The latest in AEI’s ongoing series of comprehensive special reports on key topics is finally done!

This one is modeled on AEI’s acclaimed annual reviews of science and policy developments in ocean noise, but focuses for the first time on wind farm noise issues.  The 30-page report covers new research, public concerns, and industry trends over the past year.

Read the report in the embedded pdf reader below, or download a pdf copy.  Click on to below the fold for a table of contents and the report’s brief Introduction.

Read the rest of this entry »

A hearing by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission heard testimony from residents and agency staff this week, and indicated that it was going to take its time in setting statewide wind farm siting guidelines.  “I think there are a lot of remaining unanswered questions. I think there are a lot of … substantive questions as well,” Commissioner Phyllis Reha said. “I think the commission has a lot of work to do before we make any kinds of decisions.”

Monday’s hearing focused on a report issued last year by the Minnesota Department of Health outlining the potential health impacts from wind turbine noise. The PUC and its staff requested health department officials review scientific literature after people statewide raised concerns regarding wind projects.

In the scientific report, state health officials – drawing from National Research Council findings – noted that noise from wind turbines “generally is not a major concern for humans beyond a half-mile or so.”  Nonetheless, the report and PUC staff recommended that setbacks be increased only to 1000 feet; current regulations set a 500 foot minimum, but the night time noise limit of 50dB means that in practice, most turbines are sited at least 700-1200 feet from homes.

Some groups – including Goodhue County residents – have advocated setbacks of six-tenths of a mile or even 1.25 miles to prevent possible health effects, a point PUC staff and others say is supported by “scant” evidence. Still, Commissioner J. Dennis O’Brien said, “We know these issues are strong and heartfelt … and genuine and real. We’ll just have to struggle with it for a while, I think.”

Very cool collection of various approaches to sound mapping, recently posted at Weird Vibrations.  Here’s the first post, sharing their overview of several sound mapping models, including collaborative documentary, composition, preservation, and policy-oriented.  And here’s a follow-up post of others sent in by readers.  And to go one step further, here’s a delicious link from a commenter, to his own collection of sound maps.  And, oh, what the heck: here’s the current list of sound maps from AEI’s main site!

Paris Sound Map (click to read 1st post)

Those of you who were attracted to this particular post topic may well also enjoy checking by Weird Vibrations this week, where they’ve just begun an “open thread” on Acoustic Ecology, centered around their upcoming reviews of Gordon Hempton’s One Square Inch book, and a book on sound weapons; the initial questions posed are promisingly provocative: ” First, is understanding sound as an ecosystem practical? In other words, can this formulation help us deal with noise in a just fashion? How does the ecological metaphor sit with you? Second, does acoustic ecology’s focus on “natural” preservation make it essentially conservative? This is a charge that’s latent (if not explicit) in some recent Sound Studies work that foregrounds technology. What do you think?”

Two different acoustic studies near the Willow Creek Energy Center in eastern Oregon have found that the state’s wind farm noise ordinance is being violated at several homes nearby.  How often and by how much the violations are occurring remains under contention. As reported by the East Oregonian, the commission heard from several acousticians as well as the neighbors themselves.

The state allows wind farms to be up to 36dB at neighboring homes (10dB over the night-time ambient of 26dB–based on the assumption that excess noise will not be bothersome until it exceeds ambient by 10dB).  After several neighbors raised concerns about noise, Invenergy, the wind farm developer, hired acoustical consultant Michael Theriault to take measurements.  He found that noise levels at three homes were “usually less than 37db” and that at one home, “the noise ‘moderately’ exceeded the noise code about ten percent of the time.” (it is unclear what “usually” means in this report, or what averaging period was used in the determination)

However, the Theriault did no recordings when wind speeds exceeded 9m/s, because the company says their turbines don’t get louder after that point.  This may well be true, but sound propagation can vary widely with atmospheric conditions, especially when wind is higher aloft (at turbine hub height) than on the ground.  Acoustical consultants hired by the four landowners presented findings that included measurements when wind speeds were higher, which showed that the noise at the Eaton’s residence hovered just above the noise standard on a regular basis, and at the Williams residence it regularly went above 40 decibels. The wind farm consistently broke the noise rule at precisely the time when Theriault decided not to use the data – when wind speeds exceeded 9 meters per second. When the data is analyzed in a wider range of wind speeds,  the wind farm was in violation of the rule 22 out of 37 nights. “I’m not sure how someone can say this is an unusual, infrequent event,” said Kerrie Standlee. “To me, 59 percent is not occasional or unusual.” Standlee’s noise study also went beyond Theriault’s in that he gave the residents a sheet of paper to log their experiences with time and date. He then overlaid those comments on the data and showed that when the residents reported high noise, the wind was blowing from a particular direction or at a particular speed.

