... 42

6.1.1.4 National Telecommunications Information Administration ................................................. 43

6.1.1.5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) .......................................................................... 44

6.1.2 State Agencies – Jurisdiction and Process Description .................................................... 46

6.1.2.1 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality .................................................................. 46

6.1.2.2 Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) ............................................................. 51

6.2 Local Government ............................................................................................................. 53

6.3 Database Inventory ........................................................................................................... 53

6.4 Micro-Siting ....................................................................................................................... 55

6.5 Permit Applications ........................................................................................................... 57

Section 7 Met-Ocean Design Environment Characterization .................................. 59

7.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 59

7.2 Activities ............................................................................................................................ 59

7.3 Results .............................................................................................................................. 60

7.3.1 Analysis of Long Records: CLT, CBBT ............................................................................. 60

7.3.2 Estimation of Wind Conditions at Test Pad Sites .............................................................. 64



iv | P a g e

7.3.2.1 Newport News Point with CBBT3 as Reference ............................................................... 64

7.3.2.2 CBBT4 with CBBT3 as Reference .................................................................................... 66

7.3.3 Extreme Water Levels, Wave-Breaking Heights ............................................................... 68

7.4 Data Summary .................................................................................................................. 71

7.5 Installation of Meteorological Tower at HRSD Nansemond Plant ..................................... 71

Section 8 Events-Based Analysis and Meteorological Modeling ............................ 72

8.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 72

8.2 Project Overview ............................................................................................................... 73

8.3 Weatherflow Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (WRAMS) ..................................... 74

8.3.1 Why Utilize a Meso-Scale Model? ..................................................................................... 75

8.3.2 Model Performance Comparisons ..................................................................................... 76

8.3.3 Modeling Improvements .................................................................................................... 77

8.4 The Sub-Season Approach ............................................................................................... 79

8.4.1 Overview of Sub-Season Weather Events ........................................................................ 80

8.4.2 Overview of Case Studies ................................................................................................. 83

8.5 Understanding the Vertical and Future Study ................................................................... 84

8.6 Conclusions and Path Forward ......................................................................................... 85

Section 9 Wind Resource Modeling and Turbine Energy Estimation ..................... 86

9.1 Wind Modeling Approach .................................................................................................. 86

9.2 Model Construction ........................................................................................................... 86

9.2.1 Topographic Map .............................................................................................................. 86

9.2.2 Wind Data Analysis ........................................................................................................... 89

9.2.3 Wind Atlas and Mapping the Wind Resource .................................................................... 90

9.2.4 Turbine Energy Estimation ................................................................................................ 94

9.3 Results .............................................................................................................................. 95

9.3.1 Assumptions ...................................................................................................................... 95

9.3.2 Suffolk Site (driven by Newport News Data) ..................................................................... 96

9.3.3 Suffolk Site (driven by MBBT Data) ................................................................................... 98

9.3.4 CBBT site (driven by CBBT Data) ................................................................................... 101

9.4 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 104

Section 10 Data Management and Web-Based Viewers ........................................ 105

10.1 Data Management Strategy ............................................................................................ 105

10.2 Map and Data Viewer for Virginia Offshore Wind Space................................................. 106



v | P a g e

10.3 Wind, Weather and Energy Viewer for Virginia Offshore Wind Space ............................ 107

Section 11 Outreach Support ................................................................................... 108

11.1 Outreach Materials .......................................................................................................... 108

11.1.1 Powerpoint Presentation ................................................................................................. 108

11.1.2 Quad-Fold Brochure ........................................................................................................ 108

11.1.3 Fact Sheet ....................................................................................................................... 108

11.2 Visual Simulations ........................................................................................................... 108

11.2.1 Visual Simulation Development Process ......................................................................... 109

11.3 Web Site .......................................................................................................................... 110

Section 12 References .............................................................................................. 111

List of Figures

Figure 3-1 Advanced Technology Demonstration Site Locations ................................................................................. 7

Figure 3-2 Newport News Site Study Area Map ........................................................................................................... 8

Figure 3-3 Suffolk Site Study Area Map ........................................................................................................................ 9

Figure 3-4 Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Site Study Area Map .............................................................................. 10

Figure 3-5 Wind Turbine Foundation Schematics ....................................................................................................... 18

Figure 3-6 Concrete Suction Caisson Foundation ...................................................................................................... 19

Figure 3-7 Float and Flip Wind Turbine Installation System ........................................................................................ 20

Figure 3-8 Windflip Schematic Wind Turbine Installation System ............................................................................... 21

Figure 3-9 Mercon’s Dutch Riser Access Tower Installation ....................................................................................... 22

Figure 3-10 National Weather Service Wakefield, Virginia ......................................................................................... 23

Figure 5-11 CBBT Cable Route Alternatives............................................................................................................... 36

Figure 5-12 CBBT Cable Landfall Schematic.............................................................................................................. 37

Figure 5-13 CBBT Substation Cable Routing.............................................................................................................. 38

Figure 7-14 CLT Wind Roses, 60-min Observations, 1984-2010................................................................................ 60

Figure 7-15 CLT Wind Speed Distribution, 60-min Observations, 1984-2010 ............................................................ 61

Figure 7-16 CLT Extreme Wind Speeds, 60-min Observations, 1984-2010 ............................................................... 61

Figure 7-17 CBBT Wind Roses, 60-min Observations, 1992-2010 ............................................................................. 62

Figure 7-18 CBBT Wind Speed Distribution, 60-min Observations, 1992-2010 .......................................................... 63

Figure 7-19 CBBT Extreme Wind Speeds, 60-min Observations, 1992-2010 ............................................................ 63



vi | P a g e

Figure 7-20 Predicted Newport New Point Wind Speed Distribution based on WAsP Analysis with CBBT3 as

Reference ...................................................................................................................................................... 64

Figure 7-21 Predicted Newport New Point Wind Map based on WAsP Analysis with CBBT3 as Reference .............. 65

Figure 7-22 Predicted Newport New Point Extreme Wind Speeds based on WAsP Analysis with CBBT3 as

Reference ...................................................................................................................................................... 65

Figure 7-23 Predicted CBBT4 Wind Speed Distribution based on WAsP Analysis with CBBT3 as Reference .......... 66

Figure 7-24 Predicted CBBT4 Wind Map based on WAsP Analysis with CBBT3 as Reference ................................. 67

Figure 7-25 Predicted CBBT4 Extreme Wind Speeds based on WAsP Analysis with CBBT3 as Reference ............. 67

Figure 7-26 Water Level above MLLW at Sewell’s Point ............................................................................................ 68

Figure 7-27 Depth-Limited Wave Breaking at Sewell’s Point ...................................................................................... 69

Figure 7-28 Wind-Wave Joint Probability at CLT ........................................................................................................ 70

Figure 7-29 Return Period – Wave Height at CLT ...................................................................................................... 70

Figure 7-30 NRG Systems 50-m Meteorological Tower .............................................................................................. 71

Figure 8-31 Example of Wind Resource Estimate ...................................................................................................... 72

Figure 8-32 WeatherFlow Observation Site on Navigational Aid at Hampton Flats .................................................... 74

Figure 8-33 Overall Project Domain; 2-km inner grid .................................................................................................. 74

Figure 8-34 Explicit versus Interpolated Forecasts at Vertical Levels ......................................................................... 76

Figure 8-35 Results from 9-km2 versus 1-km2 input SST field .................................................................................... 78

Figure 8-36 Hatteras Wind Behavior during Mesoscale Event .................................................................................... 85

Figure 9-37 Land cover map of the Suffolk site........................................................................................................... 87

Figure 9-38 WAsP vector map with elevation data (contours in red) and roughness change lines (green and blue) . 88

Figure 9-39 The number of consistency errors in the topographic map must be minimized for optimal performance of

WAsP using the software’s Map Editor tool. .................................................................................................. 91

Figure 9-40 The Calculated Wind Atlas ...................................................................................................................... 91

Figure 9-41 Wind Resource Grid ................................................................................................................................ 92

Figure 9-42 Calculated Wind Resource Grid (all sectors) ........................................................................................... 93

Figure 9-43 Annual Wind Rose Predicted with Data from Newport News Tower at 50.9 m ........................................ 96

Figure 9-43 Annual (top left) and Sub-Season Wind Roses Generated with MMBT Data .......................................... 98

Figure 9-44 Annual (top left) and Sub-Season Wind Roses Generated with CBBT Data ......................................... 101

Figure 10-45 Distributed Architecture ....................................................................................................................... 105



vii | P a g e

List of Tables

Table 8-1 Average Wind Vector Difference errors (mph) by sub-season .................................................................... 76

Table 8-2 Average Wind Speed Root Mean Square Errors (mph) by sub-season ...................................................... 77

Table 8-3 Average Wind Speed Average Error (mph) by sub-season ........................................................................ 77

Table 8-4 Sub-Season Descriptions ........................................................................................................................... 79

Table 8-5 Sub-Season Weather Event Percentages .................................................................................................. 81

Table 8-6 Highest Sub-season Wind Producing Systems (Spatially averaged winds for 17 coastal observation sites

at sensor heights) .......................................................................................................................................... 81

Table 8-7 Keys to Improving Forecasts ...................................................................................................................... 81

Table 8-8 Models Forecast Accuracy (WVD) .............................................................................................................. 82

Table 8-9 Cold Front Root Mean Square Errors ......................................................................................................... 82

Table 8-10 Hatteras High Sub-Season Average Wind Speeds at Two Sensor Levels ............................................... 84

Table 9-11 Description of the various terrain types found in the region and their associated roughness lengths ....... 88

Table 9-12 Summary of the stations used for micro-modeling of the Suffolk and CBBT 4th Island sites .................... 89

Table 9-13 Summary of Sub-Seasons ........................................................................................................................ 90

Table 9-14 Wind Resource Grids Driven by Newport News Data ............................................................................... 93

Table 9-15 Wind Resource Grids Driven by MMBT Data ............................................................................................ 94

Table 9-16 Project Details for Suffolk and CBBT Sites ............................................................................................... 95

Table 9-17 Wind Turbine Power Curve Data for Vestas V112-3.0-MW turbine and NREL 5-MW Reference Turbine at

Standard Conditions ...................................................................................................................................... 96

Table 9-18 Results from WindFarmer Analysis using Newport News Data Sets ........................................................ 97

Table 9-19 Exceedance Levels for Newport News Model Runs ................................................................................. 97

Table 9-20 Results from WindFarmer Analysis using MMBT Data Sets ..................................................................... 99

Table 9-21 Exceedance level for 1 year for the MMBT annual and sub-season analyses ........................................ 100

Table 9-22 Exceedance level for 10 years for the MMBT annual and sub-season analyses .................................... 100

Table 9-23 Exceedance level for 20 years for the MMBT annual and sub-season analyses .................................... 100

Table 9-24 Results from WindFarmer Analysis using CBBT Data Sets .................................................................... 102

Table 9-25 Exceedance level for 1 year for the CBBT annual and sub-season analyses ......................................... 103

Table 9-26 Exceedance level for 10 years for the CBBT annual and sub-season analyses ..................................... 103

Table 9-27 Exceedance level for 20 years for the CBBT annual and sub-season analyses ..................................... 103

Table 10-28 Data Sets Relevant to Offshore Wind Applications ............................................................................... 106

Table 11-29 Digital Photography Parameters Associated for Visual Simulations ..................................................... 110



viii | P a g e

List of Appendices

Appendix A Geoscience Focused Desktop Study

Appendix B Site Analysis Data Compilation Summary

Appendix C Site Development Concept Plans

Appendix D1 Stakeholder Outreach Plan

Appendix D2 Meeting Notes

Appendix E Preliminary Interconnection Feasibility Reports

Appendix F Federal Aviation Administration Data and Documentation

Appendix G Department of Defense Energy Siting Clearinghouse Findings

Appendix H Draft Joint Permit Applications

Appendix I VDGIF, VA DCR Database Inventory Reports

Appendix J Virginia Department of Historic Resources Data Base

Appendix K VMRC Rent and Royalty Schedule, Subaqueous Guidelines

Appendix L Virginia Subaqueous Minerals Management Plan

Appendix M Supplemental Wind Data and Analyses and Statistics (ODU) (in preparation)

Appendix N Supplemental Modeling Error Statistics and Cast Study Documentation (WeatherFlow) (in preparation)

Appendix O Powerpoint Presentation (in preparation)

Appendix P Quad-Fold Brochure (in preparation)

Appendix Q Fact Sheet (in preparation)

Appendix R Visual Simulations (in preparation)



1 | P a g e

Section 1 Executive Summary

IN PREPARATION



2 | P a g e

Section 2 Introduction

Offshore wind began to capture the attention of state governments in the U.S. at the beginning of the new millennium. The states with frontage within the four major coastal regions (Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific, and Great Lakes) have initiated programs and created incentives to facilitate the development of offshore projects and to attract local investment, especially in manufacturing (which of course is not limited to coastal states). The activities promoted by states and corresponding responses by industry have stimulated the federal government to engage, and since the late 2000s new policies and initiatives at the federal level have followed. Cooperation between federal agencies has also advanced, in particular between the U.S. Departments of Energy, Interior, and Defense, in order to address key barriers to development. U.S. offshore wind, which was not a factor even five years ago, is now predicted to make a major contribution toward the national vision of 20% wind by 2030. With arguably one of the best offshore wind resources in the U.S., Virginia is especially well positioned to be a leader in this nascent industry. This report provides two principal contributions to the ongoing development and evolution of the offshore wind industry in Virginia and the United States, and thus is organized into two volumes:

Volume I: Project Pre-Development

Volume II: Offshore Wind Development Tools and Resources The first volume addresses the pre-development of an Advanced Technology Demonstration Project by focusing, in four sections, on the key areas of effort that are critical to the earliest stages of development: site selection and concept development; stakeholder engagement; preliminary engineering and interconnection; and regulatory permitting. This volume provides a comprehensive assessment of the three sites chosen, all in state waters – in the James River near the former Suffolk campus of the Tidewater Community college, at Newport News Point near the wave screen, and on the east side of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel near the northern end. The outcomes presented in this volume and accompanying appendices provide the basis from which to advance permitting, design, and construction at any of the three sites. The second volume provides critical information pertaining to the wind and water resource at these sites. The second volume presents a met-ocean design environment characterization of Virginia waters; an events-based analysis and meteorological modeling of Virginia coastal and offshore winds; a meso-modeling of the wind resource with estimated energy production of sample wind turbines; a collection of outreach materials pertaining to this project and future development of offshore wind, and a description of the data management strategy employed. These outreach materials include interactive web-mapping tools for examining available and relevant GIS data layers, real-time meteorological data, and modeled wind data and predicted energy production throughout the Virginia offshore space. Also included are visual simulations, a Powerpoint presentation, and printed materials, all of which would be useful to support a future public relations campaign for offshore wind. This second volume is intended to stand alone as it is not specific to the three sites developed in the first volume, and it provides resources that will be critical to the ongoing development of offshore wind in Virginia state and federal waters.



3 | P a g e

Volume I

Project Pre-Development



4 | P a g e

Section 3 Site Selection and Concept Development

3.1 Background

The Commonwealth of Virginia formally established the Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium (VCERC) through legislation in 2007. Prior to the establishment of VCERC, several institutions and individuals within the Commonwealth recognized the potential for Virginia to play a major role in the establishment of the offshore wind energy industry in the United States, and began developing an overall program focused on research and development activities to support offshore wind development in Virginia. In April 2010, VCERC produced Virginia Offshore Wind Studies, July 2007 to March 2010 – Final Report, which included a feasibility-level design and economic assessment of offshore wind costs, risks, opportunities and environmental effects; provided preliminary mapping of offshore areas; evaluated economic development potential; provided recommendations and a government policy roadmap; and developed an “Applied Research Roadmap,” which has formed the basis for, and guided the initial stages of, the Virginia Offshore Wind Advanced Technology Demonstration Site Development. The VCERC Final Report is available at http://www.vcerc.org and at http://wind.jmu.edu/offshore. The vision for offshore wind advanced technology demonstration opportunities from the VCERC Final Report is summarized below: Coastal Turbine Demonstration Project. Installation of an ocean-class turbine that would be readily accessible on or near shore is needed to demonstrate the performance of a larger-rotor machine (possibly downwind, possibly two-bladed) and to address two additional research needs:

European experience has indicated that “marinization” of land-based turbines does not ensure they can withstand the aggressive salt-air environments that occur offshore. A coastal turbine demonstration just seaward of the shoreline is needed to verify reliable corrosion protection of equipment and components within the turbine nacelle, as well as providing an easily accessible platform for measurements to verify the reliability of remote systems for turbine supervision, control, and data acquisition (SCADA).

The Navy, NASA, Coast Guard, and Federal Aviation Administration have significant concerns about radar interactions. Although mitigation measures have been proposed that involve the use of signal processing techniques, these must be tested with full-scale turbines in an operational multi-radar environment. Full-scale Doppler measurements also are required to accurately represent turbine radar signatures in numerical models that would simulate radar interactions for hundreds of turbines in a large offshore wind project or multiple projects. This is important for navigation radars on moving ships and aircraft, as well as for shore-based air traffic control and surface search radars which are stationary. While serving as an experimental facility to measure large-rotor dynamics, drive train reliability, SCADA performance, and radar signature, a coastal turbine also could be used to qualify first- and second-tier suppliers of components and materials to be used for turbine manufacturing. Therefore, selection of a suitable make and model for a coastal turbine demonstration should consider whether the turbine manufacturer is motivated to invest in a manufacturing complex for that same model in the Hampton Roads region.

http://www.vcerc.org/

http://wind.jmu.edu/offshore



5 | P a g e

Offshore Installation. The installation of monopile-based offshore wind turbines can involve up to seven different offshore crane lifts required to (1) lift a monopile into place for driving into the seafloor; (2) lift and grout a transition piece to the monopile; (3, 4, 5) lift and bolt together three conic sections to erect the tower; (6) lift the nacelle with two pre-attached blades (“rabbit ears”) onto the tower top where it is bolted into place, and (7) lift the third rotor blade into place and bolt it to the rotor hub. European practice has been to have one equipment spread for lifts (1) and (2), and a different spread for lifts (3) through (7), after the transition piece grout has fully cured. The required weather window must have a significant wave height less than 1.5 m (for jacking up and down operations) and a wind speed less than 11 m/sec (for positioning tower-top items). This combination occurs off Virginia Beach only ~120 days per year.

Crane-lift operations require either a jack-up rig or specialized installation vessel. Due to the high demand for such installation vessels in Europe and Jones Act concerns, U.S. offshore wind developers cannot rely on having these vessels mobilized from Europe. While jack-up rigs can be mobilized from the Gulf of Mexico, there is risk that these vessels may not be available due to demands of the offshore oil & gas industry, as well as risk of loss or damage during transport (as happened with a jack-up lost in transit from the Gulf of Mexico to Liverpool Bay, delaying completion of the UK Rhyl Flats offshore wind project by six months). Moreover, as fossil fuel prices escalate in the future, lease rates for Gulf of Mexico jack-ups may become prohibitively costly to the point where it would be less expensive for project developers to own and operate installation vessels dedicated to their projects, thereby mitigating all of the above risks. Assuming that design and fabrication of domestic, purpose-built installation vessels is the most cost-effective solution for commercial offshore wind development in the mid-Atlantic, then rather than simply duplicating the multiple-crane-lift vessel systems used in Europe, VCERC recommended evaluating a “float and flip” method that avoids crane lifts altogether. This would derive from the “Merlin” concept developed in the UK in 2004, whereby a fully commissioned turbine and tower assembly is lowered into a lifting cradle on a barge, and the barge is towed to the offshore installation site. The lifting cradle then angles the turbine back up to vertical and lowers the tower into the center well of a previously installed seafloor foundation. In addition to eliminating all offshore crane lifts and assembly of crane-held components, the Merlin installation system uses a foundation that does not terminate in an above-water flange (as in monopile transition pieces). The Merlin foundation terminates in a center well just above the seafloor into which the bottom section of the tower and turbine assembly is stabbed and then grouted into place. Dynamic heave compensators on the lifting cradle are used to minimize relative vertical motion between the barge and foundation, such that tower stab-in and “landing” decelerations are acceptable to wind turbine manufacturers. Merlin’s tow-out and installation can be accomplished in conditions up to Sea State 4 (significant

While serving as an

experimental facility to

measure large-rotor

dynamics, drive train

reliability, SCADA

performance, and radar

signature, a coastal turbine

also could be used to qualify

first- and second-tier

suppliers of components and

materials to be used in

turbine manufacturing



6 | P a g e

wave heights less than 2.5 m), nearly tripling the total installation weather window off Virginia Beach to ~350 days per year. Before committing to build a supply chain around such a novel concept, VCERC should perform a Virginia-specific cost-benefit analysis of a “float and flip” installation system derived from the Merlin concept. At the time of the 2004 UK report, the new-build cost of a towed Merlin barge was estimated to be half that of a towed jack-up rig, and five times less than the new-build cost of a self-propelled turbine installation vessel. Rather than using a driven large-diameter monopile, with its attendant loud noise that may be unacceptable when marine mammals are present, the Merlin foundation design lends itself to a variety of minimal-foundation types. Alternative seafloor mating structures for the upended tower include a steel trusswork template with small-diameter skirt piles (which can be driven with lower-energy, quieter hammers), a gravity base (as developed by grout manufacturer, Densit ApS), or a suction-caisson monobucket (as developed by Danish utility, Dong Energy). In addition to estimating the life-cycle cost of a “float and flip” turbine installation system, VCERC also recommends investigating these alternative minimal-foundation concepts and their applicability to the sediment types found within the 30-m depth contour off Virginia.

On July 14, 2010, the Commonwealth of Virginia provided a capstone response to Request for Information DE-FOA-EE0000385 from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The July 14, 2010 Virginia capstone response further developed the concept of staged development of offshore wind turbine demonstration sites within near-shore waters of Virginia with specific advanced technology demonstration concepts targeted for specific locations. Consistent with the DOE Strategic Plan for Offshore Wind development in the United States, Virginia’s response identified specific research opportunities aimed at reducing the levelized cost of offshore wind energy production through both technology improvements and data acquisition and assimilation focused on regulatory barrier removal. Three primary locations for advanced technology demonstrations were identified in the Virginia response including two locations within the James River adjacent to the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel, and one location within the Chesapeake Bay located in the vicinity of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel. The locations of these sites are shown in Figure 3-1 – Advanced Technology Demonstration Site Locations on the following page.

Each test site location is intended to focus on specific technology advancements as described in the Research Roadmap of the VCERC Final Report, with demonstration projects designed to eliminate existing market barriers to commercial offshore wind development in Virginia. The test pad sites have been identified as follows:

1. Near the former Suffolk campus of Tidewater Community College – Commercially available large-rotor turbine with project designed to demonstrate radar impact mitigation technologies.

2. Newport News Point near Wave Screen – Subscale trial-and-error testing of rapidly installed foundation technologies (“float and flip” or “float and flood”) in relatively shallow, well protected waters, based on leading candidate technologies.

3. Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Site – Full-scale demonstration that combines large-rotor turbine with rapidly-installed foundation in a fully exposed oceanic deep water environment.



7 | P a g e

3.2 Site Locations and Descriptions

General site descriptions for each Advanced Technology Demonstration Site are provided in this section.

Figure 3-1 Advanced Technology Demonstration Site Locations



8 | P a g e

3.2.1 Newport News Site

The study area for the Newport News site is generally located within the James River at the northern end of the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel (Interstate 664) in the area generally referred to as Newport News Point as shown in Figure 3-2 – Newport News Site Study Area Map. The study area was selected because of its close proximity to working marine industrial uses and other beneficial attributes including close proximity to marine docking and transport facilities, deep water channel accessibility, and suitable sub-scale “float and flip” turbine foundation and tower operating conditions. The irregularly shaped study area for the Newport News Site encompasses two areas within the James River on the east and west sides of the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel and extends approximately 1,200 to 3,200 feet (ft) from the shoreline, seaward along the existing deep water shipping channel of the James River as shown in Figure 3-2. The area is concentrated with multiple uses including several municipal, industrial, and commercial operations within the project vicinity including the Hampton Roads Sanitation District – Small Boat Harbor Treatment Plant, various boat works, coal and petroleum terminals, and the Newport News Seafood Industrial Park. The study area falls primarily within state owned “sub-aqueous bottoms” of the Commonwealth of Virginia, with the exception of a portion of the study area that lies within property that was conveyed in a deed from the Commonwealth of Virginia to the City of Newport News. As previously mentioned, the bathymetry, substrate composition, and other physical site characteristics of the Newport News site are addressed within site descriptions included with the Geoscience Focused Desktop Analysis (GFDA) in Appendix A.

