The State Journal, a West Virginia business magazine, recently published a comprehensive article updating the situation at the Pinnacle Wind Farm in Keyser, WV, where more than two dozen families continue to struggle with noise from 23 turbines atop a steep ridge line (see earlier AEI coverage).  

At the beginning of June, the state PSC dismissed a complaint by neighbor Richard Braithwaite, which asked for turbines to be shut down at night, saying that because no sound conditions were placed on the site certificate issued by the PSC, it has no jurisdiction to consider such complaints.  Spot measurements taken at Braithwaite’s home measured 45dB, well below the 56dB state noise limit; Braithwaite has regularly measured higher sound levels both inside and out, and a PSC staffer who visited agreed that the noise was “very prominent” at times.  In dismissing the complaint, the PSC noted that while it would not step into the situation, the neighbors could seek recourse through a nuisance claim in civil court; the neighbors are considering such a step.

This week, Gary Braithwaite (Richard’s brother) filed a new complaint, asking for a full shut down of the project.  It’s unclear how this complaint may differ procedurally from the earlier one in ways that could change the PSC’s lack of jurisdiction.  Meanwhile, the article also updates the progress that Edison Mission Group, the wind farm developer, is making on their plans to install sound-reduction louvres on the turbines, which is expected to reduce routine sound levels by about 7db; it’s unclear whether this will reduce noise issues, since for many neighbors, it seems to be blade noise that is most problematic. UPDATE, 7/7/12: The PSC has dismissed Gary Braithwaite’s complaint, noting its similarities to his brother’s complaint.

For those following this and similar community noise response situations, the full article is well worth a read.

The Anchorage Daily News ran a  great, detailed piece on the expansion of offshore oil and gas development in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas north and west of Alaska.  It’s well worth reading in full.  The nut of the story is that Shell Oil, which has conducted seismic surveys in the northerns seas for the past few years, is gearing up to drill their first new exploratory well in over a decade.  If they find the oil they expect to, further seismic exploration and drilling is likely to follow in these remote waters, home to many species of whales.  Bowhead whales are especially sensitive to noise, especially cow-calf pairs, and have been found to give seismic surveys a wide berth.

Oil companies have been doing extensive research into the seasonal distributions of whales (especially belugas and bowheads), and have agreed to suspend operations in late August to accommodate the Alaskan natives traditional bowhead hunting season.  Meanwhile, Chris Clark, the Bioacoustics Research Program director at Cornell says, “There are unanswered science questions.  It’s not clear what happens if a whale hears 1,000 of the explosions from air guns, or where it will go if an area is saturated with the sound. In addition, scientists are only beginning to study the effects of the sound on fish and other animals that make up the whole ecosystem.”

Go read the whole article!

I just came across a fascinating piece on Oregon Public Radio’s EarthFix site, in which author Ashley Ahearn, a rider herself, discussed motorcycle noise in National Parks with Karen Trevino of the NPS Natural Sounds and Night Skies Division.  

Trevino notes that most of the excessive noise on roads comes from bikes with aftermarket exhaust parts, while the vast majority of motorcycles pose no special noise problems.  Ahearn’s bike “sounds like a Singer sewing machine,” according to one of the enhance Harley owners that the author talked to outside a biker bar near Mount Rainier National Park.  That may be what Trevino and her NPS cohorts wish all bikes sounded like, but that’s not the case.  In the video below, the NPS charted the sound footprint of a single motorcycle traveling along the Going to the Sun Road in Glacier National Park; the Park Service has found that bikes can be heard up to 18 miles away in some situations.

MotorcycleNoiseVid from EarthFix on Vimeo.

Trevino says that while the NPS is gathering data, there are no plans to impose restrictions on motorcycles in National Parks.  Rather, the NPS is partnering with motorcycle associations to ask riders to stay in smaller groups, not accelerate excessively and respect parks’ quiet hours.

This is the most substantial report I’ve yet seen suggesting that an animal is directly affected by some aspect living near a wind turbine.   In this case, the wind farm company requested that a vet examine the dog after the owner contacted them about a dramatic behavior change in one of his working sheep dogs after nights in which the wind blew from the turbine direction.  Like many human reports, the effect occurs only in particular wind conditions; I wonder whether it’s similar to some wind farm neighbors who experience ear pressure and popping when downwind from turbines, perhaps due to air pressure differentials in the turbine wake, or due to a particularly strong physiological reaction to low frequency noise.  Many other reports of effects on farm animals have been more general, making it hard to preclude other possible causes.  Of course, as in humans, such dramatic effects appear to be relatively rare, but worthy of noticing. 

The report was originally published in the Hamilton Spectator on June 24, but doesn’t seem to be available on their website any longer.  The bulk of the article is reprinted below:

Veterinarian Dr Scott Shrive, from Hamilton Vetcare, said he examined a Kelpie working dog from a client that was quite concerned about the behaviour of the dog. “It is usually very active, alert and an excellent working dog, and it has become very withdrawn and this is more evident when wind is coming from the same direction that the wind turbines are in,” he said.