The commission also heard heartfelt testimony from the residents themselves, who said that their lives had been completely changed since the wind farm came. “A basic right in my life is to live in my beautiful home with my peace and quiet, and now I can’t do that,” Dan Williams said. When the testimony ended, the planning commission agreed to wait until their next meeting to make a decision about whether – and how – the Willow Creek wind farm must mitigate the noise problem.  An earlier article focusing on the experiences of people near the wind farm is available here.

In the best overview I’ve yet seen of efforts to solve the “problem” of electric cars being so quiet, the New York Times Wheels blog provides a tour of the the apparently burgeoning of field sound design for these future (and increasingly, present-day) vehicles.  Most designs plan to incorporate sounds that will alert nearby pedestrians of a car nearby, but will only emit sound when the car is slow-moving (above 12 or 15 mph, tire noise will be sufficient).

A speaker embedded in the bumper of a Fisker Karma (click to read NY Times blog post)

Among the key questions is whether electric car owners will be able to customize their car’s “voice,” ala cell phone ring tones, or if they should be standardized.  So far, individual auto companies are each pursuing their own standard sounds, which could presumably become part of the “look and feel” of the car’s branding.  A Nissan engineer quoted in a September article from Bloomberg,  says that “we decided that if we’re going to do this, if we have to make sound, then we’re going to make it beautiful and futuristic.” The company decided on a high- pitched sound reminiscent of the flying cars in “Blade Runner,” the 1982 Ridley Scott film. “We wanted something a bit different, something closer to the world of art,” said the Nissan designer.  At least one acoustic design company has turned its attention to becoming the “go to” company for automakers facing this 21st century problem.  The Times blog and its accompanying article are both great reads on this fascinating – and for some anti-noise activists, frustrating – topic.

The Japanese Environment Ministry is gearing up for the April launch of a nationwide field survey around all 1500 wind turbines in operation in the country.  Prompted by health complaints by some neighbors, the survey will the first such comprehensive study of the question; low frequency and audible noise will be recorded, to see whether there is any correlation between these sounds and the reported effects.  According to the ministry plan, the survey will first ascertain whether there have been problems reported in the vicinity of wind turbines. If residents complain of health problems, their symptoms will be examined. Measuring equipment will be placed in their homes to find out the relationship between the turbines and health problems. The distance between the turbines and homes as well as geographical features of the area will also be examined. About 30 of the nation’s 376 wind farms (1-20 turbines each) have prompted formal complaints to date.  For more, see this Japanese news report.

In what could be a precedent-setting move, the Ontario Assessment Review Board (ARB) has slashed the taxable value of a house because of noise from a transformer station across the street.  The transformer, which site 360 meters (about 1200 feet) from Paul Thompson’s home, produces a constant hum of about 40dB in Thompson’s home.  In 2008, the Municipal Property Assessment Corp. assessed the 1,320-square-foot house at $255,000; Thompson felt that assessment may be fair if not for the noise from the recently-installed substation, and appealed.  According to an article in the Home section of the Toronto Star, Thompson introduced evidence at the hearing showing that the transformer station noise was audible within the house with the windows closed. He described the noise as a “nightmare” and a constant nuisance that not only affects his day-to-day activity, but also impacts the sales value and marketability of his property. In reaching its decision to cut his assessment in half, board member Marques wrote, “The Board finds that the constant hum alleged by Mr. Thompson does exist and significantly reduces the current value of the subject property. The best evidence is the audio portion of the CD (Exhibit No. 1) and the testimony of both parties. “Having heard this nuisance, apparently sanctioned by the Municipality, the Board accepts Mr. Thompson’s testimony that the stigma of noise contamination has a negative impact on the value and marketability of the property, and that after learning of the hum, prospective purchasers will quickly lose interest in purchasing the property. The Board is satisfied that a very substantial reduction is warranted.”

It is especially interesting that the ARB felt that Thompson’s home value was so dramatically affected by sound of 40dB; many municipalities c0nsider this and higher levels to be acceptable.  Wind turbine noise, while varying widely with wind conditions, can be 45dB or higher at similar distances (1000-1500 feet), and remain above 35dB for up to a mile.  As Bob Aaron, a real estate lawyer and author of this article, notes: “Thompson’s successful appeal of his assessment is only the first of many similar cases that are certain to follow. The result, of course, will be a significant reduction in the tax base of municipalities like Amaranth, which play host to wind turbine farms.”  This hearing took place in September 2008, but only recently came to light.  Bob Aaron has posted the ARB decision on his website.