Figure 3-2 Newport News Site Study Area Map

Source: NOAA/ESRI



9 | P a g e

3.2.2 Suffolk Site

The study area for the Suffolk site is generally located within the James River at the southern end of the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel as shown in Figure 3-3 – Suffolk Site Study Area Map. The study area was selected because of its close proximity to potential project development partners (Tidewater Community College and Hampton Roads Sanitation District), the existence of several operational radar systems for radar mitigation technology testing capability, and the preliminary wind resource characterization work that has occurred in the project vicinity which indicates favorable wind resource conditions for development. The study area for the Suffolk site also encompasses two areas within the James River on the east and west sides of the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel and extends along the shoreline approximately 5,000 to 7,000 ft from the shoreline, seaward along the coast as shown in Figure 3-3. The entire study area is within state owned “sub-aqueous bottoms” of the Commonwealth of Virginia, up to the shoreline. The bathymetry, substrate composition and other physical site characteristics of the Suffolk site are addressed within site descriptions included with the Geoscience Focused Desktop Analysis in Appendix A.

Figure 3-3 Suffolk Site Study Area Map

Source: NOAA/ESRI



10 | P a g e

3.2.3 Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Site

The study area for the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (CBBT) site is generally located within the Chesapeake Bay near the northern end of the CBBT. The site is located approximately one mile east of the CBBT, within a natural trough midway between the Cape Henry Shipping Channel which passes between the third and fourth islands of the CBBT and the North Channel which passes beneath the High Rise Bridge just south of Fisherman’s Island, as shown on Figure 3-4 – Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Site Study Area Map. The study area was selected for several reasons including water depth and seafloor conditions similar to the Virginia Wind Energy Area (WEA), oceanic wind and weather conditions, proximity to the CBBT for access and observation, remote data collection capability, and the potential to develop a full-scale wind turbine energy system for condition monitoring. The entire study area is within state owned “sub-aqueous bottoms” of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The bathymetry, substrate composition and other physical site characteristics of the CBBT site are addressed within site descriptions included with the Geoscience Focused Desktop Analysis in Appendix A.

Figure 3-4 Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Site Study Area Map

Source: NOAA/ESRI



11 | P a g e

3.3 Site Analysis

3.3.1 Data Set Compilation and Analysis

In order to evaluate the feasibility of each of these sites for wind turbine development, a range of data sets from multiple sources were collected and analyzed to inform site development potential of these locations. Data sets analyzed generally fall within the following categories:

Virginia Geographic Information Network Data (roads, land and water features, and local government jurisdictions)

Local Government Geographic Information Data (parcels, topography, magisterial districts, planning areas)

Geophysical Data (bathymetry, geology, soils)

Marine Spatial Use Data (nautical charts, military and commercial use areas)

Natural Resource Data (avian, fisheries, marine mammal, benthic and shellfish data)

Cultural Resource Data (architectural and archeological data)

Aviation (commercial and military airspace use data)

Through collection, compilation and synthesis of these data sets, constraints and limitations that further inform micro-siting of potential turbine locations can be accomplished. Appendix B contains a Site Analysis Data Compilation Summary Matrix and corresponding data summary maps.

3.3.2 Geoscience Focused Desktop Analysis

The narrative below was excerpted from the report prepared by Fugro Atlantic entitled Geoscience Focused Desktop Analysis, Proposed Virginia Offshore Wind Test Site Development, Chesapeake Bay, VA. The complete report is provided in Appendix A.

The desktop study focused on areas of radius three to five nautical miles (Nm) centered on the three proposed development areas. The areas are intended to be large enough so that the conditions and data near the proposed test areas can be evaluated within the context of the regional conditions. This desktop study helps to determine (1) If the site and subsurface conditions present hazards to project development; (2) whether or not variations in the site and subsurface conditions will be factors when choosing test structure locations; and (3) how the site and subsurface conditions could affect foundation-type selection, design, and installation. For cable routing, the desktop study provides input in terms of identifying the most appropriate, least problematic, and least cost route alignment. The study also provides valuable information and background that will be useful for planning and scoping conceptual, preliminary, and/or final geophysical survey and geotechnical site investigation programs.

The Geosciences Desktop Study also provides valuable information and background that will be useful for planning and scoping conceptual, preliminary, and/or final geophysical survey and geotechnical site investigation programs. Fugro Atlantic



12 | P a g e

SEAFLOOR AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Readily available information were reviewed and geoscience conditions evaluated pertaining to the bay-floor and subsurface for the proposed CBBT, Newport News, and Suffolk wind test turbine sites in the lower Chesapeake Bay Region. Where available and appropriate, data were compiled into a GIS System that was used to integrate various types of information and support our evaluation. The GFDA focused on bay-floor geomorphology, bathymetry, slope, and bay-floor conditions; subsurface geology and geologic hazards; and bay-floor and subsurface sediment characteristics.

THE PROPOSED CHESAPEAKE BAY BRIDGE-TUNNEL TEST SITE Water Depth, Bathymetry, and Seafloor Morphology The proposed CBBT test site is located at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. This site is located in False Channel, a natural swale southwest of Nine Foot shoal where the water depth is about 38 ft (mean-lower-low water or MLLW). The natural swale is flanked by the Nine Foot shoal on the northeast and Middle Ground shoal on the southwest. The swale represents a modern low maintained by tidal flushing. The Bay Mouth is a hydro-dynamically complex transitional environment between the open inner continental shelf and the large coastal plain estuary that is the Chesapeake Bay. Bay-floor and seafloor morphology revealed in bathymetric data indicate areas dominated by flood and ebb tidal flows and that are strongly influenced by waves. Sand wave bedforms in the bay mouth indicate that the surficial sediments are dynamic. Burial protection may be reduced for cables laid in areas where mobile sand waves are present when the sand waves migrate and trough locations occupy former crest locations, thus resulting in reduced burial protection or exposure of the cable on the bay floor. Strong currents that mobilize the bay-mouth sediments also will be capable of inducing localized scour around the base of turbines. Scour should be taken into consideration for future developments along the mouth of the bay. Subsurface Conditions Shallow subsurface stratigraphic units (upper 300 ft) at the proposed CBBT test site are anticipated to be comprised of Holocene, Pleistocene, Pliocene and Miocene deposits. Significant lateral and vertical variations in soil stratigraphy and conditions is expected in the general vicinity of the proposed CBBT test site. Thus, appropriate geophysical surveys and geotechnical ground investigation will need to be conducted early during the project development process for this location. The subsurface materials were deposited during sea level fluctuations. During sea level lowstands, the area was emergent and subjected to erosion. Deep incised valleys related to ancestral drainages were formed. As sea level rose, the valleys were in-filled typically by fine-grained material. Paleochannels at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay can be in-filled with clay deposits between 10 and 60 ft thick. The fine-grained material is overlain by the Holocene bay-mouth shoal sediments comprised of sand sediments up to 35 ft thick. The clay paleochannel-infill will not provide adequate bearing capacity for piled foundations, thus piles will need to be extended below this unit to develop adequate capacity in lower strata. The Tertiary materials underlying the paleochannel (and erosional surface) are the common end bearing strata for piled foundations (e.g. bridge, waterfront development, etc.) in the area. The precedent for pile



13 | P a g e

foundations for those civil infrastructures, however, should not be considered to provide guidance for large diameter piles designed to support offshore-scale wind turbines. THE PROPOSED NEWPORT NEWS AND SUFFOLK TEST SITES Water Depth, Bathymetry, and Seafloor Morphology The proposed Newport News test site is along the James River just east of the Newport News approach of the Monitor Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel (MMBT). This site is located about 1,150 ft east of the MMBT, along the western flank of the Newport News Bar, a shoal feature approximately 1,150 ft north of the Newport News Channel. The water is approximately 12 ft deep at this location. The Suffolk test sites are located near the confluence of the James and Nansemond Rivers. The proposed East Inner Test Turbine Site is located on the southern flank of the James River channel near the confluence with the Nansemond River, in about 10 ft of water. One alternate site for the East Inner Test Turbine is located about 4,800 ft west of the MMBT in about 14 ft of water, and the other alternate site is located about 1,800 ft east of the MMBT alignment on the flat where the water depth is less than 5 ft. The shallow water depth on the flat is anticipated to be problematic for the size of marine plant needed to install a large wind turbine and its foundation and tower. Surficial sediments at the Newport News and Suffolk test turbine sites range from sandy clay and silt in the bay deposits; to fine to medium sand with silt at the Craney Flats; and silt to silty sand in the natural channels. Tidal variations dominate flow conditions near the proposed Newport News /Suffolk test sites. Prevailing flow is generally in the flood direction along the channels and northern shoals while ebb directional flow is dominant along the Craney Flats. Subsurface Conditions As with the proposed CBBT test site, the upper stratigraphic units in the vicinity of the proposed Newport News and Suffolk test sites are anticipated to be Holocene, Pleistocene, Pilocene and Miocene deposits. The top of the Miocene deposits are found up to an elevation of about -150, MLLW. Deposits of the Yorktown Formation lie above the Miocene sediments and are generally 300 to 100 ft thick. Pleistocene deposits, composed primarily of the Tabb Formation, overlie the Yorktown Formation. The thickness of the Pleistocene section is variable and ranges from 15 to 40 ft thick at the Suffolk approach and 70 to 120 ft thick at the Newport News approach. The Pleistocene units likely outcrop in the Newport News Channel. Paleochannels infilled with Holocene sediments also are found in the subsurface near the proposed Newport News and Suffolk test sites. The fine-grained infill material consists of soft

The bay-floor bathymetry is relatively flat and gentle in the Newport News and Suffolk sites areas adjacent to the MMBT. In contrast, the potential VOWTS site adjacent to the CBBT is underlain by more complex bay-floor topography that results from the highly dynamic oceanographic conditions at the bay mouth. The dynamics are created by tidal processes, littoral drift, and wave conditions and their interrelations. Fugro Atlantic



14 | P a g e

silty clay to sandy silt and varies both horizontally and laterally. In the thickest areas, the soft clay is approximately 100 ft thick which corresponds to a basal elevation of about EI. -120 ft. The clay sediments thin to about 5 to 20 ft thick near the Newport News approach along the Craney Flats. However, it is probable that the proposed Suffolk test sites are underlain by about 50 to 75 ft of soft clay due to the projection of the eroded fluvial channels.

3.3.3 Geoscience Conclusions and Implications

SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Bay-Floor Topography The water depth in the three potential development areas are as follows: (1) Suffolk site adjacent to MMBT- <5 to 15 ft.; (2) Newport News site adjacent to MMBT – 12 ft; and (3) CBBT – 20 to 30 ft. The bay-floor bathymetry is relatively flat and gentle in the Newport News and Suffolk sites areas adjacent to the MMBT. In contrast, the potential VOWTS site adjacent to the CBBT is underlain by more complex bay-floor topography that results from the highly dynamic oceanographic conditions at the bay mouth. The dynamics are created by tidal processes, littoral drift, and wave conditions and their interrelations. The very shallow water at the Craney Flats site to the east of the MMBT off Suffolk may limit access of large marine plant required to install offshore-scale wind turbines and their associated foundations and towers. Ocean Conditions The oceanographic conditions, such as tidal currents and storms-generated bottom currents are anticipated to be greater and of more significance to the VOWTS development at the CBBT than at either of the MMBT sites. Scour is anticipated to be a significant design consideration at the CBBT site. Subsurface Stratigraphy and Conditions The subsurface conditions in the three potential VOWTS development areas are summarized as follows:

The CBBT location is in an area adjacent to both navigation and natural channels. Some of the area may be underlain by relatively soft clay paleochannel infill. The potential for laterally varying subsurface condition is significant. If the test turbine location is underlain by relatively soft clay paleochannel infill, a deeper and larger foundation will be required than if the turbine is located outside of a paleochannel.

The Newport News site at the north end of the MMBT is anticipated to be underlain by relatively competent sediments.



15 | P a g e

In contrast, it is probably that the Suffolk site near the south end of the MMBT is underlain by about 50 to 75 ft of soft clay. Nearby (along the axis of the eroded fluvial channel) the clay thickens to as much as 100 ft. The locations of the ancestral James River and Nansemond River channels relative to the proposed Suffolk test sites are uncertain. Based on our review of subsurface information within the vicinity, the surficial alluvial soft clay transitions from 20 to about 75 ft thick. The transition zone projects to the southwest of the proposed sites, thus suggesting that the clay beneath the proposed sites is about 50 to 75 ft thick. Deeper and larger foundations may be required for a turbine at the Suffolk site than at the Newport News site.

We note that the potential presence of thick soft clays in the proposed CBBT and Suffolk development areas may provide that opportunity for constructing a more flexible turbine foundation (as compared to a site not underlain by soft clay) that will, to some extent, emulate deeper water conditions underlain by competent soils.

IMPLICATIONS OF PROJECT SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS European Lessons Learned The last decade of offshore wind development in Europe has provided the following lessons learned (McNeilan and Hodgson, 2011):

All offshore wind projects pay for a quality ground investigation, whether one is conducted – or not.

Scour can develop quickly around foundations (particularly large diameter monopiles) and in areas of ground disturbance created by turbine and cable installation. The scour tends to be most significant in areas of shallow water, variable seafloor topography, and significant tidal flow.

Slippage across the tower-transition structure-foundation interface on monopiles has required costly remediation after several years of repeated cyclic loads.

Monopile foundations may currently be used for larger (and heavier) turbines and in deeper waters than is optimal. The induced stresses across the transition structure grout interface from bending loads in the foundations may have contributed to grout slippage.

It is discussed below how the expected seafloor and subsurface conditions at the proposed sites described may relate to those lessons learned provided above.

Many of the initial offshore wind projects in Europe suffered from untimely, inadequate and/or poor quality ground investigations. The untimely, poor quality or limited scope geotechnical data led to bad assumptions, poor designs, and installation difficulties, which caused delays and cost over runs. Fugro Atlantic



16 | P a g e

Quality Ground Investigations Many of the initial offshore wind projects in Europe suffered from untimely, inadequate, and/or poor-quality ground investigations. The untimely, low-quality, or limited-scope geotechnical data led to bad assumptions, poor designs, and installation difficulties, thus causing delays and cost overruns. It is therefore important that the ground conditions under potential turbine test locations be investigated using appropriate offshore drilling, sampling, and in situ testing methods, such as are required by the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE, 2009, 2010, 2011) for offshore energy structures. While the sites presented in this report would not be located in an area regulated by BOEMRE, the application of traditional land-based drilling and sampling methods while using sub-standard data will (1) add uncertainty to foundation design possibly leading to unnecessarily conservative design and (2) reduce the potential to measure and calibrate structural performance to sub-surface conditions and soil-structure interaction effects. Scour Scour is anticipated to be a potentially significant geo-hazard at the CBBT location. Scour should be thoroughly evaluated based on quantitative bottom current measurements and characterization of the bay-floor sediments. Mitigation and contingency remediation measures should be included in the project development process. In addition to the potential that scour around the turbine foundation could change the performance character of the turbine foundation and its soil-structure interaction, the potential for scour to undermine the turbine power cable (particularly at the exit from the turbine J-tube and adjacent to a CBBT pier) should be considered. Scour hazards at the MMBT sites are anticipated to be less severe, but should nevertheless be considered in the design and monitored. Transition Piece Grout Slippage While the design of the grout at the tower-transition structure-foundation connection is a structural detail (as opposed to a geoscience consideration), we draw the attention to the importance of the design detail. Monopile Foundation Considerations Monopiles are comparatively short and large diameter foundations, as compared to foundation piles supporting jacket (or similar) structures. Thus, whereas the piles that support a jacket structure transfer significant load as axial load, monopoles transfer load as lateral load. Because monopoles are relative short, they are relatively stiff and rotate relative to a point of fixity. Large numbers of large cyclic loads can reduce the soil stiffness and increase the pile-head deflection and change the foundation’s period of vibration. If scour occurs around the monopole, the point of fixity is translated deeper and the pile-head deflection will increase. Care should be exercised during design to evaluate such phenomena.



17 | P a g e

Turbine Foundation

As identified and illustrated in the GFDA, there are generally four types of turbine foundations. The type of turbine foundation selected for a given installation is highly dependent on the depth of water at the site, the slope/gradient of the ground surface, the size/load of turbine to be installed, and the anticipated wind energy. One of the most crucial aspects of selecting a turbine foundation is the sub-surface ground conditions. Without a very detailed investigation of the subsurface ground conditions, this could lead to poor assumptions on the existing conditions, poor design, time delay and very expensive design and construction modifications.

The four major, industry-accepted turbine foundation types for offshore projects are listed below:

1. Gravity Base foundation – these types of turbine foundations are generally

considered for shallow waters with suitable soil conditions. The weight of the concrete base and overlying soil prevents the turbine from tipping over. Resembling an inverted mushroom, the foundation spreads out in a cemented octagon shape with thickness tapering out toward the edges of the platform.

2. Monopile foundation – these are generally considered to be suitable for shallow water up to 70 or 80 ft deep. The monopile design consists of a large diameter steel pile (typically 10 to 16 feet) that is advanced into the bay-floor by drilling, driving, or a combination of both. The monopile foundation is suitable for the loosely-consolidated sediments found in the lower Chesapeake Bay region. However, locations containing deep soft soils would require higher penetration depths. Required penetration depths vary depending on design loads, but typically range from 3.5 to 4.5 times the pile diameter in stiff clay and 7 to 8 times the diameter in softer sediments. Monopiles transfer load as lateral load. A detailed subsurface soil study will have to be performed in order to determine the load capacity of the soils and the necessary sub-surface depth at which a monopile structure would have to be driven in order to support the anticipated loads for the selected turbine size and height.

3. Jacket Quadrapod/Tripod – these foundations types are for deeper water and larger turbine sizes. These types of turbine foundations are considered suitable for water depths of up to 200 ft.

4. Catenary/Floating – these are the least common and most expensive foundation type. The offshore wind turbine is mounted on a floating structure that allows the turbine to generate electricity in water depths where bottom-mounted towers are not feasible. This generally occurs in very deep waters. Catenary mooring is used to stabilize the floating structure. The advantage of floating wind turbines is that water depth in the deep seas is no longer an issue and a wind farm can be developed at greater distances off the coast line.



18 | P a g e

3.4 Concept Development

Building from the background information contained in Section 2.1, each Advanced Technology Demonstration Site is being considered for specific technology advancements including construction means and methods innovations, system technology and compatibility improvements with existing operational radar facilities, and full system turbine and balance of plant design and system monitoring for mid-Atlantic deployment optimization. Concept plans and technology advancement challenges are discussed for each site.

3.4.1 Newport News Concept Development

Innovative Foundation and Construction Techniques

The Newport News site is ideally suited to demonstrate sub-scale, innovative foundation and balance of plant construction techniques. This site is envisioned to provide a temporary proving ground for this technology advancement for several reasons including suitable water depth and sea floor conditions at the site location, its proximity to docking and mooring facilities, and marine construction facilities, and because of the general industrialized nature of the area. There are presently multiple sub-surface turbine foundation designs that have been and are being deployed worldwide, and there is considerable variation in sub-surface oceanic environments that requires foundation type variations suitable for the varying conditions. Figure 3-5 shows some of the typical foundation types that have been deployed.

Figure 3-5 Wind Turbine Foundation Schematics

Source: Ramboll Group A/S

Suction Caisson Example



19 | P a g e

Several of the innovative foundation design and construction techniques that are being developed by marine construction firms in order to potentially optimize constructability, improve structural performance, and potentially reduce construction and operation costs include suction caisson technology and “float and flip” technology, or combinations/variations between the two. Suction caisson technology has been developed as an alternative to traditional pile driving technology, and is a simple form of embedment into the sea bottom by means of gravity and suction. This technology has primarily been developed and applied in the offshore oil and gas industry, but applications have recently been deployed in offshore wind development as shown in Figure 3-6. This figure represents a concrete suction caisson foundation for an offshore met-mast deployment for the proposed 200-MW Hong Kong Wind Farm. Elements of suction caisson technology are being considered for sub-scale deployment at the Newport News location.

Figure 3-6 Concrete Suction Caisson Foundation

Source: Recharge News, February, 2012 Photo Source: Daoda Heavy Marine Industries

The advanced technology innovation under consideration for this site involves an option in which a minimal seabed foundation that rises above the seafloor only enough to present a center well or other capture structures to receive a fully assembled turbine and tower as shown in Figure 3-7. This is in place of a full-depth foundation that terminates in an above-water flange as in monopile transition pieces and all existing gravity bases.

This would eliminate the need for a driven large-diameter monopile, with its attendant noise during construction that may be unacceptable when marine mammals are present. Alternative



20 | P a g e

seafloor matting structures include a welded steel template with small-diameter skirt piles (which can be driven with lower-energy, quieter hammers, or which can be suction piles as used for the Beatrice jacket substructures) or a gravity base.

This also enables the substructure to be pre-joined to the turbine tower, with all components being serially produced except the substructure section, which would be of variable length to accommodate a wide range of different water depths. A key advantage/benefit of this innovation will be to design the substructure to have uniform horizontal dimensions throughout the water column, up to the tower base, such that production of variable lengths still can benefit from serial fabrication of structural components.

Figure 3-7 Float and Flip Wind Turbine Installation System

Source: The Engineering Business, Ltd. Tim Bland



21 | P a g e

Figure 3-7 illustrates “float and flip” offshore wind turbine installation system based on Merlin concept diagram shows pre-installation of minimalist foundation with center well into which tower base is lowered. Variants of this concept have also been developed by Windflip, as shown in Figure 3-8.

Figure 3-8 Windflip Schematic Wind Turbine Installation System

Source: windflip. www.windflip.com

WindFlip incorporates a barge that is able to transport a fully assembled turbine in a horizontal position from onshore to the final installation location. At the installation site, the turbine is launched by filling ballast tanks in a way that rotates the barge and turbine into a vertical position. Figure 3-9 shows a similar installation approach that was adopted for a Dutch riser access tower constructed under Shell's SWEEP gas accumulation development program(me). A schematic concept plan for the Newport News site development is under development (Appendix C). It is important to note that the proposed sub-scale “float and flip” demonstration at the Newport News site is intended to be a temporary demonstration site for foundation and construction methodology demonstration, and is not intended to have a permanent operational wind turbine structure located at this site. Once demonstration activities are completed, it is intended for the site to be restored to pre-demonstration site conditions.

http://www.windflip.com/



22 | P a g e

Figure 3-9 Mercon’s Dutch Riser Access Tower Installation

Source: Oil Online, David Morgan

3.4.2 Suffolk Site Concept Development

Radar Mitigation Technology/ Wastewater Treatment Plant Energy Supply/ Workforce Training and Development/ Low Wind Speed Turbine Optimization

Wind turbine and wind farm interactions with operational military, commercial, and weather radar facilities is an area of continued research and development in the United States. The operational compatibility and continued improvements in these systems, and with proximity to no fewer than four operational radar lines of sight including the NOAA National Weather Service facility in Wakefield, Virginia shown in Figure 3-10, the Suffolk site offers an excellent opportunity to partner with regional military and weather forecasting interests to advance wind turbine and radar operational compatibility.



23 | P a g e

Figure 3-10 National Weather Service Wakefield, Virginia

Source: NOAA

Additional demonstration/development concepts that are being considered for this site include partnering with the Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) for energy supply to the Nansemond Wastewater Treatment Plant, partnering with the Tidewater Community College Real Estate Foundation to provide a regional wind energy workforce training opportunity, and partnering with a wind turbine Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) to optimize turbine performance in a low wind speed environment. In order to advance this concept plan, James Madison University (JMU) wind resource technicians installed a 50-meter meteorological tower on the HRSD property in the project vicinity to further augment wind resource characterization and modeling at the project location. Wind resource modeling and characterization efforts to support this development are described further in Volume 2 of this report. Development concepts are presently being refined and there is ongoing engagement with HRSD, the Tidewater Community College Real Estate Foundation, and wind turbine OEMs. Because of the sensitive nature of ongoing discussions between the primary parties referenced above, the current concept plans that have been developed for this site are not presently available for public review. Once concept plans have been reviewed and approved by all primary parties involved with the property use, concept plans will be made available.

3.4.3 Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Concept Development

Full-Scale Offshore Wind Turbine and Balance of Plant System Optimization for Mid-Atlantic Deployment with Operation Condition and Wildlife Interaction Monitoring

The Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (CBBT) site offers many similarities to the Virginia Offshore Wind Energy Area, and provides an excellent opportunity to demonstrate a wide array of



24 | P a g e

advanced technology innovations for Mid-Atlantic offshore wind development. The concept plan for the CBBT site is to deploy a single, 6-MW wind turbine, balance of plant and marine cable connecting to a suitable electrical sub-station. The wind turbine system will be fully equipped with system condition monitoring equipment designed to evaluate all elements of the turbine system performance. It is envisioned that several of the condition monitoring systems will be innovative, next-generation data collection sensors and systems designed to improve the state of the science for marinized, remote data collection and distribution condition monitoring systems. Another concept that is being developed for this site involves building from the lessons learned from the sub-scale “float and flip” demonstration at the Newport News site and to design and demonstrate a full-scale “float and flip” turbine installation system. The innovations described above will allow for the ability to collect and analyze system performance variables and enable turbine equipment manufacturers and related suppliers to fully optimize both data collection and system operation for mid-Atlantic conditions. A final element of the CBBT site development that coincides with the theme of system design and operation with cost reduction innovations while informing some of the potential environmental permitting and monitoring requirements for larger-scale deployment of wind energy systems in the Atlantic is to design and implement several wildlife interaction monitoring systems for marine mammals, sea turtles and avian species. The intent of these studies will be to build from existing studies and databases, and to further develop baseline data on the occurrences and distributions of these species in the project vicinity by a combination of remote data acquisition supported by field verification. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel facilities at the fourth island offer an excellent platform to accommodate both remote sensing devices and field observers to visually validate the efficacy of the remote data collection systems. The intent of these wildlife interaction studies is to further inform species interactions and responses to wind turbines in this location; to develop, test and validate these monitoring systems; and to incorporate the study and data findings into a larger, Virginia Wind Energy Area wildlife monitoring program. A concept plan for the CBBT site showing the proposed turbine location and two alternative marine cable installation routes is under development (Appendix C).