“The dog is reluctant to come out of its kennel when the wind is coming from that direction – it won’t work, they can’t get it to work, it won’t even jump up on the vehicle, but on days when there is no wind, so when the turbines aren’t working, it goes back to normal, it comes out of its kennel it is happy to work all day like it normally does.”

Read the rest of this entry »

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has issued an expedited ruling that affirms a 2011 Minnesota PUC decision to issue a permit for the Goodhue wind farm using smaller setbacks than the county requires.  While the county requires a 10-rotor diameter setback from non-participating neighbors (about 2700 feet, or just over a half mile), the PUC let the project move ahead with setbacks of about 1600 feet.  The Court ruled that the PUC can supersede county rules when it has “good cause.”  The court documents say the 10-RD setback “would essentially prevent all wind energy projects in Goodhue County,” which was apparently the core good cause for overruling the county ordinance.  (Ed. note: I’m not sure whether the county standard allowed for easements to build closer to willing neighbors; such easements offer a way to allow projects to proceed while minimizing noise impacts on neighbors who especially value rural quiet.)

Strangely, the Court said that it had seen the 10 rotor diameter rule as a “zero-exposure standard;” in fact, a half mile would not avoid audibility or ocassionaly intrusive noise , especially at night, though it would reduce the number of homes experiencing relatively louder sound exposures.  There are roughly 200 homes within the 1600 to 2700 foot zone.  Many of the more substantial negative impacts reported by wind farm neighbors occur in this range.

While National Wind, developer of the 78-megawatt project, aims to begin construction within weeks, in hopes of being operational by the end of the year in order to qualify for expiring production tax credits, hurdles remain.  The PUC rejected the company’s eagle monitoring and protections plan in February, and the developers have been planning to obtain an optional take permit from the US Fish and Wildlife Service to protect themselves in the event of that a bald eagle may be killed.  A bird and bat protection plan is also still pending, and National Wind had earlier said that legal uncertainties had affected their ability to attract investors.  In addition, the Coalition for Sensible Siting, which lodged the appeal ruled on here, may well choose to continue their challenge to the State Supreme Court; they have 60 days in which to lodge that final appeal.

Update, 8/6/12: CSS has decided not to appeal. This article also suggests that due to outstanding wildlife permits, as well as legal action by some land owners who are trying to void their leases, project developers have stopped pushing to build this year, and are awaiting resolution of these issues, as well as the possibility of a one-year extension to the production tax credits.

Local coverage of the latest developments:
Minnesota Public Radio
Rochester Post Bulletin
Pioneer Press

Earlier AEI coverage of PUC deliberations and initial appeals is here. 

The Petiitions Committee of the Welsh Assembly, which includes members from four diverse political parties, has issued a report on its investigation of wind farm noise in Welsh communities.  The report is short but concisely comprehensive in considering input from residents with noise complaints, advocates of wind energy, and wind developers.  The committee suggests that in deeply rural areas, it may be necessary to “increase the (standard 500 metre) separation distance as appropriate, and in specified circumstances up to 1500 metres, according to environmental factors such as the topography and the ambient noise levels of the area.”  Sleep disruption was a major factor in complaints, and in the Committee’s recommendations, which quoted a recent editorial in the British Journal of Medicine, written by sleep expert Christopher Hanning.  After hearing reports of faulty turbines making grinding noises for weeks before being repaired, the Committee also recommended immediate shut down of those turbines, at least at night, until repairs can be made.

For a welcome change of pace from stories about contentious acoustic ecology issues, check out this column from Australia about a group of people who were treated to two sessions of whale song while floating near their inflatable raft. Here’s a teaser:

“This time the singer was right before my eyes, and the singing was so powerful you could actually feel it in the water. As I drifted on the surface, the sound vibrated through my body. It was an amazing experience.”

UPDATE, 5/31/12: The article in The Australian that spurred this post has triggered a quick back-and-forth in the couple days since it was published.  First,  this article implied it was nothing more than a renegade staffer speaking without understanding the issue, quoting a Queensland Health spokesman as saying the Department has not issued any new guidance on wind farms, and insisting that a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) short “rapid review” statement remains the relevant document.  But this was quickly followed by a very clear statement from the Chairman of the NHMRC team currently doing a more in-depth study of the issue of health issues near wind farms; the Chair, Bruce Armstrong, affirmed that it’s “entirely appropriate to adopt the precautionary principle where it is neither possible to say with any certainty there is a problem nor is it possible to exclude with any certainty the existence of a problem.” And, a further statement from Queensland Health also endorsed the letter, saying “Our letter to the Tablelands Council was to advise council of the NHMRC guidelines and the fact that these guidelines are being reviewed by NHMRC.”