This recent article in the London Times is a great read for those of us interested in natural quiet and the effects of humans sounds on people.  Helen Rumbelow was sent on a seasonal assignment by her editor: find a place in the England where one might experience a “silent night.”  She travels to places recommended on the official UK Noise Map, visits researchers, and reflects on her own quest to find quiet.  It written in a light, amusing tone and well worth a read.  Among the more sober point made by those she visited:

• Deepak Prasher, Emeritus Professor of Audiology at University College London, a world expert on noise nuisance and health, reminds us that ” if noise is continuous it places great stress on the body. People think they adapt but actually all that happens is they get used to the idea of living within noise. Their body doesn’t get used to it…We need to have an awareness that noise isn’t good for us. We have acknowledged it for air pollution but noise pollution goes together with that.”
• Professor Jian Kang of Sheffield University notes that among visitors to the Sheffield Peace Garden, those with a university education found it noisier than those without, a point that is part of a larger trend: “Reducing noise gets more important as affluence increases,” says Kang. “Many years ago, noise was regarded as a sign of development and was therefore tolerated as something from which we all benefited.” In countries that are still growing apace, such as Kang’s native China, they are still as tolerant of mechanical noise as we were in the 1960s. But in the West, our sense of beneficial connection to such noise has been broken.

In early December, the Association for the Protection of Ménez, Quelec’h and Saint-Gildas won a groundbreaking court case in France, in which the Court of Appeals of Renne ordered that eight wind turbines in Cast and Châteaulin be shut down from 10pm to 7am.  The Association had sought court relief from night time noise disturbance in the area around the wind farm.  News coverage is spotty: here is a brief summary of the case, and here is a French news story, crudely translated by Google.

See more AEInews coverage of wind turbine noise issues

It’s a beautiful idea, come to fruition: in the island communities of Vinalhaven and North Haven, Maine, a local electrical co-op joined forces with a regional nonprofit organization, and built three large wind turbines which would provide the 2,000 households on the island with locally-produced power.  On a lovely fall day in November, the largest group of island residents ever gathered in one place celebrated the commissioning of the Fox Islands Wind Project.  But for some residents, the moment they had been waiting for had an unexpected element: clearly audible noise.

“As I watched the first rotation of the giant blades from our deck,” says Sally Wylie in the island newspaper, The Working Waterfront,  “My sense of wonder was replaced by disbelief and utter shock as the turbine noise revved up and up, past the sound of our babbling brook, to levels unimagined. It was not supposed to be this way! During informational meetings, on the Fox Islands Wind website, in private conversations, and with personal correspondence, we were all told that ambient noise from the surrounding area would cover the sound of the turbines. This was our expectation….We have found that the 45 decibel limit that is designated as ‘quiet’ in Maine, is truly a cruel joke. On our quiet cove, we now know that 45 decibels is loud.”

The community came together to dream and build the turbines, and now they are working together as well to address unexpected noise issues.  Starting the day after commissioning, representatives of the wind project visited neighbors, deployed microphones, trained neighbors in how to record sound and wind speed, and asked neighbors to keep diaries of their experience of the noise.  Also writing in The Working Waterfront, board members of the local electric co-op and the Fox Island Wind LLC, formed to take advantage of tax credits available for wind development, affirm  that they are “committed to monitoring the sound impacts beyond the traditional approach of measuring wind speeds and decibel levels, as we have asked neighbors to also document their subjective experiences so that we can determine any other factors they may be finding bothersome. In a wide variety of ways, the Fox Islands Wind project has been a very different, first-of-its-kind, model wind project. We are committed to dealing with the sound issue in the same open and participatory way that we have approached the project since its inception.”

Once again, the experience of people on the ground, and initial recordings and conversations with neighbors, suggests that the noise is most troublesome within a half mile of the turbines, with some lesser effects out to a mile or more. According to Fox Islands Wind, “it does not appear that, except in a few individual spots, there is much impact beyond a half mile from the site.”  Wylie’s conversations and recordings suggest to her that “households within a mile to a mile-and-a-half radius of the turbines are impacted by the sound.” The commentary here at AEInews is beginning to sound like a broken record, but here we go again: it is clear that we will need to make some social choices about the degree of disturbance we are willing to trade for the benefits of renewable wind energy.  There is little doubt that homes within a half mile of turbines often experience elevated noise levels, and beyond that distance, impacts diminish in frequency and severity.  Where will we decide to draw the line?

Fox Islands Wind Project website

The Working Waterfront, visit for ongoing coverage of the story

Island Institute community energy web info, including article on offshore wind and column in Working Waterfront on the genesis of the Fox Islands Wind project, including its economic justice/equity goals.