The intent of these studies

will be to build from existing

studies and databases and to

further develop baseline data

on the occurrences and

distributions of these

species in the project vicinity

by a combination of remote

data acquisition supported

by field verification.



25 | P a g e

Section 4 Stakeholder Engagement

4.1 Outreach Plan

A key element of the Virginia Offshore Wind Advanced Technology Demonstration Site Development project is stakeholder outreach. Developing a project with such varied and wide-ranging components requires involvement of equally broad-ranging stakeholder groups. Among these groups, there is a special need to reach out to those who might be interested in or would harbor avian and/or viewshed concerns. Before a major project involving installation of near-shore large wind turbines would proceed, the varied stakeholders who will be involved and may influence the project must be identified and engaged. It is particularly important to start the engagement early and to remain consistent with regard to the outreach process throughout the development of the project. Stakeholder outreach and engagement lays the groundwork for smooth and informed development, thereby avoiding potential conflicts down the road.

4.1.1 Overview

The process of stakeholder engagement began by identifying a list of key stakeholders. A spreadsheet was produced that lists each stakeholder including his or her affiliation and contact information, a loose categorization of the contact (property owner, regulatory, military, environmental, etc.), and an anticipated timeframe for contact. The potential role of a given stakeholder was identified and a field for status updates was also included as shown in Appendix D1. In conjunction with the spreadsheet, a document was developed that provides a basic outreach plan, also shown in Appendix D1. This provides an overview of the plan including stakeholder identification, strategy development for each stakeholder, development of materials customized to the stakeholders as needed, arrangement of meetings or teleconferences, and follow up. The project team developed the messaging that was communicated to each stakeholder, and coordinating materials were also developed. A general outreach document that was sent to stakeholders includes maps showing the general location of each of the three sites and provides an overview of the project (see Appendix D2).

4.1.2 Strategy

Each stakeholder has been analyzed by the project team and a determination has been made as to (1) their current knowledge of the project and/or offshore wind in general; (2) the immediacy of the need in reaching out to them, and (3) any special circumstances that may require specific types of outreach or strategies for engagement. Once characterized in this manner, the stakeholders were differentiated in terms of how quickly contact would be made. Each week the project team would determine the next group to be engaged. DMME would also be contacted and provided an explanation for why each particular stakeholder was to be contacted and the objective outcome of the meeting as well as to ensure that efforts were not being duplicated or any potential conflicts would be avoided. The fundamental plan for outreach was to (1) send an introductory letter; (2) request a response or meeting if warranted; (3) document calls and/or meetings; (4) gather all written responses; and (5) follow up as needed.



26 | P a g e

4.2 Stakeholder Groups

All stakeholders are listed by category (as defined by areas of interest and/or expertise) below.

4.2.1 Regulatory

As the purpose of this project is to pave the way for future development of Advanced Turbine Technology Demonstration Sites, it was considered important to reach out to those regulatory bodies that would be involved in permitting. These groups would have the greatest level of expertise to inform project development in terms of feasibility, potential show stoppers, and any variables that might present concern. The groups engaged on the regulatory side included the following:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Park Service

United States Army Corps of Engineers

Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries

Virginia Department of Historic Resources

Virginia Department of Transportation

Virginia Marine Resource Commission

There were other key stakeholders identified in the regulatory process for which contact at this stage was considered premature. These include the following:

Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

4.2.2 Maritime

In addition to those regulatory bodies that have a maritime interest, consideration was given to major uses of water bodies in the Hampton Roads area. One of the region’s largest economic drivers is the Port of Virginia. The following organizations were engaged:

Port of Virginia

Virginia Maritime Association

Virginia Pilot’s Association

4.2.3 Military

A significant economic driver and major user of the Hampton Roads waters is the military. In 2010, the Department of Defense created an office that provides a Clearinghouse for all issues

Before a major project

involving installation of near-

shore large wind turbines

would proceed, the varied

stakeholders who will be

involved and may influence

the project must be identified

and engaged.



27 | P a g e

pertaining to the siting of renewable energy projects. The Clearinghouse was engaged, this is addressed in Section 6.

4.2.4 Public Safety

While it is not anticipated that public safety will present a large issue with regard to an Advanced Technology Demonstration project, it was evident that marine police units of the various affected localities would need to be contacted and informed of any potential project so they would be able to express potential conflicts with their operations and make preparations for an installation. The following organizations were engaged:

Newport News Police Department – Marine Unit

Suffolk Police Department – Marine Patrol

Virginia Beach Police Department – Marine Patrol

4.2.5 Environmental

Any project in Virginia state waters is going to require consideration of a range of environmental concerns. It will be critical to identify potential environmental impacts early in the development process and develop strategies for mitigation. Organizations that focus on environmental issues were identified and engaged so that it would be determined now what the most sensitive issues are and how project development could address them. Conservation groups and environmental activist groups were contacted, as well as academics, researchers, and the previously named regulatory groups. The following environmental stakeholders were contacted:

Nature Conservancy

Sierra Club

Virginia Aquarium and Marine Science Center

Virginia Audubon Society

Virginia Institute of Marine Science

In addition, communications were conducted with Dr. Bryan Watts (avian expert with the Center for Conservation Biology at the College of William and Mary) and Terwilliger Consulting.

4.2.6 Viewshed

Consideration was made regarding how the views of large wind turbines might affect everyday activities in the areas with sight of the turbine sites. While it considered premature to engage communities groups and to alert the general public about the notion of large turbines nearby, a strategy was employed to determine who should be defined as “viewshed stakeholders.” The following stakeholders fit into this category and were engaged:

Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Authority

City of Newport News Planning Department

Hampton Roads Sanitation District

Tidewater Community College Real Estate Foundation

Further, the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission provided feedback.



28 | P a g e

4.3 Process and Procedures

4.3.1 Initial correspondence

A customized letter of introduction was developed to send to stakeholders, this was delivered electronically along with the general outreach document (see Appendix D2 for sample). The letter provides the specific coordinates of each project area being considered, requests feedback from the stakeholder, and invites them to meet with the project team if that is desired. Stakeholders responded directly to the principal investigator who would subsequently pass along information to the appropriate team members who would then engage.

4.3.2 Meetings and Conference Calls

Meetings were arranged with a simple objective, to collect feedback or response from a stakeholder related to their particular area of expertise/concern. It was conveyed to the stakeholders that the project team was not developing an actual project, but simply studying the three project sites for potential future development. It was portrayed as a “pre-permitting” activity. Some stakeholders selected to mail or e-mail responses directly, while others requested in-person meetings or conference calls. Team members gathered thorough documentation from each meeting and call that was later processed and catalogued.

4.3.3 Follow-Up

Some stakeholders requested information about the project which was provided as available. Others were satisfied that this study was only to examine feasibility. In some cases, our outreach elicited no response and thus further attempts were made to make contact. As of the writing of this report, nearly all outreach targets had been actively engaged.

4.3.4 Minutes/Notes and Materials

All notes and materials from each meeting, as well as e-mails and letters of response, were gathered, compiled and analyzed. The notes from meetings forwarded to the respective stakeholder for affirmation that their feedback was properly interpreted. Any handouts from meeting were collected.

4.4 Outcomes

4.4.1 Status

Most stakeholders who were contacted responded in a timely manner and provided constructive feedback. Some were less effusive in their response, seeming to indicate the possibility that an Advanced Technology Demonstration project was a low priority to them. Provided below is a description of the outcomes associated with engagement with each stakeholder:



29 | P a g e

Regulatory

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – NOAA was contacted primarily

to inform, since they have had involvement in offshore wind research and data

collection. NOAA referred the team to a contact within the National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS). While it had been previously decided that the NMFS would not be

contacted during the course of this effort, an attempt was made to reach the referred

contact. No response was received.

National Park Service – NPS responded to the request for information with a letter

including maps and lists of all historic resources, land and water conservation areas,

and national landmarks in a 25-mile radius.

United States Army Corps of Engineers – Members of the project team met with John

Evans of the USACE to discuss the permitting process. USACE would serve as the lead

agency, were a project to be developed, and they do not anticipate any show stoppers

for any of the sites.

Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program – Information was provided by Laura

McKay regarding permitting requirements, she offered a contact from her office at DEQ-

CZM to discuss federal regulations.

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality – Members of the project team met

with Carol Wampler of the DEQ to discuss the permitting process and the procedures

for bringing in sister agencies. There has been discussion regarding the Small

Renewable Energy Project Permit by Rule (PBR) which was approved in 2010. An

Advanced Technology Demonstration project would be subject to the PBR, but a project

of 5 MW or less would be eligible for the de minimus exemption..

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries – VDGIF recommended

registration as a Permit By Rule (PBR) subscriber to their Virginia Fish and Wildlife

Information Service (VAFWIS) system which would allow for a database search of the

project sites to determine whether any DGIF resources were in the site areas. Such a

search was conducted and corresponding findings are addressed later in this report.

Virginia Department of Historic Resources – Members of the team met with DHR to

discuss the permitting requirements. When a project is in development, a desktop

survey of all historic resources within a five-mile radius will need to be submitted.

Virginia Department of Transportation – An initial contact was made with VDOT with

interest expressed to conduct a meeting. VOT did not respond to follow-up

correspondence to arrange such a meeting.

Virginia Marine Resource Commission – Members of the project team conducted a

productive meeting with VMRC and the Virginia Institute for Marine Science (VIMS)

combined. VMRC and VIMS addressed each of the sites and potential issues regarding

marine life and current restrictions.



30 | P a g e

Maritime

Virginia Maritime Association – Mr. Art Moye, Executive Vice President of the VMA,

also serves as Chair of the Virginia Offshore Wind Development Authority and a member

of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Authority. Both bodies were informed of this

project, Mr. Moye’s was limited to ensuring that the Virginia Pilot Association be

engaged.

Virginia Pilot Association – after a brief meeting with the VPA, President Bill Cofer

conveyed his concerns regarding the location of the Suffolk site. There is a planned third

crossing between South Hampton Roads and the Peninsula which would be close to the

area where a Suffolk site is considered.

Military

Department of Defense Energy Siting Clearinghouse – Mr. Rick Thomas from the

project team corresponded with Mr. David Belote of the Clearinghouse and received

comprehensive feedback which is addressed later in this report.

Public Safety

Virginia Beach and Newport News Marine Patrols – Dr. Jonathan Miles presented

briefings to officers with the Virginia Beach and Newport News Marine Patrols. This was

followed up with discussion and collection of feedback from these agencies.

Environmental

Center for Conservation Biology at the College of William and Mary – Members of

the team participated in a conference call with Dr. Bryan Watts, director of the CCB. Dr.

Watts provided feedback pertaining to all three sites, and expressed concern mostly

about the CBBT site.

The Nature Conservancy – TNC suggested that the Center for Conservation Biology at

the College of William and Mary be engaged (which had already occurred) and provided

additional feedback.

Sierra Club – The Sierra Club has not yet provided feedback but it is forthcoming.

Terwilliger Consulting – Ms. Karen Terwilliger was recommended to the project team

as a potential resource on avian issues given her prior experience on the Eastern Shore.

Ms. Terwilliger was contacted, but responded that she required financial compensation

to engage given her status as a private consultant.

Virginia Aquarium and Marine Science Center – Members of the team met with Mr.

Mark Swingle, Director of Research and Conservation, and Ms. Susan Barco, Research

Coordinator. They provided insight regarding mammal and turtle populations and

indicated interest in considering a future project as presenting an opportunity to conduct

further analysis of marine behaviors.



31 | P a g e

Virginia Audubon Council – Ms. Mary Elfner indicated an interest in being kept

informed of potential avian conflicts. Their specific concerns apply to how a wind turbine

would affect migration and feeding/resting cycles of species that use the local habitat.

Virginia Institute of Marine Science – VIMS participated in the discussions with

VMRC. Lyle Varnell, Assistant Director of Research and Advisory Services, has actively

participated in the discussion on marine resources that might be affected by an

Advanced Technology Demonstration turbine. His comments are included with the

VMRC notes.

Viewshed

Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Authority – Members of the team met with the CBBT

regarding the site nearest the fourth island. There was also discussion about possible

benefits of a wind turbine to the CBBT, including as a potential energy source.

Discussions also addressed potential interconnection options.

City of Newport News Planning Department – Team members met with

representatives of Newport News in the initial planning stages of the project. Discussion

has involved potential locations of a turbine in the waters just off Newport News.

Hampton Roads Planning District Commission – The HRPDC comprises mayors and

chairmen from the 17 localities of Hampton Roads. Members of the team engaged with

its Executive Director, Mr. Dwight Farmer, who compiled responses from their relevant

members – the cities of Newport News, Suffolk and Virginia Beach – as well as the

Navy.

Hampton Roads Sanitation District – HRSD discussed with team members the

possibility of partnering with the developer of a Suffolk-based Advanced Technology

Demonstration project. Long interested in erecting a turbine for clean energy, HRSD is a

potential owner of such a project and could provide a location if a project were to be

sited on land.

Tidewater Community College Real Estate Foundation – In cooperation with the TCC

Real Estate Foundation and the City of Suffolk, team members participated in the Urban

Land Institute’s Planning Study for the TCC Suffolk Campus Property. The results of that

study are located here and are also presented in the HRPDC notes from Suffolk

at http://www.uli.org/CommunityBuilding/~/media/CommunityBuilding/AdvisoryServices/

Panel%20Reports%20Upload%20Feb09/Suffolk%20%20VA%20Feb%20%202011.ashx

4.4.2 Documentation

A thorough set of documents pertaining to each stakeholder contacted was generated and a list of the document sets which are provided in Appendix D2 is presented below:

Notes from meeting with Dave Harnage, Executive Director, Tidewater Community College Real Estate Foundation (04/14/11)

Notes from City of Newport News Planning and Development meeting (08/19/11)

http://www.uli.org/CommunityBuilding/~/media/CommunityBuilding/AdvisoryServices/Panel%20Reports%20Upload%20Feb09/Suffolk%20%20VA%20Feb%20%202011.ashx

http://www.uli.org/CommunityBuilding/~/media/CommunityBuilding/AdvisoryServices/Panel%20Reports%20Upload%20Feb09/Suffolk%20%20VA%20Feb%20%202011.ashx



32 | P a g e

Handout from meeting with Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Authority, Overview of Potential CBBT Fourth Island Offshore Wind Test Project (11/01/11)

Notes from informal pre-application meeting with Department of Environmental Quality (11/17/11)

Notes from Hampton Roads Sanitation District Quality Steering Team meeting (12/22/11)

Memo from Department of Game and Inland Fisheries directing a database search on the VA Fish and Wildlife Information Service (01/25/12)

Memo with feedback from Laura McKay of the VA Coastal Zone Management program (01/26/12)

Notes from Joint Virginia Marine Resources Commission and Virginia Institute of Marine Science pre-application meeting (02/14/12)

Report of the VMRC, Senate Document 10, Opportunities for Offshore Wind Energy in State Territorial Waters

Notes from teleconference with Bryan Watts, Director of the Center for Conservation Biology at the College of William and Mary (02/24/12)

Memo with feedback from Bill Cofer, President of the Virginia Pilot’s Association (02/27/12)

Notes from pre-application meeting with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District Office (03/02/12)

Memo from Mary Elfner with the Virginia Audubon Council (03/05/12)

Notes from meeting with Department of Historic Resources (03/23/12)

Memo with feedback from Judy K. Dunscomb, Senior Conservation Scientist with The Nature Conservancy in Virginia (04/10/12)

Letter with feedback and resources from the National Park Service (04/12/12)

Notes from meeting with the VA Aquarium and Marine Science Center (04/30/12)

Memo with feedback from the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (05/02/12)

Meeting notes from briefings to and discussion with Virginia Beach and Newport News Marine Patrol (07/18/12)



33 | P a g e

Section 5 Preliminary Engineering and Interconnection

5.1 Introduction

This Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) is part of the pre-development analysis of three locations being considered for Advanced Technology Demonstration sites within Hampton Roads. The purpose of the PER is to discuss design, construction, construction access, electrical grid interconnection issues and cable routing options associated with the development of the offshore wind advanced technology demonstration sites.

The three sites are located at: (1) Interstate I-664 adjacent to the City of Newport News coastline; (2) Interstate I-664 adjacent to the Suffolk coast line and; (3) near the Fourth Island of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (CBBT). Other concurrent site evaluation and characterization activities include a desktop geophysical analysis of the sites, wind and metocean resource characterization, local government and other key stakeholder outreach, all in an effort to ready these sites for development. Specific site descriptions and development concepts have been discussed in the previous section of this report. Given the existing infrastructure, the wind resource and accessibility, the existence of a large power user (such as CBBT or Hampton Roads Sanitation District), and expectation of a more accurate representation of anticipated wind energy, the CBBT and Suffolk sites have been selected as the most feasible sites to develop operating wind turbines. The Newport News site has been selected to demonstrate sub-scale innovative foundation and turbine construction techniques and is not intended to have an operational turbine that would actually provide energy to the local electrical grid. Therefore, the PER does not address the Newport News site.

For this PER, Timmons Group solicited the services of Utility Professional Services, Inc. and Alliance MEP Engineers in order to identify and document the existing power use and grid interconnection options for each demonstration turbine location, ensuring that appropriate conditions for power quality testing would be met. In addition, Timmons coordinated with Dominion Virginia Power, CBBT, and the Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) to determine the needs and process for interconnection planning, design, and installation. In this analysis the power distribution, the main power users, sub meter requirements, and the best use and interconnection location of the power generated by the wind turbines was determined. The Utility Professional Services and Alliance MEP consolidated reports are found in Appendix E and are summarized below.

5.2 Suffolk Site

A single 3-MW wind turbine is proposed for this site. The study area for the Suffolk site is located off the Suffolk shore line on both the east and the west side of Interstate I-664. Based on preliminary discussions with the Tidewater Community College Real Estate Foundation, the closest adjacent property owner to this study area, it was determined that the east side of I-664 would be the preferable location for this turbine. This was based on planning efforts conducted by the Urban Land Institute and the City of Suffolk while considering an overall Master Plan for the TCC property. Another reason for further consideration for placement of the turbine on the east side of I-664 is that this location coincides with the interests of the Hampton Roads Sanitation District in developing renewable energy resources for energy supply to the existing Nansemond Wastewater Treatment Facility located directly adjacent to the Tidewater



34 | P a g e

Community College property. Discussions between the project team and both the HRSD and Tidewater Community College real Estate Foundation further assessing the feasibility of wind energy development at this site are currently ongoing.

5.2.1 Turbine Cable Routing

Both turbine construction and turbine cable routing from the proposed turbine location to the HRSD site would involve property controlled by both HRSD and the TCC Real Estate Foundation. Conceptual cable routing described within proposed Concept Plan alternatives under development suggest cable routing following a proposed access road into the property. The cable route follows the access road to the intersection of Armistead Road, and then follows along Armistead Road to the Nansemond Wastewater Treatment Plant site. The cable route continues along the wastewater treatment site access road to the proposed interconnection location at the existing Dominion Power transformer location.

5.2.2 Interconnection

Interconnection to the HRSD electrical system will require additional detailed analysis of the HRSD electrical system and power usage. Based on preliminary evaluation, interconnection appears to be straightforward with the HRSD system requiring few modifications in order to accommodate the proposed power supply. The interconnection location that appears most feasible is directly adjacent to the location of the Dominion Virginia Power transformer at the main power feed to the HRSD facilities. The proposed interconnection configuration design will require the following improvements associated with the wind turbine and electrical cable system:

1. Step up transformer located at the base of the wind turbine 2. Service disconnect rated for 300 amps at 13.8 KV 3. Control Box containing a rectifier and controller 4. Cabinet for Net Metering 5. Load Bank for Power Quality Testing 6. Control Box and Interconnection Switch

Items 2-6 above would likely be housed within a proposed modular building directly adjacent to the existing HRSD electrical building.

5.3 Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Site

The study area for the proposed CBBT site is located approximately 2.2 miles northeast from the Fourth Island of the CBBT in water depths ranging between 20 and 30 ft. Site selection rationale and a site description were discussed in Section 2 of this report. A single 6-MW turbine is proposed for this location. All construction activity associated with the wind turbine, balance of plant, and submarine cable installation will be conducted from temporary fixed construction platforms, temporary barge vessels, and purpose-specific marine construction vessels either with temporary mooring facilities or, in the case of marine cable installation, by floating or powered vessels.



35 | P a g e

5.3.1 Turbine Cable Routing

The initial concept plan (Alternative A1) for connection to the CBBT facilities was to install a submarine cable from the proposed wind turbine to the Fourth Island by taking the shortest route to the bridge (a perpendicular distance of approximately 1.14 miles), then installing the cable in a tray and following the bridge for 1.79 miles to the Fourth Island. The cable would then be brought into a modular building that would house all the necessary electrical appurtenances. This modular building would be situated next to the Fourth Island ventilation building. The power produced by the wind turbine would then be fed through appropriate transformers/switching and into the CBBT electrical system at this location. However, after further investigation and discussions with the CBBT Electrical/Mechanical Superintendent, Mr. Michael A. Wells, it was determined that this concept proved to be impractical due to cost and feasibility constraints. These constraints include electrical system upgrade requirements as well as structural improvements. With this new information, a second alternative (Alternative A2) was investigated. Utility Professional Services evaluated a direct connection from the turbine to First Island. A direct connection to First Island may be seen as desirable since First Island provides the main power supply hub residing on the bridge-tunnel structure. A third alternative (Alternative A3) emerged which involves routing the cable from the turbine to First Island on the bridge, using the shortest route between the turbine and First Island. From there, the cable would follow a line nearly parallel to the bridge-tunnel and into shore, connecting to the CBBT substation (see Figure 5-11). The total length of buried cable under the Chesapeake Bay would be approximately 64,302 ft. To bring the cable to shore, directional boring techniques would be used. As the cable gets close to land, the CBBT right-of-way would be used as the cable route. Once the cable is on shore, the cable route would follow the path of the existing power cable supply to the substation. This would require the cable to cross Lake Pleasure House. Currently, the existing power cable crosses Lake Pleasure House through cable trays attached to the bridge crossing the lake. Shortly before this report was being finalized, a fourth alternative (Alternative B1) was being considered. This concept routes the cable from the CBBT turbine location to the Fort Story military base located at Cape Henry. The total length of buried cable under the Chesapeake Bay would be approximately 52,157 feet, which is shorter that the proposed cable route to the CBBT substation. To date, this alternative has been investigated and discussed only in preliminary terms. Accordingly, there are significant unknown considerations associated with this alternative including (1) whether or not directional boring would occur as the cable approaches land; (2) the precise location of interconnection at Fort Story; and (3) electrical considerations regarding substation interconnection and/or behind the meter connections.



36 | P a g e

Figure 5-11 CBBT Cable Route Alternatives



37 | P a g e

Figure 5-12 CBBT Cable Landfall Schematic

Figure 5-12 shows a more detailed visual of the proposed cable route from the cable landfall location to the CBBT substation. It should be noted that this is a preliminary investigation, and the exact cable location and route of the existing power lines should be surveyed and located in more detail as planning continues. All cable routes indicated at this stage are estimations and approximations.