The author of the original letter, David Sellars, is a Director in the Environmental Health Branch, which deals with “health risk assessments of environmental hazards,”  and currently directs the Tropical Regional Services office, which focuses on health of populations, rather than individuals.  So, it appears the Mr. Sellars was not operating outside his area of responsibility.  It remains unclear whether, as stated in the “Climate Spectator” column that ran the initial “retraction” of the statement, Mr. Sellars well-versed in the state of research on the issue.  The second Departmental statement certainly confirms it’s more than his personal opinion. 

So, with all that in mind, here’s the bit that triggered such a quick and chaotic response:

Queensland Health has become the first government health agency to recommend a “cautionary” approach to wind farm siting, urging the Tablelands Regional Council to maintain a 2km (1.25 mi) buffer between new wind turbines and residences.  Tablelands is considering an application for an 80-turbine wind farm, nine of which are within 2km of homes.

Despite the fact that the proposed Mount Emerald wind farm would meet existing noise criteria, Queensland Health noted that “Research into the potential health effects of wind turbines is ongoing and is being undertaken on an international scale.”  A 2km setback would likely nearly eliminate health effects triggered by sleep disruption and greatly reduce stress-related health effects that have been increasingly reported by some residents living near wind farms.  Many wind farm neighbors also note physical sensations that they attribute to infrasound and low frequency noise, which would be also be reduced at 2km.

Queensland Health’s director of environmental health, David Sellars, said the National Health and Medical Research Council was reviewing its position on the possible health effects of wind turbines and was aiming to release a public statement by the end of the year. “Queensland Health would be likely to be guided by the NHMRC statement, resulting from this research,” he said. “Until such time, Tablelands Regional Council is encouraged to take a precautionary approach to development applications of this type.”

Mr Sellars noted that the Victorian governments recently adopted planning guidelines, which ban wind turbines within 2km of homes, could be considered current best practice from a cautionary perspective. New South Wales is currently considering similar draft guidelines, and in South Australia, noise levels are limited to 35dB in areas “primarily intended for rural living,” which in effect creates nearly as much setback from homes.

Further update, 5/31/12: The Mayor of Tablelands has said that it’s likely the local council will await the publication of the new, more comprehensive report from the NHMRC before making a decision on local wind farm siting standards. “I think councillors would be very interested to see the outcomes of that before they vote on anything,” said Mayor Rosa Lee Long.

Meanwhile, Ratch Australia, the developers behind the Mt Emerald wind farm proposal, insist there is no rationale for the 2km set-backs enforced elsewhere in the country.  “Every site is unique and there is no scientific consideration that justifies the set-back,” the company said in a written statement.

(Ed. note: There is no scientific justification for any common setback standards that govern exactly how far from homes wind turbines can be placed; if it was only about pure science, noise limits would be based on levels that cause physical injury, such as those used in workplace safety laws.  Rather, wind farm siting standards are based on local tolerance for noise nuisances, which can never be scientifically determined (though of course we can, over time, get a sense from experience elsewhere to help inform new decisions).  2km standards are generally based on the idea that turbines will only rarely be heard beyond that distance at levels that cause strong annoyance or sleep disruption; the same could be said for other possible distances, since of course topography and atmospheric conditions lead to differences in sound propagation.  A reasonable case could be made for any distance from 500m to 3km, depending on how far an ordinance is trying to go toward minimizing the sound level of turbines at homes.  2km is aiming to avoid sound levels loud enough to be intrusive to the more sensitive among local residents, while in most locations, it will not mean turbines are always inaudible.)

The Record Hill Wind Farm has made the first of planned ongoing quarterly payments to all year-round and seasonal property owners in Roxbury, Maine.  The checks, for $111.57, reflect the average cost of the power used by residents in town over the course of three months.  While wind farms cannot directly supply local electricity (their power is sent into the grid, and often sold in bulk to utilities or other purchasers of electricity), this innovative program aims to give local citizens a direct benefit to compensate for wind farm’s intrusion in the local landscape.

While Roxbury’s 400 landowners seem enthusiastic about the payments, some landowners in nearby towns who can hear the turbines are left out in the cold, including those on Roxbury Pond covered earlier here.

Two town meeting votes, along with a short-lived wind turbine plan adopted by the local board of selectmen, kept things blustery in meeting rooms as well as in the springtime air of Falmouth this month.  A large number of people living within a half mile to mile of the two town-owned turbines have been struggling with noise issues, and the town has tried a few different approaches designed to reduce the problems, including shutting down the turbines in high winds.

Just before this year’s town meeting, the board of selectmen adopted yet another curtailment plan that they hoped would make things more livable while they tried to find some sort of consensus moving forward.  The plan would have shut down one turbine anytime the wind topped 10 m/s, and would have increased the cut-in speed of the other between midnight and 3am, from 3.5m/s to 8m/s (this to address the fact that in the still of night, wind noise from the blades can be troublesome even at low speeds).  These curtailments would be in place until May 15, after which both turbines would be shut down all night (1opm to 6am) until the end of June.  Apparently the hope was that a new long-term plan might be in place by then; the Consensus Building Institute of Cambridge is nearing completion of an information-gathering process that included 53 local stakeholders (see their draft report here).