Download a Word doc version of this commentary

A report issued by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) purports to assess all currently available research on the health effects associated with exposure to wind farm noise, and concludes that there are no such problems.  The report, funded by North America’s two key wind industry trade organizations, centers on the symptoms of the reported “wind turbine syndrome,” and while it offers a robust critique of the idea that low frequency noise from wind farms can cause direct health impacts, it’s hard to take its message of wind’s “clean bill of health” at face value, thanks to many topics that are ignored or underplayed.  The report minimizes the levels of annoyance and impacts on quality of life reported in other studies, and completely omits any assessment of the most widely reported health-related impact of living near wind farms, sleep disruption. (For more complete assessments of health-related issues related to wind farms and noise, see recent reports from the Minnesota Department of Health report and World Health Organization.)

The authors of the new AWEA/CanWEA report acknowledge that some people may be annoyed by the sounds of wind turbines, but stress that annoyance is not an “adverse health effect.”  They also seem intent on assuring that any mention of annoyance rates is kept to 10% or below, which necessitates some creative re-interpretation of one of their key sources, a recent paper by Eja Pederson that compiled results from three surveys near wind farms in Scandinavia, summarized in October by AEI. In particular, they combine results from two studies in rural areas and one in a suburban area, which Pederson explicitly presented separately, because they illustrate that annoyance rates are far higher in rural areas (since the suburban study had more participants, the overall average is dominated by the suburban results).  In AEI’s view (as regular readers will know), the bottom line in all annoyance studies is that while many (or even most) people who are within earshot of wind turbines are not strongly affected by the noise, a substantial minority (ranging from 5-40% depending on how close they live) are negatively impacted, sometimes to the point of abandoning their homes; our challenge is to decide how many people we feel OK disrupting, and regulating wind farm siting to match that choice.

The report also repeatedly states that “the sound emitted by wind turbines is not unique,” while it elsewhere briefly acknowledges the often fluctuating nature of turbine noise (amplitude modulation) and its role

Read the rest of this entry »

A detailed statistical analysis of 5000 homes sold within ten miles of wind farms has failed to find any clear relationship between sales price and proximity to, or views of, industrial wind farms.  However, close reading of the results raises some questions about trends within a mile of turbines, and the authors recommend more detailed study of the closest homes as a top priority for future research.  Co-author Ryan Wiser affirmed that “It is possible that individual homes have been impacted, and frankly, I think it would be a bit silly to suggest otherwise. Human development impacts property values.”

As I look closely at the result, it seems likely that the apparent trend toward some property value effect largely mirrors surveys of residents near wind farms.  The “problem” in interpreting this data and the surveys is that there is NOT a universal increase in annoyance or sleeplessness or dropping property values as you move closer to turbines; rather, there is an increasing MINORITY of neighbors who are negatively impacted.  Several earlier posts address this factor: from 10% of neighbors at around a mile or so, increasing to 25% or so at a half mile, and perhaps 40% at a quarter mile, survey results reflect the well-known individual variability in susceptibility to noise.  It seems clear that the “small and infrequent” numbers of homes negatively affected in the study addressed here, are mostly concentrated near turbines, and may represent a similar percentage of landowners as report sleep disturbance and other noise impacts.  If so, the 5% average price hit is apt to represent a much larger valuation drop in a quarter or so of the homes that are within a mile.

The study, funded by the US Department of Energy at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, took into account size and other features of the homes, and looked particularly for any trends in prices resulting from views of wind turbines, having turbines in the vicinity (1-5 miles), and nuisance factors like shadow flicker and noise.  This third focus is the one of most interest to AEI, and we took a close look Read the rest of this entry »

Two Maine towns grappling with crafting wind farm ordinances are pushing the envelope on setback requirements.  In November,, voters in Dixmont, where plans were afoot to place turbines atop the 1165-foot Mount Harris, approved a 1-mile setback requirement by a large margin.  A story in the Portland Press Herald provides a good overview of the forces behind this vote, and the ripples it is causing in the wind industry.  From the Press Herald story:

Dixmont’s farming heritage is reflected in its forests and open fields, but the town has become a rural bedroom community for Bangor, Newport and Waterville. There are few local businesses; the elementary school is the largest employer. So when developers began measuring wind speeds atop Mount Harris, Hog Hill and Peaked Mountain, some residents saw the chance to lower taxes through revenue collected from renewable energy. Others, however, saw their town with no protection from industrial development. That led to a moratorium on wind projects last November, while the town crafted rules.

What followed was a deliberate process in which the Planning Board studied wind power ordinances in other states and countries, as well as Maine’s model ordinance. The town encouraged residents to make the half-hour drive to Freedom, where they could stand under the whirling blades on Beaver Ridge. Some residents even visited the wind farm at Mars Hill in Aroostook County. Several townspeople spoke to homeowners next to these projects. Among the messages they heard is that the turbines disrupted abutters’ lives. Complaints ranged from noise and visual flicker to health effects that some people blame on living near wind farms. These anecdotes seemed to have a decisive impact, said First Selectman Judy Dann. “I think people listened to the stories that these people had to tell,” she said, and helped convince a majority that wind turbines weren’t a good fit for Dixmont.