5.4 Interconnection

The summary below was taken directly from the report prepared by Utility Professional Services, Inc. entitled Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Wind Turbine Preliminary Interconnection Feasibility Report. The complete report can be found in Appendix E. Dominion Virginia Power currently supplies two separate 34.5 KV three-phase overhead circuits that feed the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (CBBT). The two circuits currently feed the CBBT owned substation by the South Toll Plaza. This substation was built in 1964 and is scheduled to be replaced in the 2021/2022 timeframe. The replacement site is next to the existing substation. As was stated in the previous section, the initial concept plan for connection to the CBBT facility (Alternative A1) called for installation from the proposed wind turbine to the Fourth Island by taking the shortest route to the bridge, then installing the cable in a tray and following the bridge



38 | P a g e

Figure 5-13 CBBT Substation Cable Routing



39 | P a g e

to the Fourth Island. The cable would then be brought into a modular building that would house all the necessary electrical appurtenances. It was thought this might allow for any excess power to be back-fed through cable and tray structures attached to the bridge. However, after a site visit and interviews with CBBT staff, it was determined that the Alternative 1 was impractical due to cost and feasibility constraints. Costs associated with this option are nearly double that of each of the other options. Similarly, Utility Professional Services evaluated a direct connection from the turbine to island one (Alternative A2). This is the least cost option (See Appendix E). Alternative 3 involves routing the buried cable a total distance of 64,302 feet under the Chesapeake Bay. The final 1,250 feet would involve directional boring techniques. Installing a new cable and inter-connect switch at the CBBT substation may prove to be a practical solution. In doing so, a modular building could be installed at the existing substation, (near the proposed substation location that will be built in 2021/2022) to house the load grid and inter-connect switch. This will allow a short run for installing the inter-connect switch (which Dominion Virginia Power has to approve) prior to connecting with Dominion Virginia Power’s grid. This would not require a significant change when the new substation is installed. Additionally, since there are two circuits with 34.5 kV power already onsite, there should be very few, if any, changes or upgrades that Dominion Virginia Power would have to make to their system to accommodate “net-metering”. Utility Pros recommends trenching and installing a new 1,000-kcmil aluminum cable from the proposed 6-MW Turbine location east of CBBT’s Fourth Island to CBBT’s existing Substation near the South Toll Plaza; installing a modular building to house the load grid and the Inter-connect switch next to the new proposed CBBT substation to be installed in the 2021/2022 timeframe. The three interconnection alternatives considered within this section – (1) connection to the CBBT substation, (2) connection to CBBT First Island, and (3) connection to Fort Story are all apparently viable alternatives for interconnection. The preliminary cost estimates for these alternatives were within a few percentage points of one another, and a detailed design and cost estimate for each alternative, as well as continued coordination with the CBBT, and regulatory officials will greatly assist in determining the most practicable of these alternatives.

5.5 Other Construction and Material Delivery Considerations

Given that the proposed turbine locations considered in this report are offshore, there are construction constraints that should be considered before a final site and location is selected. Some construction considerations are listed below:

Is delivery of the turbine to the site by land or by water?

If delivery is by land, how wide and how tall would the equipment be and is permitting necessary for wide load transportation?

Is there an acceptable route to transport the turbine and any other associated large equipment to the site?

What are the minimum and maximum water depths for offshore construction?

Will dredging be necessary?



40 | P a g e

Section 6 Regulatory Permitting

6.1 Regulatory Overview

In order to obtain project authorization for the Advanced Technology Demonstration Sites, there are multiple, overlapping state and federal regulatory review agencies with whom the applicant must coordinate. Typically, coordination with these agencies is initiated by the Project Applicant through submittal of permit applications and supporting documentation. Wind turbine site development in state waters requires authorization from Federal Agencies including the Federal Aviation Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, both of which serve as lead federal agencies responsible for coordinating with supporting federal agencies regarding aviation, marine spatial planning and natural resources. Supporting federal agencies include the U.S. Department of Defense, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. State authorization for wind turbine site development is required from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, which serve as co-lead state agencies responsible for coordinating with supporting state agencies including the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources.

6.1.1 Federal Agencies – Jurisdiction and Process Description

6.1.1.1 Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 sets guidance on providing notice to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of proposed new construction or alteration of existing structures. Section 77.9 requires that the FAA Administrator must be given notice of any proposal to construct a facility over 200 ft above ground level. Two of the proposed concept plans propose to construct turbines above that height, while the third plan proposes to erect a temporary structure above that height. In all three cases, notice to the FAA must be given by the project sponsor at some stage of development. The FAA recommends that such notice is given between 8 and 12 months of the anticipated construction date. The FAA requires a developer to file a Notice of Proposed Construction (NPC) using form 7460-1 for any structure greater than 200 feet above ground level. Form 7460-1 can be filed electronically on the FAA website. The FAA conducts a study process to determine whether the proposed action will create a hazard to navigable airspace. At the end of the process, the FAA issues either a Determination of No Hazard (DNH) or a Notice of Presumed Hazard (NPH). In practice, the NPH initiates a process of negotiation and appeal. The project sponsor is the person or business ultimately responsible for the construction of the wind turbine. The project sponsor is transferrable, but it is not the responsibility of the FAA to track changes in ownership. Draft forms 7460-1 for each site have been completed and are found in Appendix F. Various elements of this report suggest that specific turbine locations may need to be adjusted. Once final site selection has been determined for each site, these forms can be adjusted appropriately for final coordinate locations and submitted to the FAA. Each site was evaluated in order to anticipate the FAA’s determination and suggest appropriate mitigation



41 | P a g e

before application is made to the FAA. By understanding concerns the FAA is likely to have prior to filing Form 7460-1, the applicant may be able to offer mitigation at the time of the filing. QED Airport & Aviation Consultants perform aeronautical studies for all airports in the vicinity of the three turbine sites. QED analyzed instrument approach and departure procedures published at those airports where applicable, as well as Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77, and low-level visual and instrument flight en route airspace. The reports are summarized below. Newport News Site If an operating turbine were to be placed at the Newport News site, QED determined that this site could be considered a hazard to navigable airspace because it adversely impacts visual flight rule aircraft operations. This impact may be mitigated by installing high-intensity white strobe lights and red obstruction lights. A detailed description of the mitigation measures can be found in Appendix F. If a turbine is not constructed here, the site would still need to receive FAA approval as long as a pole or similar structure of at least 200 feet is momentarily “flipped” to test the “float and flip” technology described in section 3.4.1. Suffolk Site QED determined that this site could be considered a hazard to navigable airspace because (1) it adversely impacts visual flight rule aircraft operations and (2) it causes an increase in the final approach fix altitude for HI-TACAN and TACAN instrument approaches to Runway 10 at Norfolk Naval Station (Chambers Field). The impact to visual flight rules may be mitigated by installing high-intensity white strobe lights and red obstruction lights. Mitigation associated with the instrument approaches may be achieved by adjusting the final approach fix 100 feet upward, to an altitude of 1000 feet AMSL. This would not require new instrumentation or technology. A detailed description of the mitigation measures can be found in Appendix F. Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Site FAA regulations state that any structure exceeding 499 ft above ground level is, by definition, an obstruction to air navigation. Therefore, the proposed height of 540 ft would be determined by the FAA to be an obstruction to air navigation. As stated in QED’s attached report (Appendix F), not all obstructions are determined to be hazards. The aeronautical study conducted by QED is similar to the analysis that will be applied by the FAA to make the hazard determination. QED’s analysis found the location of the CBBT site as not likely to affect instrument approach procedures or airspace management at any of the airports. Form 7460-1 requires a proposal for affixing appropriate markings and lighting to the wind turbines. The FAA will make the final determination concerning which structures should have obstruction lights based on guidance in FAA Advisory Circular 70/7560-1K. Since the height of the turbine will likely render it an obstruction (even though the location should not affect approach procedures or airspace management), QED’s report summary suggests a mitigation strategy. Specifically, that high-intensity strobe lights and red obstruction lights should be considered as a mitigation option.

By understanding concerns the FAA is likely to have prior to filing Form 7460-1, the applicant may be able to offer mitigation at the time of the filing.



42 | P a g e

The project sponsor is advised to carefully consider a lighting proposal to be included as part of the filing of form 7460-1. In this particular location, certain lighting schemes may be viewed by wildlife advocates as a potential attractor of birds and bats. For that reason, the project sponsor should consult with an avian or lighting specialist capable of devising a proposal that satisfies the safety requirements of the FAA, while not unnecessarily attracting birds and bats. Similarly, coordination regarding lighting must also occur with the U.S. Coast Guard. It is worth noting that a 757-ft antenna tower is operating in Northampton County that is equipped with lighting similar to that recommended by QED. It is beyond the scope of this report to determine whether avian impacts have been recorded at the antenna site. If such information exists and the impacts are particularly low, a lighting scheme similar to that used with the antenna may be worth considering at the CBBT location. After review of the QED report, a meeting was sought with the Norfolk Airport Authority (NIA). The NIA Director of Facilities, Mr. Anthony Rondeau, preferred to be interviewed by phone. The conversation only considered the location of the CBBT site. He appreciated being contacted, but indicated that the NIA does not have the expertise to evaluate the proposal. He asked to be contacted after the FAA completes their evaluation. Mr. Rondeau mentioned that the CBBT site could be a cause for concern if the FAA determines that the minimum vectoring altitude should be changed. He said that a site on the eastern shore had been evaluated by the FAA and resulted in such a change. No other commercial airports were contacted, since, in the context of the CBBT site, the QED report suggested that NIA was the only specific concern.

6.1.1.2 Department of Defense

The Department of Defense operates a Siting Clearinghouse (DODSC) designed to promote the timely and predictable evaluation of renewable energy projects while preserving the need to maintain military capabilities. Pursuant to 49 USC §44718, the DODSC coordinates Department of Defense review of applications for projects filed with the Secretary of Transportation. Procedurally, it is typical for a developer to initially file form 7460-1 with the FAA. The FAA (Secretary of Transportation) officially notifies the DODSC of the project and both entities evaluate the proposed site. For this project, the typical procedure articulated above was not followed. Instead, a letter request was sent directly to the DODSC, asking for an evaluation of all three sites. The DODSC response is attached as Appendix G.

6.1.1.3 U.S. Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Marine Fisheries Service

Pursuant to 33 CFR Part 66.0, Subpart 66.01, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) must authorize the construction of any private aids to navigation in the navigable waters of the United States. A wind turbine would be considered a fixed structure and considered a private aid to navigation. The USCG will define a marking and lighting scheme as part of the Private Aids to Navigation (PATN) Permit to be issued for the wind turbine structure. It is likely that once a submarine cable system is installed and operating, that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its Hydrographic Charting Office will designate a “Cable Area Corridor” on the next edition of their published hydrographic charts to advise mariners of its location and seabed condition.



43 | P a g e

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Office of Protected Resources is tasked with the implementation of Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) which allows, upon request, the incidental but not intentional taking of marine mammals by United States citizens. Construction activities associated with the Project, most notably monopile installation, may generate acoustical impacts that have the potential to impact marine mammals.

6.1.1.4 National Telecommunications Information Administration

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) provides several federal agencies the opportunity to comment on potential radar issues. The NTIA will evaluate the concerns of several federal agencies, including NOAA’s National Weather Service (NWS). The NTIA prefers to be given turbine location and heights, but they can evaluate impacts with polygon coordinates as well. The NTIA’s analysis may result in a recommendation that the applicant enter into a discussion with the radar operator. Further, the analysis may suggest mitigation options that the applicant is encouraged to pursue and formalize by executing a legal agreement. The NTIA was not directly engaged as part of this project. Some analysis of potential radar interference was conducted using the DODSC web based tool. The Wakefield NWS Doppler radar is approximately 32 miles (51.5 kilometer or km) from the closest of our three sites. The NOAA website provides an excellent discussion of the potential impacts within the line of sight of their NWS Doppler radar at http://www.roc.noaa.gov/WSR88D/WindFarm/TurbinesImpactOn.aspx?wid=dev. The majority of impacts would occur if the turbine were located within 18 km of the radar (multi-path scattering, bulk cable interference). NOAA reports that beyond that distance, workarounds are available. It is recommended that the project sponsor formally file an inquiry with NTIA. The NTIA contact is: Mr. Edward Davison U.S. Department of Commerce/NTIA Room 4099A, HCHB 1401 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20230 202-482-1850 ext. 5526 [email protected]

http://www.roc.noaa.gov/WSR88D/WindFarm/TurbinesImpactOn.aspx?wid=dev



44 | P a g e

6.1.1.5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

The USACE – Norfolk District regulates activities in waters of the United States, including wetlands, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1344) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. §403). Section 10 regulates work and structures that are located in or that affect navigable waters of the United States. Activities including installation of the monopile foundation, scour protection and installation of the submarine cable system are regulated by the USACE and require appropriate authorization. Section 404 also requires Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Commonwealth of Virginia, administered by the DEQ. Section 401 Water Quality Certification information is contained in Section 6.1.2.1.1. The permitting process is typically initiated by the project sponsor (applicant) through submittal of a Joint Permit Application, which also serves as notification to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission. Draft Joint Permit Applications for the proposed development sites are included in Appendix H. The draft permit applications are not complete, as the project details are conceptual, and require additional design refinement for all of the appropriate permit application details to be provided. Nationwide Permit 52 (NWP–52) – Water Based Renewable Energy Generation Pilot Project and Nationwide Permit 12 (NWP-12) – Utility Line Activities In February 2012, the USACE re-issued 48 Nationwide Permits (NWP) and announced two new NWP’s applicable to land and water based renewable energy development. These NWP’s provide streamlined authorization for certain activities under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. These NWP are re-evaluated and re-issued every five years. A complete list of Nationwide Permits can be found on the USACE Norfolk District website located at http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/Regulatory_Branch/Nationwides.asp. NWP-52 authorizes the construction, expansion, modification, or removal of water-based wind or hydrokinetic renewable energy generation pilot projects and their attendant features. Attendant features may include land-based distribution facilities, roads, parking lots, utility lines, and storm water management facilities. NWP-52 authorizes up to ten generation units (turbines). NWP-52 does not authorize activity in coral reefs, nor does it authorize structures in established danger zones or restricted areas. Structures in anchorage areas must comply with U.S. Coast Guard requirements. Upon completion of the pilot project, associated structures and/or fills must be removed unless authorized by a separate Department of the Army (DA) permit.

NWP-52 authorizes the construction, expansion, modification, or removal of water-based wind or hydrokinetic renewable energy generation pilot projects and their attendant features. Attendant features may include land-based distribution facilities, roads, parking lots, utility lines, and stormwater management facilities. NWP-52 authorizes up to ten generation units (turbines).

http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/Regulatory_Branch/Nationwides.asp

http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/Regulatory_Branch/Nationwides.asp



45 | P a g e

The permittee is required to remove the generation units and associated structures once the pilot project is completed, unless the project is authorized by a separate DA authorization. If the project is authorized by NWP-52, it may be verified under a reissued NWP-52 if NWP-52 is reissued in 2017. NWP-12 authorizes the construction, maintenance, or repair of utility lines, including outfall and intake structures, and the associated excavation, backfill, or bedding for the utility lines, in all waters of the United States, provided there is no change in pre-construction contours. A “utility line” is defined as any pipe or pipeline for the transportation of any gaseous, liquid, liquescent, or slurry substance, for any purpose, and any cable, line, or wire for the transmission for any purpose of electrical energy, telephone, and telegraph messages, and radio and television communication. Placement of a transmission line on the bed of a navigable water of the United States from a generation unit to a land-based collection facility is considered a structure under Section 10 and is not considered a loss of waters of the United States. Utility lines transferring energy to a distribution system, regional grid, or other facility are generally considered to be separate and complete linear projects, and therefore would likely be authorized under Nationwide Permit 12, which would accompany the NWP-52 authorization. The combined NWP 52 and NWP 12 authorization would likely encompass the necessary authorization from the USACE for construction of the wind turbine structure and associated infrastructure including the submarine cable installation. During 2011 and 2012, several pre-application consultations were conducted with the Norfolk District of the USACE. Detailed accounts of these meeting are found in Appendix D2, and key findings are summarized below:

1. Wind turbine development in jurisdictional waters of Virginia is new, and the specific project coordination protocol related to lead/supporting agency roles and responsibilities is presently being developed. It is likely that for this project in Virginia waters, the USACE will be the lead federal permitting agency.

2. As part of the Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation process, the USACE will notify the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) of an application submittal, and a discussion will occur regarding potential wildlife impacts within 45 days of application receipt. The specific determination of potential project effects on rare, threatened, or endangered species will be determined by the USACE in coordination with the USFWS.

3. The USFWS Information Planning and Consultation system evaluation process (IPaC) will be used by USACE to coordinate with the USFWS regarding the avian flyway and listed species. IPaC, and to a lesser extent, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) online resources, are used to define whether listed species occur in the vicinity or “action area.” Each species is considered individually.

4. The district engineer may impose regional and case by case conditions. While the final draft of NWP-52 requires that the district engineer send a preconstruction notification to the Department of Defense (DOD) when a wind turbine is being proposed, a regional condition is being considered by the Norfolk district regarding the DOD notification. Specifically, the Norfolk district may not approve a project until they have received approval from the DOD. Further, the DOD may not engage formally until receiving a formal request from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

5. It is likely that the turbine cable installation would be authorized under Nationwide Permit 12, regardless of installation method as long as the activity meets all of the term, conditions, and any special conditions for NWP-12.



46 | P a g e

6.1.2 State Agencies – Jurisdiction and Process Description

6.1.2.1 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

Permit By Rule In December 2010, the “Small Renewable Energy Project (Wind)” Permit by Rule (PBR) became effective and established the formal regulation that is managed and enforced by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for the construction of wind energy facilities. Subsequently, DEQ issued guidance for the PBR. The regulation (9 VAC 15-40) and guidance documents can be found on DEQ’s website at http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/RenewableEnergy/WindEnergy.aspx. The regulation is issued under authority of Article 5 (§ 10.1-1197.5 et seq.) of Chapter 11.1 of Title 10.1 of the Code of Virginia. The regulation contains requirements for wind-powered electric generation projects consisting of wind turbines and associated facilities with a rated capacity greater than 5 MW and equal to or less than 100 MW. The PBR provisions for these projects can be found at 9VAC15-40-30, Part II. The regulation further stipulates that a Permit by Rule is not required for small wind energy projects with a rated capacity of 5 MW or less. The provisions for these projects are found in 9VAC15-40-130, Part III. Both the regulations and associated guidance address preconstruction surveys, mitigation plans, post-construction monitoring, and other PBR requirements. Where appropriate, the guidance discusses suggested methods for performing the required studies. Guidance is not enforceable, but does reflect the recommendations of agency staff. This section of the report should be viewed as an assessment of desktop surveys and pre-application due diligence. This section of the report should not be viewed as a comprehensive checklist designed to ensure the completeness of a Permit by Rule application. Instead, the applicant is advised to hold pre-application meetings with DEQ, and sister agencies as appropriate. The final preparation of an application will properly emerge, once informed, from discussions that would occur during those meetings. Projects of 5 MW or less Projects of 5 MW or less are subject to the De minimus provisions of the PBR. The applicant must provide DEQ with a formal notice of intent. DEQ encourages the applicant to provide notification as early as practicable. Since the projects being considered in this report are to be built in state waters, and no locality has jurisdiction over state waters, it is not necessary for the applicant to provide the Local Governing Body Certification Form. Similarly, the applicant does not need to provide a completed Environmental Permit Certification Form.

In December 2010, the “Small

Renewable Energy Project

(Wind)” Permit by Rule (PBR)

became effective and

established the formal

regulation that is managed

and enforced by the Virginia

Department of Environmental

Quality (DEQ) for the

construction of wind energy

facilities.

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/RenewableEnergy/WindEnergy.aspx



47 | P a g e

DEQ has designated Coastal Avian Protection Zones (CAPZ) both in and around state waters. A separate provision of the regulation applies CAPZ research fee requirements to projects that are 5 MW or less (these fees are in lieu of CAPZ survey requirements for larger projects). The CBBT site is in CAP Zone Six. Both the Suffolk and Newport News sites are located in CAP Zone Seven. While projects located in certain zones will need to provide a payment of $1000/MW, neither Zone Six nor Seven require this payment. The applicant is advised that for projects in Zones Six and Seven, wildlife research investments may exceed $1000/MW. For Zones Six and Seven, the scope of research and the cost of the investment should be investigated during pre-application meetings with the DEQ, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF), and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). Projects of 5 MW or greater The CBBT site is the only location being considered for a turbine that exceeds the 5MW threshold. Therefore, the project developer would apply to DEQ under the PBR provisions of 9VAC15-40-30, Part II. This section requires that numerous certifications accompany the application (those certifications are not listed here). Desktop surveys and pre-construction analyses that are required by the PBR are summarized below. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries The project developer must conduct preconstruction wildlife analyses as required under 9VAC15-40-40. The results of the DGIF based desktop analysis required under this section are summarized in Section 4.2 and are attached in their entirety in Appendix I. 9VAC15-40-40 (A2) requires that breeding bird surveys must be conducted where the desktop analysis indicates that state-listed Threatened and Endangered (T&E) bird species occur (OR Tier 1/Tier 2 Species of Greatest Conservation Need [SGCN] occur). As Section 4.2 indicates, numerous T&E bird species occur at all three sites. Typically, a pre-application meeting with DEQ and DGIF should be held in order to determine the survey design and field methodologies. 9VAC15-40-40 (A3) requires that field surveys of non-avian resources must be conducted where the desktop analysis indicates the presence of or habitat for a Tier 1 or Tier 2 vertebrate (other than a bird). The desktop evaluation indicates that the federally protected species, the Atlantic Sturgeon, and several sea turtle species are present at all three sites. Additional Tier 1 and Tier 2 SGCN species occur as well. The applicant is encouraged to arrange a pre-application meeting with DEQ and DGIF to consider which species should be surveyed, and whether survey design and methodologies can allow for multiple species to be surveyed by a single survey team. The PBR clearly states that at least ten aerial transect surveys for waterfowl and seabirds must occur in CAPZ Zone Six. Required studies in Zone Seven include transect surveys, as well as bald eagle and waterfowl field studies. The specific survey methodologies should emerge during pre-application discussions and meetings. For projects located in the CAPZ, the regulation does not explicitly discuss whether those surveys articulated under 9VAC15-40-40 (breeding bird surveys, raptor migration surveys, bat acoustic surveys, mist netting) must also occur in the CAPZ. While the guidance suggests that



48 | P a g e

projects in CAPZ do not have to conduct raptor surveys, Dr. Bryan Watts with the Center for Conservation Biology at the College of William and Mary indicates that surveys for passerines and raptors are desirable at the CBBT location. The DCR recommends surveys for waterfowl and neotropical migrants. In order to determine whether all surveys specified under 9VAC15-40-40 must occur at an offshore site, the applicant is encouraged to arrange a pre-application meeting with DEQ and DGIF. It is important for the project developer to be aware of avian concerns with the development of this project, and to maintain continued consultation with the DEQ and DGIF to resolve any uncertainties or ambiguities in the wildlife sections of the PBR. Many elements of the PBR process are unfamiliar to consultants and developers. For that reason, agency consultation is highly recommended as a tool to help applicants avoid project delays and unexpected requirements. It should be noted that Dr. Watts expressed concern for the proposed turbine location at the CBBT site, and suggested that siting the turbine at least three kilometers from the bridge has the potential to mitigate avian impacts. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Analysis of natural heritage resources must be conducted as prescribed in PBR section 9VAC15-40-40 (C1a). The results of the DCR based desktop analysis required under this section are summarized in Section 6.2 and are attached in their entirety as Appendix I PBR section 9VAC15-40-40 (C1b) requires “Field surveys within the disturbance zone mapping.” Appropriate data to be collected for this section of the PBR is determined by DCR and the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy, and will require additional consultation with these agencies during project development. PBR section 9VAC15-40-40 (C2a&b) requires that viewshed analysis is to be conducted when the proposed project will be within five miles of certain parks and scenic resources. DCR compiled a “Managed Lands” report (Appendix I) to assist with the determination of identifying scenic resources in the vicinity of the proposed demonstration sites. Based upon discussions that occurred during the formation of the PBR, the applicant is advised to conduct “Zone of Visual Influence” analysis to determine whether certain parks are actually within the viewshed of the specific turbine locations. This analysis could show that while certain parks are within five miles of the turbine, buildings or structures may block or shield the view of the proposed turbine. In such cases, visual simulations would not have to be produced. Virginia Department of Historic Resources An analysis of historic resources must be conducted as prescribed by the PBR. The applicant provides the Department of Historic Resources (DHR) with a desktop survey of all historic resources within a five-mile radius of the disturbance zone. Field surveys are required for architectural and archaeological resources. The desktop and field studies are compiled and provided as a report and are found in Appendix J.

It is important for the project

developer to be aware of

avian concerns with the

development of this project,

and to maintain continued

consultation with the DEQ

and DGIF to resolve any

uncertainties or ambiguities

in the wildlife sections of the

PBR.