However, two articles were up for a vote at the annual town meeting which stretched across several nights later that week.  The first called for both turbines to be shut down until November, and it passed 100-75.  A few minutes later, a supposedly competing article calling for the selectmen to continue their efforts to build consensus toward finding a solution on what to do with the machines passed by a vote of 93-74, leading the town meeting moderator and at least one selectman to wonder how to reconcile the two.  Without seeing the text, I can’t say for sure, but it doesn’t seem on the surface that the two initiatives are contrary; the work toward a long-term consensus can continue whether the turbines are operating in the meantime or not. Certainly, the process recommended by the Consensus Building Institute is likely to take much longer than from now until the end of June (in short, they recommend that a local committee sketch out a variety of options, without recommending any one; the goal would be to provide selectmen with “a clear, comprehensive, and inclusive analysis of the range of options, their costs and benefits, and their impacts.”

This article in the Falmouth Enterprise offers a detailed blow-by-blow account of some of the more contentious aspects of the recent town meeting debate.

Two recent articles have shed interesting light on the ongoing controversy in Keyser, WV, home of the Pinnacle Wind Farm, where many neighbors have been complaining about noise since the turbines began operating late last year. The first clarifies that most or all nearby residents signed agreements with the wind company, including the residence where the noise was expected to be the loudest, 56 dB.

This article notes that the regulations use a full 24-hour average, or day-night level (Ldn), which helps to explain why some residents’ reports of measuring higher levels can coincide with the company affirming that it is operating within its prescribed limits.  It would be likely that peak  sound levels could be well above the average, which is lowered by times when the turbines are turning slowly or not at all.

Much of problem here appears to be that residents, including those who signed agreements, did not appreciate just how loud 55 dB would seem, nor understand that the average may lead to peak sound  levels above that limit. As covered earlier by AEInews, some residents say they were led to believe they would rarely, if ever, hear the turbines.  It appears likely that company representatives assumed wind noise would down out the turbine sounds.

The second article addresses the addition of  noise reducing mufflers to the turbines there, which is expected to reduce some troublesome high pitched sounds from the turbine’s fans, though neighbors say that lower-frequency blade sounds are also bothersome. Charley Parnell, vice president of Public Affairs for Edison Mission Group, owners of the wind farm, said, “We believe Pinnacle is operating in a manner that meets the requirements of our permits, but taking additional steps to mitigate noise is an important part of our commitment to be a responsible corporate citizen of the communities in which we operate.  We look forward to many years of providing clean energy generated by Pinnacle, and we intend to work in good faith to address local concerns.”

In order to compensate for the abandonment of many nuclear plants, the Japanese government has set its sights on the abundant wind resources off its coast.  A 15MW pilot floating wind turbine project is under construction not far from Fukushima; if all goes well, the project could expand to as large as 1000MW.  Along with smaller pilot projects in Norway and Maine, the Japanese effort will be a key player in moving floating offshore wind forward.

Currently, capital expenditure is about $1.7 million a megawatt for an onshore wind project and $5.5 million a megawatt for offshore, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance; floating offshore designs are still under development, raising initial costs even higher.  Over time, though, the cost is expected to come down enough to support widespread deep water floating wind farms; a feed-in tariff program promoting clean energy allows projects to receive higher-than-market rates as the sector develops.  Floating turbine designs are larger than onshore turbines, and can take advantage of stronger, steadier winds; foundation systems for floating turbines are much smaller than bottom-mounted near-shore foundations, minimizing impacts on the seabed and reducing the noise impact of construction.

The US Bureau of Ocean Energy and Management (BOEM) has released the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement that is the first step toward oil and gas development off the east coast.  The PEIS assesses the impacts of geological and geophysical (G&G) activities, primarily seismic surveys and test wells.

I’ve yet to dig into the PEIS to examine its alternatives or proposed mitigation measures, but a quick look at maps illustrating applications already received from oil and gas exploration companies affirms that the entire east coast could become an active seismic survey zone (the map at left is one of nine applications; there is much overlap among them).

UPDATE, 3/30/12: While those maps look impressive, both the International Association of Geophysical Contractors and the American Petroleum Institute have issued statements that surveys are unlikely to take place until the path opens for actual leases to be issued; the decision was already made to not issue any Atlantic leases during the current 2012-2017 planning period.  The applications for surveys currently on file were submitted during a period in 2008 when a long-standing Presidential order excluding oil and gas development on the Atlantic coast was lifted. “Without an Atlantic coast lease sale in their five-year plan, theadministration’s wishful thinking on seismic research has no ultimate purpose,” said Erik Milito, upstream director at API. Chip Gill, IAGC President, stressed that “contrary to the statements [by US Interior Sec. Ken Salazar and BOEM Director Tommy P. Beaudreau], we do not expect seismic surveys to be conducted for years, and thus we don’t expect it to be available to help the federal government evaluate the resource base anytime soon.”