Meanwhile, the selectmen in Jackson unveiled a 56-page draft ordinance that includes several unusually far-reaching elements. Setbacks are proposed to be 13 times turbine height, which would come to just under a mile for 400-foot turbines; current industry norms are closer to 300 feet, which would create setbacks of about three-quarters of a mile (likely to avoid nearly all noise complaints, based on recent reports of problems at other wind farms, and several larger research studies of annoyance and sleep disruption around wind farms).  This would require energy companies to negotiate with all families in that large zone if they wanted to obtain waivers, which would also be allowed. The Jackson ordinance will be put to a local vote after the selectmen consider it more fully.

Meanwhile, the Friends of Lincoln Lakes filed a legal brief supporting their appeal of the August decision of the Board of Environmental Protection (BEP). At that time, the BEP affirmed the April 2009 Order of the Department of Environmental Protection, granting a license to First Wind for the construction of the Rollins Ridge Industrial Wind Farm in Lincoln and surrounding towns. The brief questions the adequacy of the noise standards as well as the modeling used to assure compliance with the noise standards. Download full brief here.

In Dufferin County, Ontario, the Orangeville Banner recently ran a very well-written and balanced three-part series on that region’s ongoing controversies over noise from wind farms.  The piece makes very clear both the extent of noise-related disruption felt by some residents (including the first official acknowledgement I’ve seen that the wind farm developer did indeed buy out at least two nearby neighbors who could not adapt to the turbines’ presence), and the larger context that is also a consistent feature of the issue: that the majority of neighbors are not having any particular troubles with the turbines and their noise. The 133-turbine Melancthon EcoPower Centre has spurred recurring noise problems for 17 households, out of 300 that the company calls “neighbors.”  It is not clear whether those bothered are concentrated closer to turbines, or how far from the wind farm households are being included in the 300 number.

Helen Fraser and her husband, Bruce, sold their long time home to Canadian Hydro Developers in 2007 (click for full story)

The first of the three articles focuses on several people who have experienced noise problems, including sleep disruption and resultant stress.  While the scientific literature does not show clear cause-and-effect, in which increasing noise or proximity of wind turbines leads predictably to health issues, the utility and the local mayor both say that the complaints received are convincing. “I think when you look at people and the chronologies they’ve put together Read the rest of this entry »

Just a quick note to say that I did the first major update to AEI’s Special Report on wind farm noise today.  I added several key new pieces that will be familiar to regular readers of this blog.  The report aims for AEI’s typical sweet spot of providing a comprehensive yet concise overview of all the key issues, presented in a balanced way, with links to source material and advocates on all sides of the issue. The report can be viewed online here, or downloaded as a 33-page pdf here.

This one just popped up, though it’s from last spring: a seemingly quite comprehensive survey of people living within a half-mile of one of the major wind farms in Wisconsin that has triggered noise concerns.  The results reinforce the emerging picture: many people are being affected, but negative impacts are not inevitable or universal.

The survey was returned by over 200 families, just under half those who live within a half-mile  or so of at least one turbine in the Blue Sky Green Field wind project, which covers 10,600 acres of farmland.  It would have been interesting to see some of these numbers broken out to see responses from those with several turbines in within a half mile, but for now, this is what we learn:

• Overall, 50% were bothered by noise; an equal number were not
• Of those within 3000 feet, 56%  (90) were bothered by noise, while 44% (72) were not; beyond 3000 feet, 3 of 10 families reported noise issues; among those who did not specify a distance, 15 were troubled, and 19 were not.
• Of 23 respondents who had leased land for turbines, 9 (39%) noted that noise was a problem for them, and 6 (26%) said they would not so, if they knew then what they know now.
• 30% reported negative effects on pets, farm animals, or wildlife; 70% saw no such effects
• 25% said their sleep was interrupted at least once a week; 75% had no sleep issues
• 33% reported various stress-related health issues, while two-thirds did not.
• 62% said the setbacks should be a half mile or more; 22% supported the current 1000 foot setback.

Once again, we are left with the murky social question: what proportion of the population is it OK to bother?  Should we move turbines further away (thus sacrificing some sites) in order to reduce impacts on the scale we see here? Or, with a healthy majority of people reporting no negative health impacts, is it fine to proceed as we have been?  I suspect that the answer to these questions is equally clear to some on each side of the issue, while many others likely struggle to find a balance that makes sense.