49 | P a g e

Consultation was held with DHR in order to discuss the PBR requirements in more detail, and notes from that meeting can be found in Appendix D2. The implementation of Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act under the USACE’s nationwide permit for offshore wind facilities was also discussed. With the Nationwide Permit 52 being relatively new, it is not currently known what specific permit requirements and conditions will apply, and whether those conditions will be similar to the conditions contained in the PBR. Section 401 Water Quality Certification It is anticipated that the proposed turbine demonstration sites would be authorized by the USACE through issuance of Nationwide Permits 12 and 52 verifications as described earlier. With the publication of the 2012 Nationwide Permits, the Commonwealth of Virginia issued Water Quality Certification through the DEQ by issuance of a letter to the USACE District Engineer dated April 18, 2012 referenced below: http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/Regulatory_Branch/Regional_Conditions/2012_NWP_401_Certification_Letter.pdf. In the April 18, 2012 Water Quality Certification letter to the District Engineer, DEQ issues conditional water quality certification for projects authorized under NWP-12 and NWP-52. The conditional water quality certification for NWP-12 is granted provided “that the activities are not associated with intake structures or do not transport non-potable raw surface water.” The conditional water quality certification for NWP-52 is granted provided “that (1) the discharge does not include water withdrawals such as the construction of an intake structure, weir, or water diversion structure; (2) the impact does not exceed 2 acres of wetlands or 1500 linear feet of streambed.” Most likely, the demonstration site development would be in accordance with these provisions. Coastal Zone Consistency Determination

The Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program is administered by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Office of Environmental Impact Review. A detailed description of applicable regulatory requirements and description of the Federal Consistency Information Package can be found here: http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/EnvironmentalImpactReview/FederalConsistencyManual.7.27.11.pdfhttp://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/EnvironmentalImpactReview/FederalConsistencyManual.7.27.11.pdf. The review procedure for federal consistency review for this project is triggered by the requirement for federal authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 10 – Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 – Clean Water Act, which are listed activities with coastal effects and are outlined below (15 CFR Part 930, Subpart D). All activities located within Virginia’s designated coastal management area (Tidewater) requiring a federal permit, license, or approval must be consistent with Virginia’s Coastal Zone Management Program.

http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/Regulatory_Branch/Regional_Conditions/2012_NWP_401_Certification_Letter.pdf

http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/Regulatory_Branch/Regional_Conditions/2012_NWP_401_Certification_Letter.pdf

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/EnvironmentalImpactReview/FederalConsistencyManual.7.27.11.pdf






50 | P a g e

Step 1. Virginia, with the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) approval, determines activities with coastal effects:

a. listed versus unlisted activity b. inside versus outside coastal zone

Step 2. As this project is a listed activity occurring in Tidewater, the applicant must submit a federal consistency certification (FCC) to the responsible federal agency (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and the DEQ. The applicant must provide DEQ with the necessary data and information (15 CFR §930.58 – see below) to allow the agencies administering the enforceable policies to assess the project’s effects. Step 3. DEQ establishes deadlines and distributes the documents to reviewers. If there are enforceable policies, DEQ will coordinate a consistency review for those activities. The six-month review begins upon receipt of the required information. If the only applicable enforceable policies are permit programs under the jurisdiction of Virginia’s laws, and the applicant has received all the applicable permits or approvals, DEQ may decide to do an in-house review of the consistency certification. To facilitate this uncoordinated or limited review, the applicant must attach the pertinent approvals to the FCC. Step 4. DEQ publishes the public notice pursuant to 15 CFR §930.61. In some instances, DEQ requires that the applicant publishes the notice or may combine the notice with the notice by the federal agency (if the federal agency agrees). Public participation may include public hearings. Step 5. DEQ responds within 90 days either concluding the review or providing an update of the status of the review (15 CFR §930.62). No further action is necessary if the Commonwealth concurs. For projects still under review, DEQ will notify the federal agency and the applicant of the status of the review and the basis for further delay. DEQ will respond within the 6-mo legal deadline. Step 6. The federal agency (which one) cannot issue its approval if Virginia (DEQ) objects (15 CFR §930.64). Step 7. The applicant may work with DEQ and state agencies administering the enforceable policies to remove the Commonwealth’s objection or appeal the objection to the Secretary of Commerce within 30 days of the objection. If the Secretary overrides Virginia’s objection, the federal agency may approve the project. § 930.58 Necessary data and information. The applicant shall furnish the State agency with necessary data and information along with the consistency certification. Such information and data shall include the following: (1) A copy of the application for the federal license or permit and all material relevant to a State’s management program provided to the Federal agency in support of the application; and a detailed description of the proposed activity, its associated facilities, the coastal effects, and any other information relied upon by the applicant to make its certification. Maps, diagrams, and technical data shall be submitted when a written description alone will not adequately describe the proposal; (2) Information specifically identified in the management program as required necessary data and information for an applicant’s consistency certification. The management program as



51 | P a g e

originally approved or amended (pursuant to 15 CFR part 923, subpart H) may describe data and information necessary to assess the consistency of federal license or permit activities. Necessary data and information may include completed State or local government permit applications which are required for the proposed activity, but shall not include the issued State or local permits. NEPA documents shall not be considered necessary data and information when a Federal statute requires a Federal agency to initiate the CZMA federal consistency review prior to its completion of NEPA compliance. States shall not require that the consistency certification and/or the necessary data and information be included in NEPA documents. Required data and information may not include confidential and proprietary material; and (3) An evaluation that includes a set of findings relating the coastal effects of the proposal and its associated facilities to the relevant enforceable policies of the management program. Applicants shall demonstrate that the activity will be consistent with the enforceable policies of the management program. Applicants shall demonstrate adequate consideration of policies which are in the nature of recommendations. Applicants need not make findings with respect to coastal effects for which the management program does not contain enforceable or recommended policies. At the request of the applicant, interested parties who have access to information and data required by this section may provide the State agency with all or part of the material required. Further, upon request by the applicant, the State agency shall provide assistance for developing the assessment and findings required by this section. When satisfied that adequate protection against public disclosure exists, applicants should provide the State agency with confidential and proprietary information which the State agency maintains is necessary to make a reasoned decision on the consistency of the proposal. State agency requests for such information must be related to the necessity of having such information to assess adequately the coastal effects of the proposal. [65 FR 77154, Dec. 8, 2000, as amended at 71 FR 827, Jan. 5, 2006]

6.1.2.2 Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC)

VMRC regulates activities on state-owned submerged lands and tidal wetlands under the Code of Virginia Title 28.2. VMRC’s Habitat Management Division issues three types of permits for activities occurring in or on: subaqueous or bottomlands, tidal wetlands, and coastal primary sand dunes. The division's responsibilities include to specifically regulate physical encroachment into these valuable resource areas. The division’s authority is found in Subtitle III of Title 28.2. This project considers that wind turbines and submarine cable will be located on state-owned submerged lands of the James River and the Chesapeake Bay. The applicant will be required to apply for a Marine Resource Commission Submerged Lands Permit. The Joint Permit Application is the Virginia joint local/state/federal permit application. The application can be found at http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/technical%20services/Regulatory%20branch/JPA.asp. The review process for which the application was originally designed takes into account various local, state, and federal statutes governing the disturbance or alteration of environmental resources. The VMRC plays a central role as an information clearinghouse for all levels of review. Applications receive independent yet concurrent review by local wetland boards, VMRC, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/technical%20services/Regulatory%20branch/JPA.asp



52 | P a g e

VMRC permit fees, rents, and royalties are articulated in the Rent and Royalty Schedule (presented in Appendix K). Wind energy was not a use that was considered when the schedule was adopted. However, elements of this schedule were used to calculate the appropriate rent for the recently authorized project located in the Chesapeake Bay for the Gamesa G11X wind turbine development project, and are thought to be an appropriate example for comparison. Separate items in that calculation included the power cable, the riprap scour protection, and the turbine monopile. The Gamesa G11X project was viewed as a research facility. Permit conditions indicate that the royalty amount could be re-visited and new royalties assessed in the future depending on future use of the turbine. Mineral activities on state owned, submerged lands are subject to the provisions of the State Subaqueous Minerals Management Plan (See Appendix L). VMRC leasing amounts and procedures are guided by this plan, which is part of the State Minerals Management Plan. During consultation with representatives from VMRC and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, the following key items listed below were discussed. A detailed account of this consultation is found in Appendix D2. Newport News Site

1. The proposed site potentially includes public clamming grounds and, depending upon final site selection and proposed construction activities, shellfish (clam) mitigation could be required for this site.

2. Several participants shared the view that the Newport News site would be a good site for a single turbine, rather than for use for innovative foundation construction techniques testing. There are sensitive shellfish breeding grounds in the vicinity that could potentially be negatively impacted by repeated foundation construction testing.

Suffolk Site

1. VMRC expressed concerns with the study area for the Suffolk site in large part because the vast majority of the area outlined for potential use is designated as a public oyster ground (Baylor Grounds). An exception may be gained for encroachment into Baylor Grounds areas where the proposed use is a public use. If HRSD (Hampton Roads Sanitation District) were to serve as the developer, the public use exception might be extended. The General Assembly has also made exceptions to the Baylor Grounds prohibition, as they did for a Virginia Natural Gas pipeline by removing sections of Baylor Grounds through special legislation. Other options include looking at areas closer to shore and outside of the Baylor Grounds.

2. VMRC noted that if there was an “exclusion area” surrounding the turbine that commercial and recreational fishermen would likely express an objection to that policy. The applicant can decide whether or not to create an exclusion zone.

CBBT Site

1. Avian Issues – Meeting participants indicated likely concerns with respect to avian interaction. The location of the CBBT site will likely generate concern from the birding

The VMRC plays a central

role as an information

clearinghouse for all levels of

review. Applications receive

independent yet concurrent

review by local wetland

boards, VMRC, the Virginia

Department of Environmental

Quality, and the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers.



53 | P a g e

and scientific communities due to its location with regard to migration flyways and rich avian resources known to frequent this area.

2. Time of year restrictions – VMRC’s Subaqueous Guidelines (Appendix K) provide some dates for various time-of-year restrictions for certain resources. Time-of-year restrictions for construction activities may be considered for this project, and would be based on the specific proposal as well as comments received during the required public interest review period.

3. Blue Crab Sanctuary – The general area of the proposed CBBT site is within a Blue Crab Sanctuary. Between May and September, no crabbing is allowed. During this time, crabs spawn in the Lower Bay and this may require time-of-year restrictions associated with turbine construction. The structure itself shouldn’t be an issue, as there are pilings from the CBBT that are similar and cause no concern.

4. Sea Turtle Use – The project vicinity is a known location for sea turtle use. This may require additional evaluation and could also require a time-of-year restriction for construction activity limitations due to noise/vibration sensitivity.

5. Marine Mammals – The project vicinity is a known as an active area for bottlenose dolphin use, primarily as a nursery area for young dolphin. This may require additional evaluation, and could also require a time of year restriction for construction activity limitations due to noise and/or vibration sensitivity.

6.2 Local Government

According to Virginia’s Attorney General, local government approval for wind energy development projects located within State waters is not required (see: http://www.deq.state.va.us/Portals/0/DEQ/RenewableEnergy/10-091-PaylorOAGopinion.pdf.) However, any land disturbance associated potential land based staging areas, cable installation, or interconnection facilities could require land use approval (zoning), site plan approval (local government department review), and land disturbance permit (erosion and sediment control), and Chesapeake Bay Act compliance (water quality) from the locality in which these potential elements are located. Local government outreach and communications regarding each of the three proposed demonstration sites was further documented in Section 4 of this report and additional communications are found in Appendix D2.

6.3 Database Inventory

As required under the DEQ Permit By Rule (9VAC15-40-40), the applicant must conduct desktop analyses of wildlife, natural resources, and historic resources. Three desktop studies were performed using the appropriate search tools provided by DGIF, DCR, and DHR. The results of the database inventory are summarized below.

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries The results of the DGIF, Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information System (VaFWIS)-based desktop studies are summarized below and are attached in their entirety in Appendix I. A species search was completed (10/3/2011) using the DGIF VaFWIS database with the primary purpose of investigating the possibility of threatened or endangered (T&E) species habitat and/or sightings located within the effective radius of the proposed wind turbine demonstration sites. The potential for the occurrence of T&E species was evaluated using the VaFWIS standard effective search radius of two miles.

http://www.deq.state.va.us/Portals/0/DEQ/RenewableEnergy/10-091-PaylorOAGopinion.pdf



54 | P a g e

A similar search was completed (4/24/2012) using a new VaFWIS tool that was designed by DGIF to analyze PBR related requests. For this search, the database search radius was also two miles. The PBR-VaFWIS tool provides some additional functionality beyond that of the original VaFWIS tool, evaluating the site for bat hibernacula, bat colonies, and sea turtle nesting beaches. Unfortunately, the search results associated with the additional functionality for each of the three sites reported “Not Known.” This likely indicates that the agency is inclined to seek additional research to establish whether or not these conditions are present at these locations. The list provided below indicates those species with a status of Federally Threatened or Federally Endangered status that have been sited within the two-mile radius of the project location. Data from both of the above referenced database queries are reported below. Newport News Site

Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus)

Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate)

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii)

Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta)

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Suffolk Site

Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)





Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Site


Delmarva Peninsula Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger cinereus)

Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii)

Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate)





Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) was contacted in order to query their Biotics Data System for occurrences of natural heritage resources and managed lands in the vicinity of the three demonstration sites. A spreadsheet representing the managed lands report can be found as Appendix I which also contains the results of the natural heritage report. The results of the natural heritage report are summarized below.

The list provided indicates

those species with a status of

Federally Threatened or

Federally Endangered status

that have been sited within

the two-mile radius of the

project location.



55 | P a g e

Newport News Site DCR reports that natural heritage resources have not been documented in the project area. Suffolk Site DCR indicates that the Craney Island Conservation Site is in the project vicinity. The natural heritage resources of concern at this site are:

Black-necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus)


Least Tern (Sternula antillarum)

Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Site DCR does not indicate any documented resources from their database, but they do recommend avian surveys consistent with PBR guidelines in Zone Six. Surveys for neo-tropical migrant songbirds are also recommended. Virginia Department of Historic Resources A Historic Resource Evaluation was completed using the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) Data Sharing System (DSS) to identify nearby sites and features of historic significance. Historic features from which the wind turbines would be located within an effective viewshed were identified. The DHR-DSS mapping and database search results are included in Appendix J. A summary of the DHR DSS query is provided below. Newport News Site The proposed site was identified as being within the viewshed of the following historic sites:

Battle of Sewell’s Point, 1861

Battle of the Ironclads, 1862

Jefferson Avenue Commercial Corridor, circa 1880

Unknown Shipwreck, early 20th Century

Pier 15, 1932 Suffolk Site The proposed site was identified as being within the viewshed of the following historic sites:

Funerary, prehistoric Native American

Pig Point, Euro-American historic/Native American Prehistoric

Battle of Sewell’s Point, 1861

Civil War Ordnance, 2nd and 3rd quarter of the 19th century

Tidewater Community College Frederick Campus, circa 1940 Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Site- The proposed site was identified as being within the viewshed of the following historic sites:

Lucius J. Kellam Jr. Bridge Tunnel, 1964

6.4 Micro-Siting

The meetings, research, outreach, and investigations completed as part of this project suggest that the specific location of the proposed Advanced Technology Demonstration sites may need to be considered further in light of new information. Appropriate issues to be considered more



56 | P a g e

thoroughly as design development of the proposed advanced technology demonstration sites continues are described below: Newport News Site The proposed Newport News site is being considered as a temporary construction area to demonstrate sub-scale advanced technology turbine foundation and construction techniques. Presently, there do not appear to be any existing or proposed conditions in the project vicinity that would affect micro-siting considerations for this site. Suffolk Site The proposed Suffolk site is located largely within a designated public oyster grounds area referred to as Baylor Grounds. While exceptions may be granted allowing for encroachment into this area, it is recommended that the developer move this location out of the designated Baylor Grounds area. Further, by moving to the north side of the Baylor designated area, shipping lanes are approached. Therefore, it is recommended that this site should be moved south of the Baylor Grounds, either closer to shore or onshore. Another reason for recommending this adjustment is that water depths at the original location considered are such that marine access by boat or barge is significantly limited. The feasibility of constructing this turbine from a temporary pier or similar structure extending from the shoreline and accessed by land should be evaluated for this site. CBBT Site Dr. Bryan Watts suggested that in order to minimize impacts to avian species, the proposed turbine location should be at least 3 km from the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel. The current location is approximately 6000 (1.8 km) feet from the bridge. Further discussions with avian experts are needed in order to clarify whether increasing the distance beyond 3 km is increasingly likely to minimize avian impacts. Section 6.1.1.1 discussed the importance of considering FAA required lighting at this location since certain lighting schemes may be viewed by wildlife advocates as having the potential to attract birds and bats. The VMRC indicated that this site is within a blue crab sanctuary and is in the vicinity of areas used by sea turtles and marine mammals. Within this context, it was previously stated in this report that time-of-year restrictions regarding construction activities may be considered by the VMRC. The density of use and precise areas of use by sea turtles dolphins have not been determined, and it is suggested that additional evaluation of species use in this area could be a benefit. Proximity to the Fourth Island is important for volume-scanning LIDAR or other data collection and visual validation of post-construction monitoring of species interaction with the proposed turbine. Locating a turbine too far from the Fourth Island could potentially hinder data collection activities. Several additional siting factors should be considered. A slight relocation due to any of the matters addressed above will need to continue to take into account shipping lanes, military training routes and military exclusion zones, dynamic sea floor characteristics, the wind resource, wave heights, and water depths.

Dr. Bryan Watts suggested

that in order to minimize

impacts to avian species, the

proposed turbine location

should be at least 3 km from

the Chesapeake Bay Bridge

Tunnel.



57 | P a g e

6.5 Permit Applications

In an effort to further inform permitting requirements for the proposed demonstration sites, several draft permit application forms have been completed to the extent possible, and as previously referenced are included in the appendices of this document. These applications include the Federal Aviation Administration Form 7460-1 (Appendix F) and the Joint Permit Application (Appendix H).



58 | P a g e

Volume II

Offshore Wind Development Tools and Resources



59 | P a g e

Section 7 Met-Ocean Design Environment Characterization

7.1 Purpose

A team of researchers from the Center for Coastal Physical Oceanography, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Old Dominion University (CCPO-ODU) was tasked to analyze existing wind and water level observations to produce the following: (1) Estimate of the wind speed probability and direction rose at the test pad sites; (2) Estimate of monthly interval-duration statistics for wind speeds below crane-lifting safety thresholds for each of the test pad sites; (3) Estimate of extreme wind speeds with return periods of 1, 5, 10 and 50 years for each of the test pad sites; and (4) Estimate of extreme water levels and associated depth-limited wave breaking heights with return periods of 1, 5, 10 and 50 years at each of the test pad sites. The proposed test pads are located in south Chesapeake Bay and in Hampton Roads. There are available only relatively short (one to a few years) records of wind speed and direction at sites near the proposed test pads. Thus, in order to obtain results over a longer time span, these short wind records were extrapolated by correlating with nearby longer records (a decade or more). Finally, the conditions at the test pad were estimated by interpolation between locations with existing (and extended) wind information. Water level observations also span only a few years at most stations but two stations have hourly water level observations that span more than one decade. Several software products were used in this analysis including MATLAB, Windographer, WindFarmer, and WAsP. These last three software packages are industry standard software used by the wind energy community.

7.2 Activities

The activities of the CCPO-ODU team fell into two general categories: gathering data and analyzing data. Data were obtained mostly from national data sites maintained by the U.S. government. In particular, NOAA provides data from two general sites: the National Ocean Survey (NOS, http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov) and the National Data Buoy Center (NDBC, http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov). In addition, data were obtained from WeatherFlow which is proprietary and not part of the national data repository. Most wind observations are hourly values of wind speed and direction. Some sites also have estimates of gusts. A number of sites have higher-frequency observations with intervals of 5, 6 or 10 minutes. In many cases, these high-frequency observations are available only within the past few years or for limited (one to a few years) time spans. Either wind or water level (or both) observations were obtained at the following NOAA stations: Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (CBBV2), Chesapeake Light Tower (CHLV2), Sewells Point (SWPV2), Cape Henry (CHYV2), Dominion Terminal (DOMV2), Willoughby Degaussing Station (WDSV2) and Kiptopeke State Park (KPTV2). Wind observations were also obtained from WeatherFlow at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel First and Third islands (CBBT1 and CBBT3, respectively). Finally, JMU provided observations at Cape Charles, the Newport News Radio Tower and at Eastville. Analysis followed the path that is typical for the wind energy community. For observations that spanned a sufficiently long time, monthly mean wind speed probability distributions and wind roses, wind speed probability for times of day, and probability of extreme wind events were

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/

http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/



60 | P a g e

calculated. The estimate of wind conditions at the test pad sites, at which there were no observations, required a spatial interpolation between stations at which observation exist. In addition, most wind records are only one or a few years, so the short records were extended in time by correlation with a nearby station with a long observational record. These two processes of spatial interpolation and temporal extrapolation allowed estimation of long time (10 years or more) statistics for the proposed test pad sites. The analysis presented here estimates conditions at two of the three proposed test pad sites: Newport News Point and Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Fourth Island. The analysis also considered Cape Charles and Kiptopeke. The Suffolk site was captured with a WAsP analysis that was conducted by the JMU team.

7.3 Results

7.3.1 Analysis of Long Records: CLT, CBBT

The Chesapeake Light Tower and CBBT each provide two long records that are in locations that are most similar to the open water environment and are not strongly affected by nearby land. These data are useful for forecasting extreme wind conditions as well as estimating typical wind conditions given the length of the observations. They provide a reasonable estimate for winds over the entire southern Chesapeake Bay and the near-shore coastal ocean. Key statistics from the CLT analyses are pictured below.

Figure 7-14 CLT Wind Roses, 60-min Observations, 1984-2010



61 | P a g e

Figure 7-15 CLT Wind Speed Distribution, 60-min Observations, 1984-2010

Figure 7-16 CLT Extreme Wind Speeds, 60-min Observations, 1984-2010



62 | P a g e

The Chesapeake Light Tower (CHLV2) sensor is located offshore from the entrance to Chesapeake Bay. Conditions there are typical of those found on the continental shelf off Virginia. Winds most frequently occur at around 8 m/s and tend to come from the northeast or southwest. There is a clear seasonal variation in the typical wind speed and direction. Winds of 40 m/s tend to occur approximately every 60 years. Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel 2 (CBBV2) is located in southern Chesapeake Bay near the entrance to the Atlantic Ocean. Conditions there are indicative of conditions found over the open Bay and tend to be not too different from conditions offshore. Most frequent winds are around 5 m/s with a tendency to be from the northeast or the southwest. There is a seasonal pattern to the wind speed and directions. Winds of 30 m/s tend to occur every 60 years.

Figure 7-17 CBBT Wind Roses, 60-min Observations, 1992-2010



63 | P a g e

Figure 7-18 CBBT Wind Speed Distribution, 60-min Observations, 1992-2010

Figure 7-19 CBBT Extreme Wind Speeds, 60-min Observations, 1992-2010



64 | P a g e

7.3.2 Estimation of Wind Conditions at Test Pad Sites

Observations from five locations were used to estimate conditions at two test pad sites (Newport News Point and Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Third Island) as well as Cape Charles, Plantation Flats, and Kiptopeke State Park. All data were loaded into WindFarmer. Linear correlations were made of the wind speed in 30 degree sectors between pairs of these stations. The correlations were then used to interpolate wind conditions to locations between the known stations. WindFarmer uses one of the stations as a reference site, that is, its observations form the basis for the estimated winds at other locations. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Third Island sensor (CBBT3) was chosen to be the reference site since this site has the longest time series (April 2001 to October 2011) of wind observations spanning across 10 years.

7.3.2.1 Newport News Point with CBBT3 as Reference

The winds at Newport News Point blow most commonly at about 5 m/s, weaker than for the other sites considered because of its location in Hampton Roads. Winds in this region tend to be from the east-northeast or southwest due to the influence of the land surrounding the small body of water. Nevertheless, strong winds (45 m/s) can occur every 20 years and winds of 50 m/s every 60 years. The wind speed and direction histograms for Newport News Point estimated CBBT3 as reference are shown below.

Figure 7-20 Predicted Newport New Point Wind Speed Distribution based on WAsP

Analysis with CBBT3 as Reference



65 | P a g e

Figure 7-21 Predicted Newport New Point Wind Map based on WAsP Analysis with

CBBT3 as Reference

Figure 7-22 Predicted Newport New Point Extreme Wind Speeds based on WAsP

Analysis with CBBT3 as Reference



66 | P a g e

7.3.2.2 CBBT4 with CBBT3 as Reference

The fourth (northernmost) island of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (CBBT4) is only a short distance from CBBT3. It is in a more exposed location than other test sites because land is not nearby. The wind speed probability independent of direction has a peak at 6 m/s. The winds are almost never above 25 m/s. The strongest winds are from the north at almost 10 m/s. The most common winds are from the southeast or southwest at around 6 m/s. The CBBT3 observations are made every 5 minutes and include wind gust estimates. These allowed estimation of extreme wind speeds with 100 year return periods. Wind gusts above 40 m/s are estimated to occur every 30 years while 100 year extreme gusts are about 42 m/s. Short duration winds above 35 m/s can occur every 30 years. The wind speed and direction histograms for CBBT4 with CBBT3 as reference are shown below.

Figure 7-23 Predicted CBBT4 Wind Speed Distribution based on WAsP Analysis with

CBBT3 as Reference



67 | P a g e

Figure 7-24 Predicted CBBT4 Wind Map based on WAsP Analysis with CBBT3 as

Reference

Figure 7-25 Predicted CBBT4 Extreme Wind Speeds based on WAsP Analysis with

CBBT3 as Reference



68 | P a g e

Similar analyses and corresponding graphics are provided in Appendix M.