(and now back to our original post):
While very few animals are killed or injured by air gun sounds, behavior can be affected for tens of miles, and airgun sound can be heard (and so drown out some distant communication) for hundreds of miles.  I just returned from a BOEM workshop on the effects of ocean noise on fishes and invertebrates, where scientists shared research on reduced fish catch rates near surveys (the fish move away for a few days or weeks, then gradually return), and attempted to come up with a shared understanding of how to investigate whether ocean noise can affect fish communication, larval or egg development, or other aspects of ocean ecology (so far, there is little direct evidence of impacts, but some concern remains about masking of sounds fish use for many purposes, and the possible negative stress impacts of chronic noise exposure).

From looking at the maps of existing applications to do surveys (download pdf of rough maps of all 9 applications), it’s immediately apparent that BOEM could work to minimize duplicating of efforts by several companies.  It may be that there will be areas that are clearly inappropriate for oil and gas development (eg, key fishing grounds or other biologically important areas), or seasonal exclusions to reduce impacts on spawning or migration.

Of course, there’s also the bigger-picture climate change question of whether we really want to be continuing to pull more oil and gas from the ocean in the years after 2020 anyway; any new leases will be issued after 2017, with development following years later.  Meanwhile, BOEM is working hard to lay the groundwork for renewable energy development in offshore waters, targeting areas for wind, tidal, and wave energy systems.  For now, continuing to plan for oil and gas development is part of the Obama administration’s “all of the above” approach to meeting America’s future energy needs.

For more on the Draft PEIS, see BOEM’s PEIS website, which includes links to download the documents and submit comments, this press release from the Department of the Interior, and this blog post from NRDC (which stresses that quieter alternative technologies for oil and gas exploration are expected to be commercially available in 3-5 years).

My dance card is filling up for the spring!  AEI’s years of working hard to play a constructive role in public and professional dialogue about policy responses to noise-related environmental issues has been rewarded with two invitations that I’m very excited about.

The first was an invite to server on the Wind subcommittee of the program committee for this year’s Renewable Energy World North America conference.  The big event takes place in December, but this week the program committee began its work with a conference call, and during April we’ll be assessing presentation proposals and coming together to meet for two days in Orlando.  I’m honored and pleased that the good folks at Renewable Energy World, the premier trade magazine for all renewables, thought that my input would be valuable.

I’ve also been invited to participate in a small, invitation-only symposium being convened by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy and Management) to gather feedback on NOAA’s recent efforts to engage in ocean sound and cetacean distribution mapping, and to discuss ideas about how to use and develop these new tools to inform future ocean management decisions.  As a long-time advocate of more concerted mapping of current human sound in the oceans, I’m especially excited to participate in this event. We’ll gather in DC for two days in late May.  I got the good news on this invitation earlier this week while attending a BOEM workshop on the effects of noise on fish and invertebrates; I hope to post a brief summary of the proceedings later this week.

Neighbors of the Alltwalis Wind Farm farm near Carmarthen, Wales, met with the Welsh Government Petitions Committee as the next step in their quest to regain a measure of night-time quiet.  Several residents spoke of their difficulty in sleeping, and having to obtain prescriptions for sleeping pills. As one resident stressed, “We should not be expected to take drugs to get a decent night’s sleep.”  The residents who were quoted in this local press article live 800-900m (a bit over a half mile) from turbines.

About a thousand people have signed a petition asking for turbines within 2km (1.25 mi) of communities to be shut down from 10pm to 6am, and those 1.5km (4900 ft) from individual homes to be shut down after 6pm.  The current wind farm consists of ten turbines, two of which the company has reportedly shut down in response to the noise complaints; several more developments in the planning process could add as many as 80 more turbines to the region in the coming years.

Statkraft, which runs the wind farm, issued a statement affirming that sound reading taken in the community affirm that “the wind farm continues to legally operate within the conditions laid down by the local authority when planning consent was granted,” and that it has worked closely with neighbors, the local council, and the wind turbine supplier to address noise issues, including replacing a gearbox.  Statkraft said it would be providing information to the Petitions Committee in response to complaints made at the recent meeting.

This appears to be another example of a common occurrence: a wind farm operating within the noise limits set by local authorities, yet still disturbing a significant proportion of the nearby population; in this case, enough people to spur a thousand to sign a petition asking for night time shut downs (we can probably presume that not all of them are personally being bothered, with many signing in empathy for those who are).

Researchers from the University of Waterloo are planning to begin canvassing several Ontario counties this spring, marking the beginning of a multi-year effort to assess health-related changes in the vicinity of wind farms.  The research program in Renewable Energy Technologies and Health will include a wide array of scientific, technological, and health-related topics surrounding wind, solar, hydro, and bio-energy. The health-related surveys will be overseen by epidemiologist Philip Bigelow, who has spearheaded similar projects assessing appropriate noise thresholds for other common community noise sources.