See this recent AEInews post summarizing three recent scientific papers on annoyance and health impacts from wind turbine noise, which lead to similarly murky conclusions.

(This item appeared recently in AEI’s ongoing lay summaries of new research page)
The take-away from three new research papers appears to be that while significant proportions of the population – often around 25% – are affected by moderate wind farm noise, neither increasing wind farm noise nor even annoyance with noise lead inevitably to health effects. There is an entire separate body of research investigating various attitudinal aspects related to stress and health, which only muddy the waters as we try to interpret these direct studies on wind farm noise. Some studies indicate that attitudes toward a noise source can affect both annoyance and stress responses, and that a subjective sense of being threatened can likewise increase physiological responses to noise; however, once again, these correlations are far from universal, so they cannot be used to “explain away” either annoyance or health impacts that do take place, any more than annoyance can be used as a clear indication of eventual health effects.

There is far more gray than black and white in these reports. Still, they provide a concrete picture of annoyance and sleep deprivation increasing as turbine noise increases, along with a better sense of the proportion of affected neighbors who will experience these impacts at various distances and received sound levels. Clearly, 35-45dB is a range at which impacts on neighbors become far more widespread. The social question that will need to addressed is what proportion of nearby neighbors we will accept causing sleep deprivation or annoyance in: 10%? 20%? Where will we draw the line, beyond which we consider turbine placement too close? Read the lay summaries below the fold: Read the rest of this entry »

A lawsuit in Ontario, an EIS in Wisconsin, and a gauntlet thrown down at an industry confab in England are the latest fronts in a global debate over the noise impacts of wind farms sited close to residences.  Most dramatic was the opening plenary at the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) annual conference, where John Prescott, a key player in crafting the Kyoto Protocols, attacked NIMBY opponents and local councils for dramatically slowing the build-out of wind farms in Britain, culminating with the rallying cry, “They’ve had it their way for far too long. So let me tell them loud and clear – it’s not your back yard any more, it’s ours.” Prescott bemoaned the fact that 75% of wind farm applications are being denied, putting the blame as much on local authorities as on vocal opponents; he called for mandates compelling localities to designate some areas as suitable for wind development as a way to break the logjam.  Local authorities shot back that federal renewable energy goals can be met in other ways, and that land protection in local areas is warranted.  Prescott’s attack was cast in class terms, suggesting “squires” were fighting to save their “chocolate box views,” though in many areas it is noise impacts, rather than changing views, that drive the opposition.  In those areas, the issue is not whether to build wind farms, but rather how much buffer to require around homes.  An EIS for the Glacier Hills Wind Park, released in Wisconsin this month, acknowledges that noise is in fact an issue for some wind farm neighbors: “The studies done to date…support the concern that some people do react negatively to wind turbine noise, primarily through annoyance and sleep disturbance.  It is widely accepted that disruption of sleep can lead to other physiological and psychological problems…Although specific sound levels or distances from turbines cannot be directly correlated with these disturbance or annoyance problems, project design and siting should take potential impactcs of turbine noise into account.”  In Ontario, a wind farm plan has been challenged in court by a resident who says that five turbines within 900m (a bit over a half mile) is too many, too close.  “As a father, as a husband, I became very concerned about the welfare of my family,” he told CBC News. “We’re very worried about the possibilities of having industrial wind turbines located so close to our home that it will be harmful.” He wants construction stopped until studies “rule out concerns” about impacts on health, an end-point that is surely not within sight, if even possible within the context of the scientific method. Dr. Robert McMurtry, former dean of medicine at the University of Western Ontario, who appeared at a media conference yesterday launching the court action, said there are now more than 100 people in Ontario who report suffering health problems due to wind turbine noise. “There’s no authoritative guidelines for the siting of wind turbines because there’s no good evidence as to when they will be safe or not,” McMurtry said, “This is not an acceptable state of affairs when we’re planning to plunge ahead on such a large scale, a tenfold increase in Ontario.”

The debate over wind farm siting is becoming exceedingly tangled, with visual, noise, and health impacts all on the table, and too often blurred by both proponents decrying NIMBYism and opponents with varying degrees of clarity about their fears and concerns.  Prescott makes a potentially valid point when he suggests that in this age of climate crisis, resistance to visual impacts should give way to the greater public good, as it has with cell phone towers and power lines.  Yet the noise impacts are real, and increasingly well-documented within a half mile to a mile—see this fascinating summary of the disconnect between  1.5-2km (a mile-plus) setback guidelines suggested by researchers and health officials responding to noise issues and the much closer setbacks (1000 feet to 550m/1800 feet) actually being implemented by local, state or provincial, and national standards. When concerns about health effects extend beyond just sleep disruption from audible noise, to include effects of inaudible, but still physiologically significant, low frequency noise, things get more nebulous and difficult to either quantify or protect against, since susceptibility to LF noise is more variable from person to person, and LF noise levels are much harder to predict in the landscape.