7.3.3 Extreme Water Levels, Wave-Breaking Heights

The longest span of observations of water levels in the area are from Sewell’s Point from which hourly water level data are available from 1927 to the present (87 years). Water level is the same throughout the southern Bay region, so the results at this station can be applied (generally) to all potential test pad locations. Minor differences can occur at different locations due to winds, but these are small enough to ignore for this analysis. Water level observations at Sewell’s Point are expressed relative to mean-lower-low water (MLLW) which is the lower of the two daily low tides. Extreme water levels are calculated from the difference between the highest water for a calendar year and the average water level for the year. This procedure is necessary to remove a trend in water level of about 0.3 m over the almost century span of these measurements. Water at Sewells point is frequently 2 m above the MLLW reference for this station as shown below. Water tends to be 2.5 m above MLLW every 10 years and can be as much as 2.7 m above MLLW every 100 years.

Figure 7-26 Water Level above MLLW at Sewell’s Point

Depth limited wave breaking height is calculated from local water depth. The significant wave height of the breaking waves is estimated to be 78% of the water depth for flat or gently sloping bottom. Return periods for extreme water level are combined with several water depths (representing the possible MLLW depth at the location of the test sites) to estimate the wave breaking height that might impact structure in the water.



69 | P a g e

Figure 7-27 Depth-Limited Wave Breaking at Sewell’s Point

For locations with a MLLW depth of 2 m, the breaking wave height is about 3 m. Every 100 years, the breaking wave height can be as great as 3.5 m. For a water depth with MLLW of 5 m, the breaking wave height can be 6 m every 50 years. A second analysis of waves in the region was conducted using wind and wave observations from the Chesapeake Light Tower. By combining the wind observations with wave observations (1984 to 2004), the construction of a joint probability of winds and wave as well as a return period for certain wave heights was realized as is shown in Figure 7-28. The most common conditions are for winds to be 5-6 m/s with a significant wave height of 0.5 to 0.7 m. There is a tendency for waves to be higher in stronger winds. Once in a thousand hours (0.1 % of the time) the significant wave height can be up to 3.0 m.



70 | P a g e

Figure 7-28 Wind-Wave Joint Probability at CLT

Figure 7-29 Return Period – Wave Height at CLT



71 | P a g e

7.4 Data Summary

Long-term wind speed probability distributions and wind direction roses as well as raw data sources including histogram bins are provided in Appendix M.

7.5 Installation of Meteorological Tower at HRSD Nansemond Plant

In March 2012, a 50-meter meteorological tower acquired from NRG Systems was installed by the Virginia Center for Wind Energy at JMU on the grounds of the Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) Nansemond Wastewater Treatment Plant. The tower supports a total of eight sensors at three different measurement heights which are all connected to a single data logger. There are two anemometers and one wind vane currently recording data at 50 meters; two anemometers and a wind vane recording at 40 meters; and one anemometer and a wind vane recording at 30 meters. The tower is scheduled to remain in position for at least one year, preferably two or more, and will provide professional data at a strategic location for the evaluation of the coastal wind resource in the region Suffolk region and surrounding areas. The data generated at this tower during the next year will be used to generate a synthetic data set at higher heights (hub height of the turbine) which should provide even greater accuracy and confidence in energy prediction than those of the analyses reported in this report. The meteorological tower was installed under the auspices of the Virginia State-Based Anemometer Loan Program (SBALP) which was established in August 2001 with support from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Wind Powering America initiative. JMU administers SBALP under a grant from the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME) and receives technical assistance from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The HRSD site was strategically chosen to support the interest of the state in coastal and ocean wind energy.

Figure 7-30 NRG Systems 50-m Meteorological Tower



72 | P a g e

Section 8 Events-Based Analysis and Meteorological Modeling

8.1 Introduction

WeatherFlow, Inc. is conducting a weather events-based analysis of the Virginia coastal wind regime. This section provides an overview of approximately 9 months of this year-long effort. The final 3 months of analyses as well as supporting documentation for the entire project will be added to this report in Fall 2012. This study, while not a classic wind resource assessment with in-situ wind measurements, is designed to characterize the coastal wind regime in greater detail than has been accomplished in previous analyses. Currently available wind resource estimates typically provide average wind speeds over a geographic area; Figure 8-31 provides an example. While products of this type are useful to gain a general understanding of average winds speeds expected over an area, details of the wind resource beneficial to wind energy developers are lost in the averaging. Virginia’s coastal wind regime is very complex both spatially and temporally and a wind resource map such as this one is insufficient to display any specifics.

Figure 8-31 Example of Wind Resource Estimate

Current estimates of the wind resource found off Virginia's shoreline have a suspected error of 25% or more, according to analyses by the Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium. This level of wind resource uncertainty may be a hindrance to the private financing that will be essential to offshore wind development. Offshore meteorological towers, the industry measurement standard, can take 5 years or more to install and may be unaffordable. A more affordable and timely approach may be to utilize weather model data instead of in-situ observations to support offshore wind financing decisions. An important goal of this wind characterization study is to attempt to improve the understanding and accuracy of WeatherFlow’s Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (WRAMS). Analysis to this point strongly suggests that a mesoscale model such as WRAMS is more accurate in predicting winds in the coastal regime than global numerical weather models. However, significant improvement to mesoscale modeling in the coastal regime is an extremely complex endeavor that requires human resources, computing power, and a great deal of trial and error. Attempts at improving the performance of WRAMS are currently underway, but more study is required to determine the level of enhancement that can be sustained. One of the main benefits of this project has been the determination of patterns in WRAMS accuracy during wind-



73 | P a g e

producing weather events. Forecaster recognition of strengths and weaknesses of model performance during expected weather events is a key ingredient to successful forecasts. A more detailed characterization and an improved understanding of numerical weather prediction mesoscale modeling in Virginia’s coastal wind regime form the basis of a more accurate coastal forecasting system. Once validated, this improved forecasting system will be valuable to wind energy investors concerned with the safe and efficient logistical operations for installation, operation, and maintenance of offshore wind turbines. Further, improved forecasting has applicability in a great number of commercial industries that operate in the Virginia coastal waters.

8.2 Project Overview

Three web-based utilities were set up for WeatherFlow analysts to meteorologically describe the day. The first utility, a weather journal, is primarily a free-form environmental, big-picture scrapbook of sorts for each day. Information such as weather maps, radar imagery, precipitation graphs, and text write-ups help to define the day and are just a few examples of what can be found in this journal. The second, a weather survey, is a product that more precisely defines the day’s weather; both observed and forecast parameter values. Significant weather parameters from the previous day are also input. The survey format allows for a set of descriptors to be tagged for each day. Categorization provides the ability to combine with numerical verification statistics to then sort days based on weather features, a key component in characterizing the wind resource by weather event. The third utility, a model survey, is used by the analyst to describe model accuracy for the previous day’s numerical model run. A suite of models – the National Weather Service (NWS) main global model, Global Forecast System (GFS; 40-km resolution), the NOAA National Center for Environmental Prediction’s North American Model (NAM; 12-km resolution), and the Canadian Weather Service Global Model (CMC) are employed and compared with WeatherFlow’s Regional Atmospheric Mesoscale System (WRAMS; 2-km inner grid resolution) by using WeatherFlow’s comprehensive model verification analysis package, specifically designed for this project. The attraction of this system is that it combines (1) multiple statistical performance metrics for (2) multiple numerical models in addition to WRAMS, and employs (3) multiple observation types, including WeatherFlow, NWS, and other littoral observation types at both the surface and aloft. In addition, the availability of the initializing model, NAM, allows a better intuitive feel for how WRAMS further refines output. WeatherFlow also supports an expansive network of coastal weather stations located within the region. Although only a few of these stations are located at heights that are near-optimal for wind energy characterization, many of the WeatherFlow stations are located over the water (Figure 8-32 below) and they help to reveal trends within the Virginia coastal domain. WeatherFlow maintains a set of more than 60,000 observations worldwide that varies in temporal collection times from fifteen minutes to one hour. For this project, 17 observation sites are used to capture the Virginia coastal wind regime of which 7 are owned and operated by WeatherFlow. The utilization of the forecast data from the WRAMS model domain designed for this project (Figure 8-33 below), availability of the global model outputs, the web based utilities, the coastal



74 | P a g e

Virginia observations, the model verification system, and WeatherFlow’s years of coastal wind forecasting experience all combine to serve as the backbone of this project.

Figure 8-32 WeatherFlow Observation Site on Navigational Aid at Hampton Flats

Figure 8-33 Overall Project Domain; 2-km inner grid

8.3 Weatherflow Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (WRAMS)

WeatherFlow runs its own mesoscale model, WRAMS, which is a mesoscale atmospheric computer model originally developed at Colorado State University and updated continuously in the years since it first became operational. With multiple selectable options for the modeling of specific physical processes (such as turbulence, condensation, and scattering), flexible domain and boundary conditions, variable computational techniques, and multiple coordinate systems, WRAMS has the ability to be specifically tailored for a particular meteorological regime, such as Virginia’s littoral zone. With horizontal resolutions reduced to less than 2 km and physics



75 | P a g e

packages tailored to the coastal atmosphere, WRAMS provides a powerful tool for direct operational use. For this study, WRAMS was set up with an inner grid horizontal resolution of 2 km and is run twice per day, out 36 hours in length, with forecast output once each hour. The model start times are at 0 and 12 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). Vertically, forecast values are output at multiple user-defined levels in the lower boundary layer. The lowest vertical level is at 6 meters above ground level, with 12 levels in the lowest 300 meters. WRAMS is initialized with the NAM global model and has a diabatic initialization, or “warm start”, where model moisture processes are spun up in order to have clouds and precipitation in place when the run starts. If this process is not employed, the model often needs a couple of hours into the run in order to successfully create clouds and precipitation. The “warm start” ensures the model run is dynamically balanced at the run start time, thereby reducing forecast errors.

8.3.1 Why Utilize a Meso-Scale Model?

The Virginia littoral region is a complex area of radiating surfaces (marshes, swamps, bays, rivers, and oceanic zones) and behaves in a dynamic fashion, with surface roughness changing considerably as a function of wind speed. Further, atmospheric thermal variability and sensible and latent heat exchanges between temperature-variant water bodies further complicate this region’s atmospheric and oceanic dynamics adding to the difficulty in the accurate modeling of weather phenomena. The wind generated in Virginia’s littoral region is greatly influenced by weather systems of mesoscale size, loosely defined as regional events that are typically measured in 10's of miles and hours of time; as opposed to larger synoptic size weather systems that are measured in several 100’s of miles and days. Given the complexities of the littoral area and the sub-synoptic size influences present in Virginia’s coastal region, it is hypothesized that a model of mesoscale horizontal resolution is most appropriate to accurately characterize the environment. Synoptic-scale models having outputs available at user-defined heights are not readily available for study, and wind values at desired heights (i.e. hub height) must be interpolated. Conversely, with a mesoscale model, one can explicitly output forecasts at desired heights, and therefore a description of the vertical wind field structure is more accurate and viable. For example, a synoptic-scale model with explicit output at every 50 meters and interpolated to every 5 or 10 meters would miss much of the actual significant variation contained in events such as low-level jets that have locally stronger spikes in speed in the vertical. The profiles in Figure 8-34 demonstrate this issue. The blue lined represents the explicit output at about every 5 meters, whereas the red line represents the same products; but picking off every 6th level. The coarser profile (red line) completely misses the spike in wind speed at about 145 meters.



76 | P a g e

Figure 8-34 Explicit versus Interpolated Forecasts at Vertical Levels

8.3.2 Model Performance Comparisons

GFS, NAM, and WRAMS provide a nice variation of model outputs that spatially covers the variance of common domains for global and mesoscale models. It should be mentioned that the NAM model is initialized with the GFS model and, in turn, the Weatherflow WRAMS is initialized with the NAM, so there is some “cross pollenization” across the three models. Finally, a fourth publically available model, CMC, is used primarily as an independent model. The following three tables (8-1, 8-2, 8-3) compare model error statistics (error statistic equations are presented in Appendix N). WRAMS clearly has outperformed the other models in terms of Wind Vector Difference (WVD), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), and Average Error for the 5 sub-seasons studied to date. These results help to reinforce the hypothesis that a weather prediction model of mesoscale size, such as WRAMS, provides the best opportunity to most accurately characterize the Virginia coastal wind regime.

Table 8-1 Average Wind Vector Difference errors (mph) by sub-season



77 | P a g e

Table 8-2 Average Wind Speed Root Mean Square Errors (mph) by sub-season

Table 8-3 Average Wind Speed Average Error (mph) by sub-season

8.3.3 Modeling Improvements

It should be noted that while it is likely that a mesoscale model such as WRAMS is the correct choice for more accurately predicting winds in Virginia’s coastal regime, there were infrequent times when the larger-scale models performed as well or better than WRAMS. Therefore, while WRAMS was routinely determined to be closer to the accurate portrayal of wind speed and direction, there is clearly room for model performance improvement; especially during dynamic weather events. One of the objectives of this study is to attempt to make improvements to the WRAMS model and forecast system. The most significant of these was the attempt to improve model performance by inputting a more accurate characterization of the sea surface temperature into WRAMS. The current sea surface temperature scheme employed by the National Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) uses a 9-km2 gridded SST product. Temporal and spatial analysis of this product reveals some weakness that is accentuated along the Virginia and North Carolina coastlines. Figure 8-35 (left panel) is a depiction of the 9-km2 input SST field; the right panel shows the 1-km2 data set produced by the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The immediate improvement is quite apparent with a quick spatial side-by-side comparison. The existing input field (9 km2) shows an unrealistic representation of isotherms (black contour lines) crossing land masses, especially in barrier island regions. The 1-km2 field is much more realistic as the barrier islands are accounted for and contour lines run parallel vice crossing over the land.



78 | P a g e

Figure 8-35 Results from 9-km2 versus 1-km2 input SST field

9 km2 input SST field 1 km2 input SST field

This new data set was implemented into the forecast system by means of separate parallel model runs. The separate runs allow for comparisons of the two outputs, including explicit comparisons of in-situ SST comparisons with both 9-km2 and 1-km2 products. The injection of a more realistic representation of the SST field over the model domain was hypothesized to be a significant step to improve model accuracy. However, the net improvement on the WRAMS output with the higher resolution data set was rather minimal. This warranted a closer examination of the SST comparisons. It was found that there appeared to be a temporal bias in which the high resolution 1-km2 product tended to lag 48 to 72 hours behind real observation time. A sequence of days was run with this time lag removed. Unfortunately, results to date of this ongoing analysis have yet to provide improvement in WRAMS wind forecasting performance. A more detailed analysis is available within the Master’s thesis of Ms. Whitney West which was completed in partial fulfillment of the dual degree program in Sustainable Environmental Resources Management at the University of Malta and James Madison University. Another attempt at improving WRAMS model performance will be made by adjusting the modeled surface roughness. Increased winds at the ocean’s surface generate higher wave action, or surface roughness, which in turn reduces the near surface wind speeds. This feedback is overly simplified in the present model parameterizations, and might be better quantified, especially in the area of differentiating the feedback on bays, rivers, and sounds, versus the open ocean. Results of this analysis will be added to this report by early September 2012. The growing sentiment within both meteorological and oceanographic research communities is that there needs to be more knowledge exchange between both groups on the complex air/sea interactions. Coupled ocean and atmospheric models are becoming more common, and WeatherFlow is pursuing expertise in this arena for future work on other projects.



79 | P a g e

8.4 The Sub-Season Approach

The project approach was to treat the total annual wind energy potential as the cumulative sum of wind generated by all of the occurring weather events. The goal was to characterize the total resource by examining a calendar year through similar “sub-seasons.” Table 8-4 below lists the eight sub-seasons, the dominant weather events expected during each sub-season, and whether the sub-season analyzed was representative of that average sub-season. An average sub-season would be one that exhibited the associated dominant weather events and expected norms in typical weather parameters. For example, the August 16 to September 30 sub-season was considered average because of the tropical intrusions (Hurricane Irene & Tropical Storm Lee) and otherwise low wind levels. The early winter was dominated by cold frontal passages, but many lacked the strong cold air advection normally accompanying these events. The late winter and early spring were considered to be mild with fewer significant weather events occurring than were anticipated. The January 1 to February 15 sub-season lacked arctic outbreaks into the region while the February 16 to March 31 sub-season saw fewer than expected cyclogenesis events.

Table 8-4 Sub-Season Descriptions

Date Sub-season Dominant Events Study Sub–season

Jan 1st to Feb 15th Mid – winter Cold Fronts with Cold

Air Advection, Arctic

High Pressure

Not Average

Feb 16th to Mar 31st Occasional Gulf

Stream Intrusions

Cyclogenesis Not Average

April 1st to May 15th Energetic Fronts Potent fronts; Warm

& Cold

TBD

May 16th to Jun 30th Maximum Sea

Breeze Season

Weakening Fronts,

Strengthening

Bermuda High

TBD

Jul 1st to Aug 15th Summer Breeze

Season

Bermuda High TBD

Aug 16th to Sep 30th Doldrums/Tropical Weakening Bermuda

High, Tropical

Intrusions

Average

Oct 1st to Nov 15th Fall fronts/high split Cold Fronts Average

Nov 16th to Dec 31st Freq. fronts with CAA Cold Fronts with Cold

Air Advection

Average

During each sub-season, a sufficient number of days were evaluated such that they represent the majority of the typical total wind resource. One of the goals of the project was to forecast



80 | P a g e

and analyze enough days such that there was a high degree of confidence that the distribution of analyzed days represents the normal variability in weather during each sub-season. For those days having low wind values and little relevance to typical wind generating days, the information was typically recorded on the daily surveys and used in general statistical analysis. For those days having meteorological conditions favoring appreciable wind, generated by a weather event typical for that sub-season (e.g., cold front in December), additional information was recorded such as illustrations of the event and the ability of the models to accurately reflect the day. If the day was of particular interest, it may have warranted becoming a “case study.” The goal would be to select one or two case studies per sub-season; each representing an example of a weather event that would produce appreciable wind energy for that sub-season. For each case study day, the objectives are as follows:

1. Describe the day’s weather with emphasis on amount of wind energy potential.

2. Describe the understanding of the mechanisms responsible for the event’s wind

producing components.

3. Describe the ability of models, and in particular WRAMS, to successfully forecast such

events.

4. Estimate which changes to the modeling system (and beyond that, a forecasting system)

could increase accuracy and reduce uncertainty

If possible, implement any of the suspected changes and test for forecast improvement

8.4.1 Overview of Sub-Season Weather Events

Some mesoscale and synoptic-scale weather events have been found to be more prevalent during certain sub-seasons. An example of this is that cold front passages were less frequent during the summer sub-seasons. High pressure systems were fairly uniform in number, but strong high pressure systems were a much more frequent occurrence during the late fall through early spring. Some weather events (e.g. Tropical) only occurred during the August to September sub-seasons. The propensity for fronts to become weaker and stall south of Virginia is expected to jump significantly during the summer sub-seasons, this will be addressed as the 12-month study period is completed in August 2012. This is important to study as this tendency interrupts the reliable persistent “harvestable” moderate SW wind flow pattern that is expected to be prevalent during this time. It is critical to gain greater understanding of these stationary fronts in order to improve the forecasting of this key element to the summer sub-season wind resource. Table 8-5 presents a listing of the percentages of weather events during each of the sub-seasons that have been studied to date.



81 | P a g e

Table 8-5 Sub-Season Weather Event Percentages

Dates Cold front

Warm front

Low Transitional ridge

High Post CF CAA

Tropical Warm sector

Stationary front

Weak Strong Weak Strong Moist Dry Aug 16th – Sept 30th

8 13 23 25 5 3 3 20

Oct 1st – Nov 15th

11 2 24 24 7 20 12

Nov 16th – Dec 31st

16 2 30 4 20 12 12 4

Jan 1st – Feb 15th

22 3 3 33 19 6 14

Feb 16

th –

Mar 31st

19 9 14 14 19 8 6 11

Table 8-6 reveals the highest wind-producing weather events by synoptic type, average observed wind speed, and associated sub-season. The sub-seasons studied to date indicate frontal systems, and the days following frontal passage (post fronts) are the dominant weather events that produced the highest average winds. Thus, it is a key element in accurately characterizing Virginia’s coastal wind regime to describe, understand, and ultimately improve forecast accuracy of frontal systems. Table 8-7 lists the current forecast ability for weather events, environmental parameters, and suggested keys to improving predictions.

Table 8-6 Highest Sub-season Wind Producing Systems (Spatially averaged winds for 17

coastal observation sites at sensor heights)

Table 8-7 Keys to Improving Forecasts

Sub-Season Weather Event Avg Observed Wind Speed (mph)

Aug 16 - 30 Sep Tropical Influence 25.28

Oct 1 - Nov 15 Cold Front 14.76

Nov 16 - Dec 31 Post Cold Front 12.33

Jan 1- Feb 15 Post Cold Front 12.4

Feb 16 - Mar 31 Cold Front 13.64



82 | P a g e

Table 8-8 depicts the ability of the model to accurately forecast winds using wind vector difference (WVD) as an error statistic; more information about this statistic and other error statistics used are provided in Appendix N. Not surprising, the most difficult patterns to accurately model and forecast (indicated by highest WVDs) are related to sensible weather events and high wind producers such as frontal systems. This is due to a variety of reasons including timing of frontal movement through the forecast area, the presence of wind-altering precipitation, and littoral influences such as stark thermal contrasts via air/sea interaction.

Table 8-8 Models Forecast Accuracy (WVD)

As noted previously, some of these synoptic features are more prevalent, better understood, and more accurately forecasted during certain sub-seasons. Table 8-9 may indicate why it is important to break down events by sub-season. The average speed Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) over all sub-seasons for cold fronts has a value of 5.02. If each synoptic event speed RMSE is calculated by sub-season (currently calculations contain 5 of 8 sub-seasons), the cold front synoptic type has a high of 5.64 mph in February/March and a low of 4.32 mph in November/December, for a difference of 1.32 mph, indicating a fairly significant change in the ability of WRAMS to forecast cold fronts during separate sub-seasons. This is likely due to the errors in timing and precipitation-induced ramp events as described below.

Table 8-9 Cold Front Root Mean Square Errors

A case study was conducted to determine how well WRAMS performed during cold frontal passages with different characteristics. Two December cold front passages were analyzed. On December 7, a strong cold front with a large precipitation shield passed through Hampton Roads during the night. On December 25, a dry and less vigorous cold front passed through the area. When comparing the wind fields in each case, the December 7 frontal passage saw a much more abrupt and classic shift from strong southwesterly flow ahead of the advancing from to strong post-front northwesterly winds. The December 25 frontal passage was much more of a gradual shift as depicted below. The main lesson learned when evaluating model performance

Synoptic Feature All Sub- Season WVD (mph)

Stationary Front 6.42

Cold Front 6.37

Warm Front 6.07

Post Cold Front 6.02

Strong High Pressure 5.21

Weak High Pressure 5.11

Transitional Ridge 5.08

Sub season RMSE (mph)Aug 16 - Sep 30 5.24

Oct 1 - Nov 15 5.15

Nov 16 - Dec 31 4.32

Jan 1- Feb 15 4.97

Feb 16 - Mar 31 5.64



83 | P a g e

was that WRAMS fared much better during the dry and less vigorous December 25 passage. Much larger errors (WVD, Avg Error) were seen with the classic, wet December 7 passage. Since the majority of sub-seasons analyzed to date contained a large percentage of wind producing cold frontal passages, a study was performed to analyze the models’ error statistics. WRAMS results were again compared to those of the other models and found to statistically out-perform all other models on average. In fact, WRAMS produced more accurate wind speed and direction values during each cold frontal passage.

8.4.2 Overview of Case Studies

The length of the documentation of individual case studies for the past 5 sub-seasons precludes inclusion in this document, therefore they will be described briefly here and included in detailed fashion in Appendix N. The first sub-season studied (August 16 to September 30) provided significant wind-producing weather events for study in the Virginia waters including Hurricane Irene, Tropical Storm Lee, and a coastal low event. The next four sub-seasons were dominated by frontal systems as earlier indicated; cold fronts, post cold frontal conditions, warm fronts, and stalled boundaries. It is anticipated that the final three sub-seasons will feature strong sea breezes, low level jets, and convective activity to round out the majority of wind producing weather events in the Virginia coastal regime. An important element of these case studies is the re-running and evaluation of WRAMS performance after a physical or input parameter is altered (such as the sea surface temperature analysis mentioned previously). Further individual results will be documented and added to this report by early September 2012. Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee identified some of the inaccuracies inherent in modeling tropical system movement and intensity forecasts, especially as they impact northern (Virginian) waters and tend to accelerate. Wind farm operators and developers in Virginian coastal waters will obviously want to factor in into their planning tropical storm threats. Coastal low pressure systems traveling up the eastern seaboard (Cyclogenesis or Nor’easters) typically provide another strong wind producer in the Virginian waters. However, this winter and early spring, and the associated sub-seasons, saw fewer of these systems. The couple of systems that were present did provide an indication of the difficulties that numerical weather models, including mesoscale models, have in terms of correctly predicting wind direction and speed during these events. Frontal systems were abundant, and were the dominant wind producer during the winter sub-seasons. However, few of the very strong wind-producing artic outbreaks occurred, leading to lower than expected average winds. A key observation regarding modeling is that WRAMS statistically outperformed the other models during every cold front event studied, thus reinforcing the hypothesis that a mesoscale model is the correct choice for modeling Virginia’s coastal wind regime. Strong post cold front winds are a significant resource and tended to be more accurately modeled given their fairly steady direction and speed; WRAMS performed well during these conditions.