“This one is actually a little different,” says Bigelow, “because you have this continuous noise and you have the wind changing, of course, but you have this continuous thumping and swishing, and that’s really irritating to people.”  Bigelow notes that, “when you average it all out, wind turbines are going to be worse than traffic noise for annoyance, and that’s already been well established because of the character of it.”

To balance the study, a group of people who don’t live anywhere near turbines will be included. Bigelow said the team ideally hopes to study people in areas where turbines are planned, then follow up with them after the turbines are up and running. “Those people we really want to follow up with.”

The study will assess low frequency and audible noises as well as vibration; field measurements of turbine noise will take place, with an extensive GPS mapping component, as well. After an initial round of surveys, Phase Two of the research will involve bringing in a registered nurse and physician to head a field study.  “They will actually go talk to residents and administer a symptom and physical impact checklist,” said Bigelow.  “They will then do an assessment and collect some biological materials like saliva to look for biological stress,” including sleep studies that will measure both awakening and non-waking arousals.  Phase Two will involve a smaller sampling of residents identified during the Phase One surveys.

The eventual value of this study will depend on how successful researchers are at achieving a representative sample of local residents.  This will require both researchers and citizens to come at it with as open a mind as possible.  Bigelow’s introductory comments to local newspapers, as quoted above (see the two links in the first sentence for much more), indicate an good understanding of the situation, including the roles of annoyance, stress, and sleep disruption; one comment mentioned in passing needs clarification, though.  The Owen Sun-Times noted that he said he wanted to find participants who don’t have an agenda; while I can understand this concern, due to the extreme polarization triggered by the issue across rural Ontario, I would hope and expect that the study would involve a truly random sample, and not exclude people who are upset because of symptoms that may have cropped up for them.  Equally troubling, at least one other health survey in Ontario was met with widespread distrust among those with health concerns, leading some to urge residents to not participate.  If either the researchers or anti-wind activists limit participation by the significant proportion of the population that has previously been engaged in this issue, the integrity of the survey’s results would likely be affected.

As regular reader will know, I tend to have a lot of empathy for quality of life and sense of place concerns raised in rural communities considering wind farm development, especially as related to even moderate levels of new audible noise in tranquil rural landscapes.  But I was quite shocked to read today that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ambitious energy plans are also causing pushback on these same merits.

The prospect of (tiny) 55-foot turbines on rooftops of buildings ten stories or taller caused one local preservationist to pipe up, “What about the noise?” and “That’s such a visual blight.”

Even the prospect of facades bulging with extra inches of insulation and shade awnings to reduce air conditioning use spurred gnashing of teeth. “It’s going to open a Pandora’s box,” said one resident.   As for rooftop greenhouses, some fear these structures could be used not just for local food production but perhaps as party spaces or other uses.  Imagine: partying in New York City!

Perhaps as a decidedly rural denizen who often feels city folks just don’t get why moderate noise could be an issue in the country, I’m equally insensitive to the subtle aesthetic pleasures of urban life…..but, I gotta say, yeah, I just don’t get it!

Read more at DNAinfo Manhattan Local News

A 75-turbine wind farm that would span parts of three Michigan counties will be 9 turbines smaller, after Merritt Township Planning Commission voted to not issue permits to allow construction of turbines.  The Merritt commission did grant permission for a substation and underground cables that are part of the wind farm’s infrastructure, but decided against allowing nine 466-foot turbines.  Commissioners visited wind turbines in three nearby townships, and apparently based their decision primarily on concern for rural quality of life in their township. “They studied it thoroughy,” said John McQuillan, Merritt Township attorney. “That’s why the Planning Commission is appointed to make this decision.”

Merritt adopted an ordinance in 2010 requiring a quarter-mile setback from homes and roadways; a local community group had been pushing for an increase to a half-mile. NextEra, the wind farm developer, had removed nine turbines from their plan, and moved nine others to meet the quarter-mile standard.  “It’s astonishing,” said a NextEra spokesperson. “We showed them how we had adhered to all of the regulations of their ordinance, and they completely disregarded the rules that they had set in place.”

At the Planning Commission meeting, a petition was presented containing 453 signatures from local residents opposing construction in their township. While health and property value concerns were raised, at the meeting Annette DuRussel stressed simpler quality of life issues, stressing that “Merritt Township residents have the right to a good night’s sleep, a scenic view that is currently unobstructed – the list goes on and on.”

“The community is divided and the issue is getting hotter as the date to make a decision gets closer,” said Dave Schabel, Merritt Township supervisor, before the meeting. “It’s very controversial and has torn families apart, turned brother against brother….It’s hard for them,” Schabel said, referring to the Planning Commission. “They’re just average people in a pretty hot spot, and they are trying to get as much information as possible to make an informed decision — hopefully we can put the community back together.”