AEI will soon be focusing more intently on the slew of reports and studies that have come out in recent months, with a goal of organizing the mass of information into something useful for planners, citizens, and those in industry who want to work with residents more constructively.

Refining previous Community Noise Guidelines issued in 1999, and incorporating more recent research, the World Health Organization has released a comprehensive report on the health effects of night time noise, along with new (non-mandatory) guidelines for use in Europe.  Rather than a maximum of 30dB inside at night (which equals 45-50dB max inside), the WHO now recommends a maxiumum year-round outside nighttime noise average of 40db to avoid sleep disturbance and its related health effects. The report notes that only below 30dB (outside annual average) are “no significant biological effects observed,” and that between 30 and 40dB, several effects are observed, with the chronically ill and children being more susceptible; however, “even in the worst cases the effects seem modest.”  Elsewhere, the report states more definitively, “There is no sufficient evidence that the biological effects observed at the level below 40 dB (night,outside) are harmful to health.” At levels over 40dB, “Adverse health effects are observed,” and “many people have to adapt their lives to cope with the noise at night. Vulnerable groups are more severely affected.”

The 184-page report offers a comprehensive overview of research into the various effects of noise on sleep quality and health (including the health effects of non-waking sleep arousal), and is recommended reading for anyone working with noise issues.  The use of an outdoor noise standard is in part designed to acknowledge that people do like to leave windows open when sleeping, though the year-long average may be difficult to obtain (it would require longer-term sound monitoring than is usually budgeted for by either industry or neighborhood groups).

While recommending the use of the average level, the report notes that some instantaneous effect occur in relation to specific maximum noise levels, but that the health effects of these “cannot be easily established.”

In April, a set of voluntary guidelines for air tours in Denali National Park was released, meant to minimize noise intrusions on backcountry hikers.  An Aircraft Overflights Advisory Council spent a bit over a year coming up with the proposals, which included asking pilots heading for the summit of Mt. McKinley/Denali to avoid two high-altitude camps used by people climbing the mountain.

A “sound station” on the Ruth Glacier is monitoring the noise level of aircraft landing on the glacier. NPS Photo.

Likewise, Kahiltna Glacier campers have been subject to planes climbing to cross Kahiltna Pass, where pilots are encouraged to climb to altitude before approaching the pass.  According to the Denali website, these “best practices” are designed to safely reduce sound impacts in key areas, and are subject to refinement and revision as operational experience is gained.  The Park Service is monitoring the effectiveness of the measures; Charlie Sassara, who is a member of the Council, says that “we will now try to look at additional mitigation measures to enact in 2010.”

The Pittsburgh Police used a new acoustic deterrent device as part of its actions against protesters during last week’s G-20 meeting.  The  Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD), which emits a high-frequency sound similar to a smoke detector, is designed to disperse crowds using sound at or near the human pain threshold. Termed a “non-lethal weapon,” it was originally intended for use by ships trying to deter attack, and has also reportedly been used against crowds in various Middle Eastern conflicts in recent years.  With a source Sound Pressure Level of 146dB, its sound is above the threshold for pain (130dB) out to about 20 feet; at 50 feet (120 dB), it can cause some permanent hearing damage in 30 seconds.  At distances out to about 100 yards, it is louder than 106dB, which  can cause hearing damage in about 4 minutes. The video that follows after the break focuses more on the truck than on the responses of the crowd; some people have their fingers in their ears, but no one seems incapacitated at all, indicating that sound levels were loud but likely not generally painful. Read the rest of this entry »

After eight years of struggling to bring conflicting interest groups together to support a consensus alternative for managing air tours at Grand Canyon National Park, an FAA-organized Grand Canyon Working Group has adjourned indefinitely.  The Working Group included NPS, FAA, tribal, environmental, and aviation industry representatives. At the Working Group’s last meeting, in late June, the GCWG disagreed on NPS alternatives, including a seasonal shift in air-tour corridors by alternatively closing the Zuni and Dragon corridors, which are now open concurrently.  According to a recent article in Aviation International News,  “The FAA does not have a role at this point,” said Lucy Moore, the GCWG mediation facilitator, adding “When the NPS presents one preferred alternative, the FAA will then review it for safety issues.”  In recent years, the NPS has clarified its goals to meet congressional mandates to “substantially restore” natural quiet in the canyon; they are aiming to have half the canyon be free of air tour noise 75% of the time, though high-altitude jet flight will not be regulated.  The Park Service is aiming to release a draft EIS in 2010; see their overflights web page for more details.  At the June Working Group meeting, participants noted that the Park Service seemed more engaged and prepared to push for protecting natural quiet than during the previous administration; however, it is unlikely that the NPS plan will have as dramatic an effect on reducing air tour noise in the canyon as did an August visit by the First Family, when dozens of air tours were grounded for much of the day during a peak visitation period.