84 | P a g e

An arctic clipper event, a strong wind producer typical to Virginia during the winter, was modeled very poorly. Modeling the precise location of these very fast-moving systems is difficult and the usual result is very high modeling errors. Generally, it has been observed that all models tend to perform better in somewhat static situations that consist of unidirectional light winds with little to no precipitation; previously listed as the weak high pressure systems and transitional ridges. Events producing precipitation and increased winds were typically found to have been modeled less accurately. This will be addressed in greater detail as the last sub-seasons in which thunderstorms and stalled frontal systems are more prevalent. Further, wind producers such as sea breezes and low level jets will be addressed in detail for the last sub-seasons.

8.5 Understanding the Vertical and Future Study

Table 8-9 lists average wind speed at both heights and the difference by sub-season. There are significant average wind speed differences in just this 10-meter vertical slice, which is highlighted by a doubling in wind speed difference from the August to September sub–season to the temporally adjacent October to November period. Wind speed changes over the span of a rotor blade and the turbulence associated are important factors that impact turbine performance.

Table 8-10 Hatteras High Sub-Season Average Wind Speeds at Two Sensor Levels

Dates 10 meter Speed (mph) 20 meter Speed (mph) Difference (mph)

Aug 15th – Sep 30th 8.06 9.88 1.82

Oct 1st – Nov 15th 10.05 13.7 3.65

Nov 15th – Dec 31st 9.63 12.67 3.04

Jan 1st – Feb 15th 9.84 13.08 3.24

Figure 8-37 demonstrates the non-linear behavior of wind speed over Hatteras as a mesoscale system passed to the north over Southern Virginia; the two solid lines are observed speeds at 10 (blue) and 20 (red) meters. During the middle of the day, the speed at 20 meters jumps appreciably, whereas the rest of the 24-hr period exhibits a rather uniform speed offset. The dashed lines represent the forecast values for the two heights. The offsets and forecasted values compare similarly except during the mid-day jump in speeds and increase in shear (change in speed in the vertical). WeatherFlow’s characterization study and subsequent forecast improvement attempts are primarily focused on near-surface winds. Table 8-10 and Figure 8-36 are presented to illustrate the complexity of the vertical structure in a coastal environment. Given the variability in winds with height, future analyses should focus on understanding the vertical wind profile in coastal areas.



85 | P a g e

Figure 8-36 Hatteras Wind Behavior during Mesoscale Event

8.6 Conclusions and Path Forward

The results to date of this study have been deemed to be successful in terms of characterizing the Virginia wind regime at the surface by application of WeatherFlow’s sub-season approach. A tremendous amount of quantified knowledge was established during the analysis of the first five sub-seasons with respect to the character of the coastal wind regime. Case studies, analysis, and error statistics revealed the complexity of Virginia’s coastal winds and supported the idea that general wind assessment charts are unable to capture the complexities that are potentially important to wind energy investment, development, and operation. The hypothesis that a mesoscale model is an appropriate choice (when compared with global models) for forecasting Virginia’s coastal winds appears to have been verified, but observation and analysis applicable to Summer 2012 have yet to be considered in this report. Attempts at model improvement have proven to be very time-intensive and challenging, but efforts will continue in this area until the end of the project. An interesting evaluation that might provide insight into further model improvement, but beyond the scope of this project, would be to compare the WRAMS output to that of another model of similar resolution. Comparative performance evaluation might provide beneficial information for the improvement in these models. Further, coupled ocean and atmospheric models are becoming more common and provide hope for continued forecast accuracy improvement. The knowledge gained from these five sub-seasons already observed and analyzed has also exposed the need for continued and more detailed study with emphasis on the vertical and correlation to potential lease areas.



86 | P a g e

Section 9 Wind Resource Modeling and Turbine Energy Estimation

9.1 Wind Modeling Approach

Construction of a digital wind flow model of the Suffolk and CBBT areas/sites was conducted for this project. The wind flow model is used to project the average energy production (AEP) of a wind turbine at any location within each modeled region. The modeling procedure comprises several steps: (1) construction of a vector topographic map with elevation data (contours) and terrain data (roughness lines); (2) collection of reliable, nearby long-term weather data, and processing the raw data sets; (3) application of Wind Atlas and Application Program (WAsP) software to generate wind atlas data pertaining to each site which was used to map the wind resource at hub height; and (4) application of WindFarmer software to utilize the results obtained in Steps 1-3 to estimate the AEP of a wind turbine at a specific location.

9.2 Model Construction

9.2.1 Topographic Map

In order to build an accurate wind flow model, it is necessary to describe the physical characteristics of the site and its surroundings in the form of a topographic map. There are three main effects of topography on the wind: roughness, orographic and shelter effects. Since both Suffolk and CBBT sites are situated in the water, shelter effects were not considered in the modeling process. The topographic maps produced for the model contained both orographic data (In the form of contours, to represent changes in elevation) and terrain surface roughness. Global Mapper 13 software was used to prepare the topographic map of the two sites. Global Mapper 13 is a comprehensive software package that allows for data files to be loaded as layers which can then be processed. Terrain raster data were found online and were used to generate contours, providing a digitized form of elevation data. The effect of the terrain surface and obstacles leads to an overall retardation of the wind near the ground and is called the roughness of the terrain. The roughness of a surface area is determined by the size and distribution of the roughness elements it contains, and typically consists of vegetation, built-up areas and the soil surface. The roughness of a terrain is usually described by a length scale called the roughness length, z0. Generally, this is the height where the mean wind speed becomes zero, assuming a logarithmic variation of wind speed with height (this relation typically holds for moderate and strong wind conditions). The roughness characteristics of the terrain surrounding a site can be described by roughness change lines. These lines separate area of equal roughness and allow for software such as WAsP to interpret the roughness conditions of any site within the map. As shown in Figure 9-37, a land cover map of the Suffolk (and Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel) site was loaded into Global Mapper, which was then used to determine which areas had equal surface roughness. Polygons, also known as roughness change lines, were drawn around areas of equal surface roughness and were assigned two attributes: ROUGH_L and ROUGH_R, representing the roughness on the left-hand side and right-hand side of the polygon



87 | P a g e

respectively1. In Figure 9-37, the differences between urban areas, water areas and other areas are clearly differentiated, thus making it an ideal data layer for drawing roughness change lines. Table 9-11 describes the correlation between roughness length and the terrain surface characteristics as used in both models.

Figure 9-37 Land cover map of the Suffolk site

After the entire area’s roughness is defined, all the polygons are selected and a negative buffer for each is generated in order to create separation between the polygons as roughness lines cannot be touching and will create inconsistencies in the map when exported to WAsP. Once the contour data and roughness data are created for a site, they are exported as a WAsP vector map in the UTM coordinate system2, as shown in Figure 9-39 for the Suffolk site.

1 Two roughness attributes are required by WAsP.

2 Exporting the map in the traditional latitude/longitude system will create issues when trying to generate

wind resource grids of the site.



88 | P a g e

Table 9-11 Description of the various terrain types found in the region and their

associated roughness lengths

Roughness Length (m) Terrain Surface Characteristics

03 Open Water Areas

0.0005 Smooth Bare Soils

0.001 Wetlands

0.005 Woody Wetlands

0.01 Grassland

0.05 Farmland

0.2 Shrubs and Bushes

0.5 Forest

0.6 Open Urban Areas

0.75 Urban Areas

1 Dense Urban Areas

Figure 9-38 WAsP vector map with elevation data (contours in red) and roughness

change lines (green and blue)

3 In WAsP the surface roughness of water is assumed as zero, in order for WAsP to distinguish between

water areas and very smooth land surfaces.



89 | P a g e

9.2.2 Wind Data Analysis

Raw data of the time series of wind data from three different stations were used to drive the model – one at the Newport News radio tower at high elevation, one mid-way across the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel (MMBT) at low elevation, and one at the CBBT Third Island, also at low elevation. Table 9-12 provides details information pertainining to each station. Each of the three time series provided mean wind speed and wind direction data.

Table 9-12 Summary of the stations used for micro-modeling of the Suffolk and CBBT

4th Island sites

Station Newport News Monitor-Merrimac Bridge

Tunnel

Chesapeake Bay Bridge

Tunnel 3rd Island

Location of Station Latitude: 36.96323

Longitude: -76.41172

Latitude: 36.94533


Latitude: 37.03652


Site Modeled Suffolk Suffolk Chesapeake Bay Bridge

Tunnel

Turbine Used Vestas V112-3.0 MW Vestas V112-3.0 MW NREL 5.0 MW Reference

Turbine

Height of anemometer(s) 50.9 meters; 85 meters; 97

meters

12.2 meters 16 meters

Range of data set September 2006 – November

2007

June 2005 – December 2010 June 2005 – December 2010

Timestamp 10 minutes 5 minutes 5 minutes

Number of Model Runs 3 (one for each height) 9 (annual and eight sub-

seasons)

9 (annual and eight sub-

seasons)

Model Validation Yes Yes No4

The MCP+ Module of WindFarmer was used to apply to the raw time series of wind speed and direction obtained from Weatherflow a thorough data assembly, cleaning, calibration and correlation, in order to generate a realistic wind regime representation at the two sites in the form of wind speed and direction distributions. The process can be represented as occurring in three steps: (1) Loading the raw time series; (2) Inspect the data and define the data to be excluded from subsequent analysis; (3) Conduct data analysis to generate frequency distribution, wind roses, and MCP options. The MCP (Measure-Correlate-Predict) techniques allow the derivation of an effective long-term frequency distribution from short-term data measured at the site. Outputs include multiple signal plots, wind roses, correlation plots, and frequency distribution reports. Frequency distributions are in the .TAB format, thus providing for direct input to WAsP. For the Monitor-Merrimac Bridge Tunnel and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel time series, since these two data sets spanned a number of years, sub-season analysis of these data sets was performed in addition to the traditional annual analysis. The sub-seasons were chosen to be consistent with the sub-season analysis conducted by Weatherflow with their WRAMS model, these are depicted in Table 9-3.

4 Model validation was not conducted for this data set because the other two data sets were too far from

the target locations to apply those for this purpose.



90 | P a g e

Table 9-13 Summary of Sub-Seasons

Date Sub-season

January 1 – February 15 Mid-winter

February 16 – March 31 Occasional Gulf Intrusions

April 1 – May 15 Energetic Fronts

May 16 – June 30 Max Sea Breeze Season

July 1 – August 15 Summer Breeze Season

August 16 – September 30 Doldrums with Tropical

October 1 – November 15 Fall fronts/high split

November 16 – December 31 Frequency fronts with CAA

9.2.3 Wind Atlas and Mapping the Wind Resource

The first step in WAsP is to verify the topographic map produced in Global Mapper 13 by using the WAsP Map Editor tool to check for inconsistencies in the roughness change lines. There are three types of inconsistencies:

1. Dead ends – Occur if roughness change lines do not end in a closed loop, node, or the

map boundary.

2. Cross-points – Like a contour, a roughness change line must not cross another line or

itself.

3. Line-face-roughness (LFR) errors – All roughness line sides facing the same coherent

area should have identical roughness length.

If there are consistency errors, as shown in Figure 9-39, the lines may be corrected by manual editing on the map display window. Once all consistency errors are resolved, the map can now be used to generate a wind atlas.

Wind atlases (or regional wind climates) are the central elements in the WAsP modeling process. A WAsP wind atlas contains data that describe a site-independent characterization of the wind climate for an area. The WAsP models analyze wind data collected from meteorological stations to produce a wind atlas, such as the one shown in Figure 9-40. The atlas can be applied to estimate the wind climate and power production at turbine sites. Figure 9-40 was calculated for the Suffolk site using the annual MMBT data set as its driver to gives a site-independent characterization of the wind climate in the region in the form of a table describing the climate at five different heights and five different roughness classes. A new wind atlas must be calculated for each data set used, including for sub-season analyses.



91 | P a g e

Figure 9-39 The number of consistency errors in the topographic map must be

minimized for optimal performance of WAsP using the software’s Map Editor tool.

Figure 9-40 The Calculated Wind Atlas

Once a wind atlas for a specific mast and data set has been calculated, it is then possible to map the wind resource over a specific area and at a certain height which is typically the hub height of the turbine to be used in the model. In WAsP, a wind resource grid is defined at the



92 | P a g e

required hub height, area, and resolution, as shown in Figure 9-41. It should be noted that the wind resource grid must cover (1) the turbine location; (2) the MMBT mast; and (3) the Newport News mast, in order for the 'association method' of Windfarmer to be applicable. Otherwise, the Weibull parameters A and k will be used, which would be less representative of the site than using the actual observed wind data in energy calculations. The resolution of this grid was 30 meters, suggesting that this wind resource grid contains more than 100,000 data points. The results from applying the MMBT data set at the Suffolk site are provided in Figure 9-42. This grid is exported as a .WRG file and used in WindFarmer. For data sets in which sub-season analysis was conducted, separate wind resource grids were calculated for each sub-season. The wind resource grid (all sectors) indicates that the estimated power density at hub height (94 meters) is much higher offshore than onshore, as expected. This grid is exported to WindFarmer to calculate annual energy production estimates for a selected wind turbine at any location within the grid. Since the ‘association method’ of AEP was used in WindFarmer, a separate wind resource grid was calculated at the mast location and hub height5. This grid was also exported and applied by WindFarmer.

Figure 9-41 Wind Resource Grid

5 This grid must be positioned at the exact height of the anemometer and must consist of a single data

point representing the anemometer for the ‘association method’ to work.



93 | P a g e

In order to validate the wind flow model and estimate the uncertainty at the Suffolk site, wind resource grids were generated at 50, 85, and 97 m driven by the MMBT annual data sets at the location of the Newport News anemometer. The wind resource statistics associated with these three grids were then compared to the measured data from the Newport News anemometer, as shown in Table 9-14. Similarly, wind flow model validation for the Newport News data was conducted by generating a wind resource grid at the MMBT mast location, the results of which are provided in Table 9-15.

Figure 9-42 Calculated Wind Resource Grid (all sectors)

Table 9-14 Wind Resource Grids Driven by Newport News Data

Station MMBT

Measured

Statistics

Newport News Wind Resource Grids

50.9 meters 85 meters 97 meters

Calculated

Statistics

Error

(%)

Calculated

Statistics

%

error

Calculated

Statistics

%

Error

Weibull-A 5.3 4.3 -18.87 4.5 -15.09 4.4 -16.98

Weibull-k 1.74 1.46 -16.09 1.51 -13.22 1.49 -14.37

Mean Wind

Speed (m/s)

4.71 3.86 -18.05 4.06 -13.80 3.99 -15.29

Wind Power

Density (W/m2)

143 100 -30.07 110 -23.08 106 -25.87

Model validation for the Newport News-driven model indicates that the wind flow model underestimates the measured wind resource at MMBT for all three mast heights. The average error in the wind flow model for wind speed varied for each of the three models, between 13.8% and 18.1% error. Moreover, when the two data sets were compared with the MCP+ Module for correlation, it was determined that the two data sets did not correlate, with a Pearson coefficient



94 | P a g e

of only 0.5247, indicating an error in the wind speed correlation of around 6%6. This error was applied to the uncertainty of the AEP estimate in WindFarmer.

Table 9-15 Wind Resource Grids Driven by MMBT Data

Station Newport News Measured

Statistics

MMBT Wind Resource Grids

50.9

meters

85

meters

97

meters

50.9 meters 85 meters 97 meters

Calculated

Statistics

Error

(%)

Calculated

Statistics

Error

(%)

Calculated

Statistics

Error

(%)

Weibull-A 6.6 7.0 7.0 6.1 -7.58 6.3 -10 6.3 -10

Weibull-k 2.1 2.11 2.16 1.82 -13.33 1.71 -18.96 1.72 -20.37

Mean Wind

Speed (m/s)

5.81 6.23 6.18 5.38 -7.40 5.59 -10.27 5.64 -8.74

Wind Power

Density

(W/m2)

219 268 258 201 -8.22 237 -11.57 247 -4.26

Model validation for the MMBT-driven models indicates that the error in the wind flow model for the MMBT model varied between 7.4% and 10.3%. As with the Newport News validation, the MMBT model underestimates the actual measured data for all parameters and heights.

9.2.4 Turbine Energy Estimation

In order to estimate the Annual Energy Production (AEP) of a wind turbine using the ‘association method’ in Windfarmer, the following is required:

Vector map of the region;

Wind resource grid at the hub height of the turbine over the area where the turbine is to

be placed;

Wind resource grid at the mast location and height (single data point);

Wind turbine power curve and dimensions;

Wind turbine site location;

Estimate of the uncertainties in the wind flow model, correlation, vertical extrapolation of

wind data, and the horizontal extrapolation of wind data.

Once all of these data layers have been obtained and loaded into WindFarmer, the AEP of the wind turbine is calculated. The results are presented in the following section.

6 For a Pearson coefficient ranging between 0.6 and 0.7, error = 3-5%; between 0.7 and 0.8, error = 2-

3%; between 0.8 and 0.9, error = 1-2%



95 | P a g e

9.3 Results

9.3.1 Assumptions

The assumptions incorporated into this analysis and associated data and information applied to modeling are provided below.

1. There are no output losses attributable to electrical efficiency, availability, icing and blade degradation, substation maintenance, utility downtown and other factors.

2. Anemometer uncertainty is 2%.

3. An uncertainty factor due to horizontal extrapolation of wind data to the wind turbine

location was assumed to be 10% for the Newport News data sets and 5% for the MMBT

and CBBT data sets.

4. An uncertainty factor due to vertical extrapolation of wind data to hub height was derived

based on studies performed as described in the final two references.

a. 20% for CBBT extrapolation of data from 16 to 90 m

b. 20% for MMBT extrapolation of data from 12.2 to 94 m

c. 15% for Newport News extrapolation of data from 50.9 to 94 m

d. 5% for Newport News extrapolation of data from 85 and 97 to 94 m

5. Uncertainties in the wind flow model developed for the Newport News and MMBT data

sets were derived from model validation results in Tables 9-14 and 9-15.

6. The wind flow model uncertainty for the CBBT data set was assumed to be 8.5%, similar

to the average error derived from the MMBT model validation. This value was chosen

because both masts are on a bridge and the surrounding terrain is water, suggesting

that the two values are likely to be very similar.

Table 9-16 Project Details for Suffolk and CBBT Sites

Site Suffolk Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel

Site Reference Air Density 1.225 kg/m3 1.225 kg/m3

Site Reference Height 0 m 0 m

Lapse Rate -0.113 (kg/m3)/km -0.113 (kg/m3)/km

Turbine Vestas V112-3.0 NREL 5.0-MW Reference Turbine

Hub Height 94 m 90 m

Rotor Diameter 112 m 126 m

Turbine Capacity 3 MW 5 MW

Number of Blades 3 3

Turbine Location 374833 4086571 408804 4102508

Air Density for Power Curve 1.225 kg/m3 1.225 kg/m3

Cut-in Wind Speed 3.0 m/s 3.5 m/s

Cut-out Wind Speed 25 m/s 25 m/s



96 | P a g e

Table 9-17 Wind Turbine Power Curve Data for Vestas V112-3.0-MW turbine and NREL 5-

MW Reference Turbine at Standard Conditions

Vestas V112-3.0 MW NREL 5.0 MW Reference Turbine

Hub height wind speed

(m/s)

Electrical power

(kW)

Hub height wind speed

(m/s)

Electrical power

(kW)

3.0 75 3.0 0

3.5 125 4.0 144

4.0 190 5.0 368

4.5 260 6.0 720

5.0 340 7.0 1159

5.5 450 8.0 1773

6.0 580 9.0 2484

6.5 725 10.0 3169

7.0 925 11.0 3849

7.5 1180 12.0 4512

8.0 1410 13.0 4850

8.5 1700 14.0 5000

9.0 1960 15.0 5000

9.5 2290 16.0 5000

10.0 2550 17.0 5000

10.5 2800 18.0 5000

11.0 2920 19.0 5000

11.5 2980 20.0 5000

12.0-25.0 3000 21.0 5000

> 25.0 0.0 22.0 5000

23.0 5000

24.0 5000

25.0 5000

> 25.0 0

9.3.2 Suffolk Site (driven by Newport News Data)

The annual wind rose associated with data collected at 50.9 m at the Newport News radio tower shows most frequent winds from the east and southwest.

Figure 9-43 Annual Wind Rose Predicted with Data from Newport News Tower at 50.9 m



97 | P a g e

The results generated through WindFarmer analysis using the three Newport News data sets suggest an anticipated Capacity Factor between 27.1 and 29.2%. However, there are several factors contributing to a high level of uncertainty of the central estimate of around 30% (approximately 2 GWh/year on a production level).

Table 9-18 Results from WindFarmer Analysis using Newport News Data Sets

Data Set Height (m) 50.9 85 97

Capacity Factor (%) 27.1 29.2 28.2

Estimated Mean wind speed (m/s) 5.89 6.09 5.73

Estimated Annual Net Yield (GWh/year) 7.1 7.7 7.4

Total

Uncertainty (%)

1 year 31.0 29.07 25.3

10 years 28.5 27.10 22.4

20 years 28.3 27.0 22.2

Total

Uncertainty (GWh)

1 year 2.20 2.24 1.87

10 years 2,02 2.09 1.66

20 years 2.00 2.08 1.64

The three Newport News model runs generated similar results which indicate an overall consistency for this particular model.

1. The 50.9-m model run predicts an AEP of 7.1 ± 2.20 GWh per year and Capacity Factor

of 27.1%.

2. The 85-m model run predicts an AEP of 7.7 ± 2.24 GWh per year and Capacity Factor of

29.2%.

3. The 97-m model predicts an AEP of 7.4 ± 1.87 GWh per year and Capacity Factor of

28.2%.

There is significant uncertainty for all three model runs; however, it is significantly lower for the 97-m model run because this data set was collected at only 3 m above hub height, thus resulting in virtually no error attributable to vertical extrapolation of the data. The higher degree of certainty leads to a lower standard deviation for the 97-m data set, meaning that the exceedance levels shown in Table 9-19 for this data set taper off at a much slower rate than for the other two data sets. Thus, while the 85-m model run gave a higher central estimate (P50), the two model runs give the same estimate after one standard deviation (P84), while the P90, P95 and P99 estimates are significantly higher for the 97 meter model.

Table 9-19 Exceedance Levels for Newport News Model Runs

1 year 10 years 20 years

Mast Height (m) 50.9 85 97 50.9 85 97 50.9 85 97

P50 (GWh) 7.1 7.7 7.4 7.1 7.7 7.4 7.1 7.7 7.4

P84 (GWh) 4.9 5.5 5.5 5.1 5.7 5.7 5.1 5.7 5.8

P90 (GWh) 4.3 4.9 5.0 4.5 5.1 5.3 4.5 5.1 5.3

P95 (GWh) 3.5 4.1 4.3 3.8 4.4 4.7 3.8 4.4 4.7

P99 (GWh) 2.0 2.6 3.0 2.4 3.0 3.5 2.4 3.1 3.6

The exceedance levels provided in Table 9-19 can be used to produce a probability curve of AEP values. A narrow distribution curve would suggest a lower uncertainty and more accurate energy production estimates.



98 | P a g e

9.3.3 Suffolk Site (driven by MBBT Data)

The wind roses associated with analyses using the MMBT data sets are provided below, the first showing an annual profile and the second through ninth going top down and left to right the sub-season profiles. This is intended to demonstrate how the directional component of winds varies during the year.

Figure 9-44 Annual (top left) and Sub-Season Wind Roses Generated with MMBT Data



99 | P a g e

WindFarmer analyses driven by MMBT data sets predict an AEP of 5.89 ± 1.79 GWh/year on a year-by year basis with a Capacity Factor of 22.4%. There is significant uncertainty in the central estimate, mainly because the height of the MMBT mast was 12.2 m with no intermediary masts between that and hub height. The uncertainty factor would be significantly reduced if data at intermediate heights were available.