Dee VanDenBoom, Merritt Township resident, had been looking forward to seeing a turbine on his neighbors property, and felt that those opposing it were only “thinking of their own comfort;” he was disappointed with the decision but is hoping the community can move forward.”We’re peacemakers,” VanDenBoom said. “I hope that people can come together as friends and neighbors again.”

The comment of another local supporter, who will be hosting turbines near his home in a neighboring township, points to one of the factors in the Merritt commission’s decision: so many people living in the vicinity of the wind farm. “Merritt is different than Gilford because there are more houses in the area, but still, I’m disappointed.”

Good local coverage:
Prior to the meeting here; initial article after the meeting here; and followup to the decision here.

Related: Another northern Michigan town, Lake Township, voted down a proposed wind farm ordinance on primary day, February 28; the ordinance included setbacks of 1500 feet and sound limits of 45dB, both fairly typical of many US siting standards.

Local news coverage of a recent meeting about the troublesome Pinnacle Wind Farm in West Virginia reveals some interesting exchanges between residents and Brad Christopher, site manager for the 23-turbine array, which is being run by Edison MIssion Group (EMG).

In particular, Christopher stressed that two other wind farms run by EMG, using the same model of turbines, have had no noise issues, but that these, in Oklahoma and Texas, are not built on mountain ridges.  Christopher stressed, “I don’t like it (the noise) any more than you do.”

EMG is planning to install mufflers on the turbine cooling fans, but the noise many neighbors are describing may not be related to the fans.  One neighbor, Richard Braithwaite, mentioned “a hammering sound, like thunder, when the wind is out of the west;” Christopher said that may well be blade noise, and “there is not too much to do about that.”

Another said that before construction began, an representative of the developer had “stood in my yard and guaranteed to me that there would be no noise.”

It appears that EMG and the wind farm developer, US Wind Force, may have been assuming that noise levels would closely mimic those of its wind farms in Texas and Oklahoma.  Unfortunately, ridge-top turbines are more apt to experience inflow turbulence, which increases noise output and can cause bursts of louder sound, much as described by Braithwaite. Dave Friend of US Wind Force said that a sound study predicted noise output “well below” what neighbors say they’re hearing. This may be a good example of the ways siting practices that work in ranch country may not be as appropriate in other regions; not only are community noise expectations different, but noise output and propagation can be very different in complex terrain than in flat ranch and farm country.

As covered earlier on AEInews, over twenty families living on the side of the mountain are being bothered by the noise; WV state noise regulations allow sound up to 55dB, and the site was designed to just meet that limit.  As neighbor Kenny Mason stressed, “We just didn’t know the windmills would be so noisy, and now we have to live with them.”

Last June, Umatilla County adopted wind farm siting rules that required a 2-mile setback from homes and towns, but allowed homeowners to waive that requirement if they so desired.  This approach is similar to what AEI and others have been recommending, in that it protects rural landowners from unwanted sound while allowing construction closer to residents who don’t mind hearing turbines more often or more loudly. Note: Those encouraging such “larger setbacks with readily-obtained waivers” approach suggest various minimum setbacks, ranging from 3000 feet to 2 or 3 miles; 2km (1.25 miles) is a common suggestion.

The county rule was quickly challenged, and the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) recently sent some aspects of the rule back to the county for clarification. The LUBA didn’t object to the 2-mile setback, but said that the county cannot designate the power to waive the setback requirement to individuals or towns.  Over the past month, County Commissioners have been working to come up with new language that addresses LUBA’s concerns.   They considered options including imposing the 2-mile setback with no waivers, granting variances by request from landowners, and establishing specific standards for granting waivers.  In the end, they chose to have variance requests use the county’s existing variance process, by which individuals or towns can request variances to any county regulations; the county then considers the request and makes the decision about whether to grant the waiver.  This should meet the LUBA’s objections, while maintaining the original intent of the rules, which aimed to balance concerns about maintaining rural amenity with allowing wind farms to build near willing neighbors.  According to Umatilla County Planning Director Tamra Mabbott, “The county clearly adopted a policy in support of wind development.”

As reported in the East Oregonian:

Bend attorney Bruce White, representing a local resident who wants to lease land to a wind developer, disagreed and argued the comprehensive plan issues are not just a checklist to work through, but represent a fundamental bias against wind energy in the county.  “The problem with that is you can have clear and objective standards, but if they’re so onerous — and in this case we believe they are — then whether they’re clear and objective or not does not encourage wind energy development,”?he said. “What this does, basically, is tell wind energy developers to go somewhere else.”

Commissioner Dennis Doherty, after discussing policy issues with White for a half-hour, said he understood the attorney’s stance. But he said finding a balance between state demands for renewable energy and the quality of life for those living near wind turbines, motivated his decision to continue on the path the commissioners started on in June.