Well-known cartoonist Lynda Barry lives in rural Wisconsin, and while her home is not in the midst of a wind farm, she has become a leader of local resistance, with a focus on the noise that keeps people awake, and strange physcial sensations, including one that she herself experiences when near operating turbines. “You know how sometimes, around your eye, you’ll get this little tic that kind of wiggles?” says Barry. “It was like having that in your ear and your chest. A pulsing. It’s the weirdest feeling!”  She experienced this while visiting a home 1100 feet from the nearest turbine, one of many homes she’s visited and spent the night in as she has worked to understand what some wind farm neighbors are living with.  Her work is highlighted in a recent feature article in Isthmus, a Madison weekly, which is illustrated with a classic-style Barry cartoon in which each panel highlights a different neighbor’s story.

Following up on concerns expressed by locals near the Mars Hill wind farm, and preliminary studies done by a local doctor, the Maine Medical Association overwhelmingly approved a formal resolution that stresses “a need for modification of the State’s regulatory process for siting wind energy developments,” in order to reduce controversy and incorporate the latest evidence-based research results. The statement urges the Department of Environmental Protection and Land Use Regulation Commission to refine their procedures to reflect potential health effects, and to concertedly explore these effects, and calls on the MMA and doctors to work with regulatory agencies to provide what scientific information is available (scroll down at link above to read the final resolution wording). Two weeks earlier, the MMA’s Public Health Committee had rejected the proposed resolution, which many members felt was worded more strongly than current evidence would support; the resolution was slightly re-worked, and met with approval at the MMA’s annual session.  One of the resolution’s sponsors, Dr. Michael Nissenbaum, MD, is in the midst of completing a study of the residents both near the Mars Hill wind farm, and those further away, in an attempt to assess any significant differences.  The first part of his study (centered on interviews with wind farm neighbors) is available now, with the second part (similar interviews with residents out of earshot) still underway. A two-part radio interview with Nissembaum is available here.  A two-part local news feature on the Mars Hill controversy is available here.

A feature article in the fall issue of The Nature Conservancy’s magazine takes a close look at the rapid expansion of the wind industry in America’s prairie heartland.  The rolling hills of Kansas are a prime wind energy corridor, and TNC is concerned that the remnants of tallgrass prairie habitats could be irrevocably harmed if new wind farm development is not done carefully.  Rob Manes, TNC’s Director of Conservation for Kansas, sits on the Fish and Wildlife Service advisory committee that is developing wind farm siting guidelines, where he has proposed that key habitat be identified in advance, so that wind companies can plan around it.  Such landscape-scale analysis is already being done by some wind companies, and Manes urged the committee to recommend that the practice become standard procedure.  Manes imagines an ever-expanding regional database that would not only would provide maps of important environmental data, such as critical habitat for endangered species, but also would designate wind-friendly areas where turbines and wildlife are less likely to be in conflict.  (This idea is closely related to Marine Spatial Planning, as addressed in this recent AEInews post.)

From the TNC article: Manes is certain that a national set of detailed maps overlapping wind and wildlife resources is crucial to “doing wind power right.” That is because the Conservancy and its partners have already implemented a system of maps in Kansas. And local developers have responded enthusiastically. Horizon Wind Energy even worked with the Conservancy and the Ranchland Trust of Kansas to set aside protected lands to offset the footprint of one of its wind-farm developments.  “Our contacts in the wind industry said, Show us where we can develop our projects — so we did,” Manes says. The map shows the state’s native prairies, prairie chicken habitat, wildlife refuges and nature preserves, as well as where the best wind resources are. Now, when a wind developer wants to build in Kansas, the company knows which sites are likely to raise the ire of conservationists — and which areas aren’t.

The Conservancy has created similar maps in a handful of other states, including Colorado, Montana and Oklahoma. And in mid-2009, the Conservancy was awarded a contract to create a wind and wildlife resource map for the entire country. The map initiative is funded by the American Wind and Wildlife Institute, a coalition of wind-industry and conservation organizations with the aim of reducing conflicts between wind development and wildlife.

UPDATE: In the UK, the Royal Society for the Preservation of Birds, along with Scottish Natural Heritage, has initiated a similar project, centered on the production of a Bird Sensitivity Map for use in planning wind farms in Scotland. See this link for more information on the program, and click here to download the BSPB Bird Sensitivity Map Report.  Scottish Heritage previously released “Strategic Locational Guidance” for onshore wind farms.