Table 9-20 Results from WindFarmer Analysis using MMBT Data Sets

Annual Sub-

season

1

Sub-

season

2

Sub-

season

3

Sub-

season

4

Sub-

season

5

Sub-

season

6

Sub-

season

7

Sub-

season

8

Average

of sub-

season

Capacity Factor

(%)

22.39 26.76 27.07 28.14 17.34 14.59 19.78 22.25 26.02 22.74

Estimated Mean

wind speed (m/s)

5.12 5.56 5.58 5.71 4.68 4.35 4.91 5.12 5.38 5.16

Estimated Annual

Net Yield

(GWh/year)

5.89 7.04 7.12 7.40 4.56 3.84 5.20 5.85 6.84 5.98

Net yield during

sub-season

(GWh/sub-season)

N/A 0.88 0.89 0.925 0.57 0.48 0.65 0.73 0.86 0.75

Total

Uncertainty

(%)

1

year

30.5 29.07 28.9 33.0 34.6 35.3 30.6 28.0 30.7

10

years

28.0 27.10 26.6 30.5 31.4 32.0 27.8 25.5 28.9

20

years

27.9 27.0 26.5 30.4 31.3 31.8 27.6 25.3 28.8

Total

Uncertainty

(%)

1

year

1.79 0.26 0.26 0.31 0.20 0.17 0.20 0.20 0.26

10

years

1.65 0.24 0.24 0.28 0.18 0.15 0.18 0.19 0.25

20

years

1.64 0.24 0.24 0.28 0.18 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.25

Sub-season analysis shows significant variance in the wind resource between sub-seasons, peaking at 28.14% during sub-season 3 (1st April to 15th May), and reaching a minimum of 14.59% during sub-season 5 (1st July to 15th August). This indicates a difference of 0.445 GWh in energy production between the two sub-seasons, suggesting that the strongest sub-season is, on average, nearly twice as productive as the weakest one. This result highlights the importance of examining the wind profile throughout the year is possible in order to ascertain how well production matches anticipated loads to be served. Tables 9-21, 9-22 and 9-23 show the probability distributions of expected turbine electricity generation averaged over 1 year, 10 years and 20 years. As expected, the expected average AEP over a 10-year and 20-year period is higher for P84, P90, P95, and P99. This is because some of the uncertainty is reduced by assuming a longer-term outlook. When the sum of the individual sub-seasons was compared to analysis of the entire data set, it was found that there was little variation in the two values.



100 | P a g e

Table 9-21 Exceedance level for 1 year for the MMBT annual and sub-season analyses

Annual Sub-

season 1

Sub-

season 2

Sub-

season 3

Sub-

season 4

Sub-

season 5

Sub-

season 6

Sub-

season 7

Sub-

season 8

Sum

of

sub-

season

P50

(GWh)

5.89 0.88 0.89 0.93 0.57 0.48 0.65 0.73 0.86 5.99

P84

(GWh)

4.09 0.62 0.63 0.63 0.36 0.32 0.45 0.53 0.59 4.12

P90

(GWh)

3.59 0.55 0.56 0.54 0.29 0.28 0.40 0.47 0.51 3.60

P95

(GWh)

2.93 0.46 0.47 0.43 0.22 0.22 0.32 0.40 0.43 2.93

P99

(GWh)

1.71 0.29 0.29 0.22 0.07 0.12 0.19 0.26 0.25 1.67

Table 9-22 Exceedance level for 10 years for the MMBT annual and sub-season analyses

Annual Sub-

season 1

Sub-

season 2

Sub-

season 3

Sub-

season 4

Sub-

season 5

Sub-

season 6

Sub-

season 7

Sub-

season 8

Sum

of

sub-

season

P50

(GWh)

5.89 0.88 0.89 0.93 0.57 0.48 0.65 0.73 0.86 5.99

P84

(GWh)

4.24 0.64 0.65 0.64 0.37 0.34 0.48 0.55 0.61 4.28

P90

(GWh)

3.77 0.57 0.59 0.56 0.32 0.30 0.43 0.49 0.54 3.79

P95

(GWh)

3.17 0.49 0.50 0.46 0.24 0.25 0.35 0.43 0.45 3.17

P99

(GWh)

2.05 0.33 0.34 0.27 0.11 0.16 0.23 0.30 0.28 2.00

Table 9-23 Exceedance level for 20 years for the MMBT annual and sub-season analyses

Annual Sub-

season 1

Sub-

season 2

Sub-

season 3

Sub-

season 4

Sub-

season 5

Sub-

season 6

Sub-

season 7

Sub-

season 8

Sum

of

sub-

season

P50

(GWh)

5.89 0.88 0.89 0.93 0.57 0.48 0.65 0.73

0.86

5.99

P84

(GWh)

4.25 0.64 0.65 0.65 0.37 0.34 0.48 0.55

0.61

4.29

P90

(GWh)

3.78 0.58 0.59 0.56 0.32 0.30 0.43 0.49

0.54

3.80

P95

(GWh)

3.19 0.49 0.50 0.46 0.25 0.25 0.36 0.43

0.45

3.18

P99

(GWh)

2.07 0.33 0.34 0.27 0.11 0.16 0.23 0.30

0.28

2.02



101 | P a g e

9.3.4 CBBT site (driven by CBBT Data)

The wind roses associated with analyses using the CBBT data sets are provided below, the first showing an annual profile and the second through ninth going top down and left to right the sub-season profiles. This is intended to demonstrate how the directional component of winds varies during the year.

Figure 9-45 Annual (top left) and Sub-Season Wind Roses Generated with CBBT Data



102 | P a g e

WindFarmer analysis driven by the CBBT data sets predicted an AEP of 13.98 ± 3.54 GWh/year with a Capacity Factor of 31.9%. This result shows that the CBBT site presents a much higher wind resource than at other sites considered, with an estimated mean wind speed of 6.8 m/s at hub height, compared to only approximately 5.1 m/s at the Suffolk site. There exists a high degree of uncertainty in the central estimate, mostly attributable to vertical extrapolation of the wind data from the mast height of 16 m to hub height of 90 m. As with the other analyses, uncertainty could be reduced if additional data sets at higher elevations were available.

Table 9-24 Results from WindFarmer Analysis using CBBT Data Sets

Annual Sub-

season

1

Sub-

season

2

Sub-

season

3

Sub-

season

4

Sub-

season

5

Sub-

season

6

Sub-

season

7

Sub-

season

8

Average

of sub-

season

analyses

Capacity Factor

(%)

31.9 40.4 40.2 33.4 23.67 31.9 27.90 40.1 40.3 34.73

Estimated Mean

wind speed (m/s)

6.81 7.95 7.83 7.04 5.80 6.81 6.20 7.88 7.86 7.17

Estimated Annual

Net Yield

(GWh/year)

13.98 17.71 17.60 14.62 10.38 13.99 12.23 17.56 17.66 15.22

Net yield during

sub-season

(GWh/sub-season)

N/A 2.21 2.20 1.83 1.30 1.75 1.53 2.20 2.21 1.90

Total

Uncertainty

(%)

1

year

25.35 25.68 24.71 28.12 31.8 25.33 30.23 24.50 24.31

10

years

23.53 24.50 23.32 26.38 29.26 23.53 28.03 23.25 23.19

20

years

23.43 24.43 23.24 26.28 29.12 23.42 27.90 23.18 23.12

Total

Uncertainty

(%)

1

year

3.54 0.57 0.54 0.41 0.44 0.46 0.46 0.54 0.54

10

years

3.29 0.54 0.51 0.38 0.41 0.43 0.43 0.51 0.51

20

years

3.28 0.54 0.51 0.38 0.41 0.41 0.43 0.51 0.51

WindFarmer analyses driven by CBBT data predict that the strongest sub-seasons are 1, 2, 7, and 8, all with estimated Capacity Factor over 40%, while Sub-Seasons 3, 4, 5, and 6 are associated with a significantly lower wind resource, with Capacity Factor of only 23.7% during Sub-Season 4. As with the MMBT analysis, these sub-seasons predict a significantly lower AEP of around 1 GWh per sub-season per turbine. The probability distributions of expected AEP for the NREL 5-MW Reference Turbine at the CBBT site over a 1-year, 10-year and 20-year outlook are provided in Tables 9-25, 9-26, and 9-27 respectively. However, unlike the case for the MMBT analysis, for analysis with these data sets the sum of the individual sub-seasons was significantly higher than for the annual analysis, particularly for the central estimate (P50). This is likely attributable to the higher expected energy production from a larger turbine and a stronger wind resource, as well as to the high uncertainty level associated with this analysis.



103 | P a g e

Table 9-25 Exceedance level for 1 year for the CBBT annual and sub-season analyses

Annual Sub-

season 1

Sub-

season 2

Sub-

season 3

Sub-

season 4

Sub-

season 5

Sub-

season 6

Sub-

season 7

Sub-

season 8

Sum of

Sub-

seasons

P50

(GWh)

13.98 2.21 2.20 1.83 1.30 1.75 1.53 2.20 2.21 15.22

P84

(GWh)

10.44 1.65 1.66 1.33 1.04 1.31 1.07 1.66 1.67 11.37

P90

(GWh)

9.44 1.49 1.50 1.17 0.81 1.18 0.94 1.51 1.52 10.11

P95

(GWh)

8.15 1.28 1.31 0.98 0.67 1.02 0.77 1.31 1.33 8.66

P99

(GWh)

5.74 0.89 0.94 0.63 0.41 0.72 0.45 0.94 0.96 5.95

Table 9-26 Exceedance level for 10 years for the CBBT annual and sub-season analyses

Annual Sub-

season 1

Sub-

season 2

Sub-

season 3

Sub-

season 4

Sub-

season 5

Sub-

season 6

Sub-

season 7

Sub-

season 8

Sum of

Sub-

seasons

P50

(GWh)

13.98 2.21 2.20 1.83 1.30 1.75 1.53 2.20 2.21 15.22

P84

(GWh)

10.69 1.67 1.69 1.35 1.04 1.34 1.10 1.68 1.70 11.56

P90

(GWh)

9.76 1.52 1.54 1.21 0.81 1.22 0.98 1.54 1.55 10.37

P95

(GWh)

8.58 1.32 1.33 1.04 0.67 1.07 0.82 1.36 1.37 8.98

P99

(GWh)

6.33 0.95 1.01 0.71 0.41 0.79 0.53 1.01 1.02 6.43

Table 9-27 Exceedance level for 20 years for the CBBT annual and sub-season analyses

Annual Sub-

season 1

Sub-

season 2

Sub-

season 3

Sub-

season 4

Sub-

season 5

Sub-

season 6

Sub-

season 7

Sub-

season 8

Sum of

Sub-

seasons

P50

(GWh)

13.98 2.21 2.20 1.83 1.30 1.75 1.53 2.20

2.21

15.22

P84

(GWh)

10.71 1.67 1.69 1.35 1.04 1.34 1.10 1.69

1.70

11.58

P90

(GWh)

9.78 1.52 1.55 1.21 0.81 1.22 0.98 1.54

1.55

10.39

P95

(GWh)

8.59 1.32 1.36 1.04 0.67 1.07 0.83 1.36

1.37

9.02

P99

(GWh)

6.36 0.96 1.01 0.71 0.41 0.79 0.54 1.01

1.02

6.45



104 | P a g e

9.4 Conclusions

Preliminary WAsP/WindFarmer analyses at the sites considered indicate that both sites would be suitable in terms of wind resource for wind energy production. The Suffolk site projects an AEP of 5.1 to 7.7 GWh/year (22.4 to 29.2% Capacity Factor). The CBBT site presents a stronger wind resource, with a projected AEP of 14.0 GWh/year corresponding to a Capacity Factor of 31.9%. This is comparable to that of some offshore wind farms currently commissioned in northern Europe. While this modeling assessment suggests that the wind resource is sufficient for wind power generation, there is a high degree of uncertainty in this analysis, attributable mostly to the lack of data available at hub height in this region. A most accurate projection of the wind resource up to hub height requires multiple datasets of the wind resource at a location very close to, and representative of, the site in question, and at several heights. The following factors are considered during uncertainty analysis.

1. Anemometer uncertainty

2. Vertical spacing on the tower

3. Monitoring period

4. The temporal period used in the MCP analysis

5. The r2 of the monitoring/reference station relationship

The 2004 study by AWSTruewind indicates that anemometer uncertainty and vertical spacing on the tower is crucial to reducing the uncertainty in vertical extrapolation of wind data. To best model the vertical shear, the anemometers must be placed as far apart as possible. For an anemometer with a 2% measurement uncertainty, the error in extrapolated data up to 80-m hub height, with one anemometer at 50 m and

- a second anemomoeter at 10 m, the uncertainty was found to be 3%;

- a second anemomoeter at 20 m, the uncertainty was found to be 3.5%;

- a second anemomoeter at 30 m, the uncertainty was found to be 4.75%;

- a second anemomoeter at 40 m, the uncertainty was found to be more than 8%.

Therefore, for these analyses, in which only a single anemometer was used for all the model runs, and particularly for the MMBT and CBBT datasets, a very high degree of uncertainty was assumed in order to provide conservative results. Moreover, there was relatively poor correlation between the Newport News datasets and the MMBT dataset, leading to a correlation uncertainty of around 6%. In addition, there are other uncertainty factors to consider including the consistency of the long-term reference data, estimates derived from wind flow models, and the consistency of future project conditions. One study suggests applying a method of least squares (LES), using sets of measured wind data collected from at least three anemometer heights, to obtain a synthetic set of data at the desired height.



105 | P a g e

Section 10 Data Management and Web-Based Viewers

10.1 Data Management Strategy

The plethora of geospatial data that has become available over the past decade combined with the robustness of system on the Internet has driven the development of sustainable data access and management strategies that rely on the distributed nature of the Internet. While the increase in data availability has allowed more people to utilize data, it also has led to the problem of multiple copies of the same (or modified versions) data being available from multiple sources. In order to eliminate this problem and to ensure that the latest version of a data set is used, the best approach is to dynamically access the data on an as needed basis from the most authoritative source as possible as shown in Figure 10-45 below.

Figure 10-46 Distributed Architecture

For this project, NOAA is the authoritative source of the operation layers being used in the Map and Data Viewer which is described in the next section. The access methodology being used is an industry-accepted method of utilizing dynamic map services that are being offered by the NOAA servers. One data set, the BOEM Wind Planning Areas, was copied to a local server in order to limit the data to the relevant blocks in the project area, and to improve performance. This data set is not anticipated to change very frequently. Also stored locally are project-specific data created as part of this project, as JMU was the prime contractor and therefore the authoritative source of the project related data. A summary of data sources is provided below.

NOAA

MARCO

DEQ

VOWD

Data

Geoprocessing Services

Web Site

Internet

Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) Interoperability Standards

Distributed Architecture

• WMS: Web Mapping Service – allows visual display of data

• WFS: Web Feature Service – streaming of vector data for geoprocessing

• WCS: Web Coverage Service – streaming of raster data

• CAT: Catalogue Services Interface Standard – metadata searching

NOWCoast CoastalGEMS



106 | P a g e

Table 10-28 Data Sets Relevant to Offshore Wind Applications

10.2 Map and Data Viewer for Virginia Offshore Wind Space

The Map and Data Viewer (available from http://wind.jmu.edu/offshore/report.html) provides access to project deliverables for the test sites via a map interface. The system was developed with ArcGIS Viewer for Flex and ArcGIS Server technology from ESRI. The server technology allows for the hosting of project-generated data and the general mapping functionality and the viewer technology provides integration of the locally stored data with data coming from other systems. The viewer allows the user to select from multiple base maps which underlay the other map layers:

ESRI Streets (from ESRI)

ESRI Aerial (from ESRI)

ESRI Topo (from ESRI)

Nautical Chart (from NOAA)

Users can also choose from multiple relevant data layers to be displayed on top of the base maps and in conjunction with the test site location information. The following layers can be chosen from a “layer list” and are hosted and accessed from the NOAA Multipurpose Marine

http://wind.jmu.edu/offshore/report.html



107 | P a g e

Cadastre system:

Aids to Navigation

Bathymetric Contours

Habitat Areas of Particular Concern

Military Danger Zones

Navy Aviation Warning Areas

Navy Operation Areas

Offshore Wind Resource Potential

Outer Continental Shelf Lease Blocks

Seafloor Geology

Wrecks and Obstructions

Some data layers are hosted on a server at JMU. The first is accessible in the “layer list” along with the NOAA data:

BOEM Wind Planning Areas

The test site-specific data is also hosted on the JMU server and is always displayed in the map viewer. Users can utilize a quick zoom button to change the map display to the immediate area around each test site, as well as have an information window pop-up that provides hyperlinks to the site specific project deliverables. Users can also click on the icon located at each site to bring up the same information windows. Additional tools in the viewer allow for manually zooming in and out, creating bookmarks, displaying a map legend, and printing a map.

10.3 Wind, Weather and Energy Viewer for Virginia Offshore Wind Space

The Wind, Weather and Energy Viewer (available from http://wind.jmu.edu/offshore/report.html) provides a means to view current measured and modeled meteorological conditions along the coast and across the waters of Virginia. The intent of this portal is to make publicly accessible our region's wind conditions and related meteorological information. The very dynamic nature of the wind resource is best appreciated by viewing sites of interest frequently. Within the Viewer weather stations are represented by yellow arrows on the map. The direction of the arrow represents the wind direction. One may click on one of these to see real-time weather data from that particular station. The blue circles on the map represent a cluster of stations, one may zoom in to see more. A wind turbine icon will appear at that point on the map that is clicked. One can see what the meteorological conditions are likely to be at 100 meters in the Modeled conditions at 100 m panel. Modeled data are available only within the orange rectangle off the east coast of the United States. One can also view energy climatology for the location represented by the turbine icon. The date range can be adjusted by dragging the slider. Modeled estimates of Average Wind Speed, Capacity Factor, and Energy Produced for that time period will be displayed.

http://wind.jmu.edu/offshore/report.html



108 | P a g e

Section 11 Outreach Support

11.1 Outreach Materials

The Virginia Offshore Wind Advanced Technology Demonstration Site Development effort provided the opportunity to explore opportunities and resources in Virginia waters that pertain to a potential Advanced Technology Demonstration Project and beyond. The research and development conducted throughout this project have provided useful tools and resources to support future coastal and offshore wind power projects. In order to project to stakeholders and potential developers the outcomes of this effort, the project team has developed a collection of outreach materials as well as two web-based data viewers (described in Section 10) to provide stakeholders access to all relevant information.

11.1.1 Powerpoint Presentation

A Powerpoint Presentation is in development that describes the main elements and details of this effort, but is being reviewed and expanded in consultation with DMME to ensure that the final product addresses the broader range of efforts and implications pertaining to offshore wind in Virginia. A template is available as Appendix O.

11.1.2 Quad-Fold Brochure

A Quad-Fold Brochure is in development that describes the main elements and details of this effort, but is being reviewed and expanded in consultation with DMME to ensure that the final product addresses the broader range of efforts and implications pertaining to offshore wind in Virginia. A template is available as Appendix P.

11.1.3 Fact Sheet

A Fact Sheet is in development that describes the main elements and details of this effort, but is being reviewed and expanded in consultation with DMME to ensure that the final product addresses the broader range of efforts and implications pertaining to offshore wind in Virginia. A template is available as Appendix Q.

11.2 Visual Simulations

A portion of the stakeholder outreach effort included the development of visual simulations describing the actual appearance of large offshore wind turbines as they might actually appear were they to be installed within the Suffolk and CBBT study areas. Such simulations will assist during outreach by describing visually to law enforcement, nearby residents, the localities adjacent to the sites, and others stakeholders affected the visual impacts of such structures. The Visual Simulations are in development and will be posted as Appendix R and will also be accessible via the Map and Data Viewer.



109 | P a g e

11.2.1 Visual Simulation Development Process

The WindFarmer Visualization Module contains the tools required to calculate and produce wireframe and rendered landscape visualizations, zone of influence (ZVI) maps, photomontages and animations for wind energy projects. For this project, only photomontages were used. A WindFarmer photomontage is a rendered wind farm view where the sky and land have been removed and replaced by a digital photograph taken from a viewpoint location. The wind farm image (in this case a single turbine) is overlaid on top of the photograph, correctly scaled and in the context of the landscape. A site visit was conducted in order to take acquire the background digital imagery. The photographs were taken so that they overlap precisely to allow both the primary human vertical and horizontal field of view to be recreated into a single primary field of view image. When creating a photomontage it is important that the following information is recorded:

the precise co-ordinates from which the photograph was taken;

the direction where the camera was pointing (the target);

the inclined angle of the camera;

the focal length of the camera;

the aspect ratio of the film;

the position of the sun in the sky;

the weather conditions when the photograph was taken.

Each of these properties is crucial for the proper scaling of the turbine onto the photomontage. Upon loading the photograph, WindFarmer displays the photograph with the wind turbines superimposed on top. If the turbine appears to be “floating” or “buried”, or if the turbines do not “sit” on the horizon, then the camera settings may be adjusted until the turbine is in the correct position. The resulting image can be printed directly or exported and saved as a bitmap image. By setting up a virtual wind farm model before collecting any photographs, the operator is able to identify places where a photomontage may be required. It also allows the identification of information that needs to be confirmed during a site visit. The virtual wind farm model is used later to carry out the photomontage. The procedure involves:

design of virtual turbines based on the physical dimensions of the wind turbines;

loading of the digital terrain model and the wind turbine co-ordinates;

location of the viewpoints on the large-scale map;

location of reference points;

creation of a rendered landscape visualization.

For the effort conducted for this project, two viewpoints for each site were selected, the details are presented in Table 11-29. For the Suffolk site, the two viewpoints chosen were on the eastern and western side of the southern end of the Monitor-Merrimac Bridge Tunnel, both viewpoints were selected so that the wind turbine was close to the center of the image. Both CBBT photographs were taken from the bridge itself, with one image being much closer than the other to the proposed turbine site and therefore offering a much closer view. The second image was taken from further south than for the first, and it presents a more distant view than for the first one.



110 | P a g e

Table 11-29 Digital Photography Parameters Associated for Visual Simulations

Site Suffolk CBBT

Image 1 Image 2 Image 1 Image 2

Latitude 36.901 36,899 37.057 37.067

Longitude -76.430 -76.414 -76.047 -76.033

Target Direction 64 15 85 153

Distance from

Turbine (meters)

2735 2126 2022 679

Bearing to Turbine 60 22 67 114

Focal Length

(mm)

28

Aspect Ratio

(mm:mm)

36:24

For both sites, the turbine dimensions used in the modeling process reported in Section 9 were applied to the photomontages. For the Suffolk site the turbine dimensions of the Vestas V112-3.0-MW turbine was used for the simulations, for the CBBT site the turbine dimensions of the NREL 5-MW Reference Turbine were used.

11.3 Web Site

A comprehensive web site that address all aspects of Offshore Wind in Virginia and provides access to a broad range of tools and resources was created by the project team and is hosted at James Madison University and supported by the Virginia Center for Wind Energy at JMU. The URL for this site is http://wind.jmu.edu/offshore. It can also be accessed via the domain name http://offshorewindVA.org.

http://wind.jmu.edu/offshore

http://offshorewindva.org/



111 | P a g e

Section 12 References

Volume I Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium, 2010. Virginia Offshore Wind Studies, July 2007 to March 2010, Final Report. 67 pp. Bland, Tim (The Engineering Business, Ltd.). “Merlin Offshore Wind Turbine Installation System, Final Report.” W/61/00641/00/REP, United Kingdom: Department of Trade and Industry, 2004. Ramboll Group A/S, Hannemanns Allé; 53DK-2300. Copenhagen, S Denmark. Website www.ramboll.com; http://www.ramboll.com/services/energy%20and%20climate/Offshore-wind-consulting. “In Depth: Hong Kong Project will Pioneer Suction Foundation.” RECHARGE, February 2012. Recharge AS, global source for renewable energy news. Christian Kroghs. gt 16, NO – 0186, Oslo + 4724101700. http://www.rechargenews.com/energy/wind/article305610.ece.

WindFlip AS. Valbergg 2 4006 Stavenger, Norway. http://windflip.com/organization.aspx. “Bespoke frame guides RAT upending,” Oil Online, David Morgan. November 9, 2011. ATCOM Directory Group, 1635 W. Alabama Houston, Texas 77006. http://www.oilonline.com/default.asp?id=259&nid=20306&name=Bespoke+frame+guides+RAT+upending.

Virginia Marine Resources Commission. 2010. "Opportunities for Offshore Wind Energy in State Territorial Waters." Senate Document No. 10. February 2010 (http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/fc86c2b17a1cf388852570f9006f1299/6195a26e90b1329 b852576d60076aa99/$FILE/SD10.pdf). Volume II Z. Durisic; J. Mikulovic. (2012). A model for vertical wind speed extrapolation for improving wind

resource assessment using WAsP. Renewable Energy 41, 407-411.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148111006185.

Taylor et al. (2004). An analysis of Wind Resource Uncertainty in Energy Production Estimates.

http://www.2004ewec.info/files/23_1400_marktaylor_01.pdf.

http://www.ramboll.com/

http://www.ramboll.com/services/energy%20and%20climate/Offshore-wind-consulting

http://www.rechargenews.com/energy/wind/article305610.ece

http://windflip.com/organization.aspx

http://www.oilonline.com/default.asp?id=259&nid=20306&name=Bespoke+frame+guides+RAT+upending

http://www.oilonline.com/default.asp?id=259&nid=20306&name=Bespoke+frame+guides+RAT+upending

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148111006185

http://www.2004ewec.info/files/23_1400_marktaylor_01.pdf

Virginia Offshore Wind Advanced Technology Demonstration ... · Virginia Offshore Wind Advanced...

Documents

Transcript of Virginia Offshore Wind Advanced Technology Demonstration ... · Virginia Offshore Wind Advanced...