Last month I got a call from a local TV news reporter in DC who said she’d scoured the nation for someone to discuss wind farm noise issues who didn’t appear to have a dog in the fight, and all she came up with was lil’ ol’ me.  She’s covering the ongoing issues at a wind farm in West Virginia where most of the nearby neighbors are being startled at how intrusive the noise from a ridge-top wind farm has been since it began operating this fall.  We had a good phone talk, similar to many I have with reporters or county commissioners trying to make sense of the seemingly antithetical tales being told by folks on each side of the issue.  She then arranged for a local TV news cameraman to capture a ten-minute interview on film; it all went quite smoothly, especially considering that I’d never done anything like that before.

Well, the piece was eventually finished, and it offers a pretty good look at the situation.  About halfway through the three-minute piece, I show up to share my esteemed wisdom.  And half a sentence later (after a very high-tech display of AEI’s logo), I’m gone!  So don’t watch this to get a full picture of my perspective on the whole thing, but it’s worth a look as a decent quick picture of the types of controversies that are playing out in many communities:

View more videos at: http://nbcwashington.com.

New South Wales is initiating an independent audit of sound levels around the three existing large-scale wind farms in the state.  While the wind farms have previously been found to be complying with their noise limits, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DPI) has continued to receive neighbor complaints.  The new audit will commence within a month and is expected to last until August; it will engage an independent noise consultant to determine noise levels, including low-frequency noise, and will also assess other issues that are part of the wind farms’ consent conditions, including visual amenity and any changes in flora or fauna.

The planned audit triggered vehement protest from wind advocates.  NSW Greens Member of Parliament John Kay called the move part of “a holy war against renewable energy,” saying the government response to complaints is “victimising wind farms” that are crucial to Australia’s greenhouse gas reduction strategies. Another wind proponent, Luke Foley, said the government was “pandering to flat-earthers” who are opposed to wind energy and addressing climate change.  The owners of the three wind farms all officially welcomed the audit, though one noted, “Given that these wind farms have already passed the most stringent noise assessment, we can only assume that there must be some political motivation to undertake further testing.”

The audit takes place within a larger context that’s likely responsible for much of the gnashing of teeth: in December, the DPI released draft planning guidelines for new wind farms in NSW, which are currently open for public comment through mid-March, with the results of the audit likely to shape the final version.  The draft proposes that any new wind farm will need to gain the approval of all residents within 2km; this provision is based on the numbers of complaints that have arisen at distances where the noise is quiet enough to meet noise guidelines but still loud enough to spur widespread discontent in local communities.  Victoria passed a similar 2km veto-power law this year, though Minister of DPI Brad Hazzard notes that the NSW proposal is not as absolute, as wind farm proponents can to take their plans to a regional planning panel if community opposition persists. Hazzard also stressed that his department remains committed to meeting the Australian target of 20% renewable energy by 2020; working more closely with neighbors should not preclude successful project development.  There are 17 applications for new wind farms in the works in NSW.

A Canadian frigate used its mid-frequency active sonar this week during a training exercise in Haro Strait, north of San Juan Island and south of Vancouver Island.  The sonar emissions from the HMCS Ottowa (right) were picked up by whale researchers at Beam Institute, who raised concerns about sonar use in an area designated by the US as critical habitat for orcas. You can read a detailed report from Beam, including sonograms and MP3 files of the sounds heard, at their website. They note that “the peak power frequency is consistent with the 2-8 kHz frequency range specified for the SQS 510 sonar system, which is manufactured by General Dynamics Canada. Each ping had high intensity receive levels for ~0.5 second duration and pings were separated by about one minute.”

According to the Seattle Times:

The frigate was in Canadian waters at the time, said Lt. Diane Larose of the Canadian navy.  But the Ottawa’s sonar can travel 4,000 yards — more than two miles — and the sound was picked up by instruments in U.S. waters. Larose said the Canadians are well aware of sonar’s potential to hurt killer whales, which communicate by sound at similar frequencies. In 2008, the Canadian Navy adopted a policy requiring the use of radar, passive acoustic systems, underwater listening devices and night-vision goggles to make sure marine mammals aren’t present when sonar is deployed. “We take this very seriously,” Larose said. “It’s a very well-thought-out policy.”

Scott Veirs of Beam Research said that their monitoring network had tracked both transient orcas and endangered southern resident orcas in the area within 24 hours both before and after the incident. “This was a fairly high-risk event as far as we can tell…it’s concerning to me that the U.S. Navy has voluntarily refrained from unnecessary testing and training in the inland waters of Washington state, but the Canadian navy apparently still does,” he said. “The nightmare scenario is that you turn on sonar not knowing they are there and essentially deafen them either temporarily or permanently.”  Ed. note: Beyond this worst-case scenario, the use of this high-intensity sonar in waters close to designated critical habitat goes against the purposes of designating such protected zones; the US has banned all boat activity in some parts of the habitat, with the goal of assuring that the whales are not discouraged from using this region, one of their primary feeding grounds.

Interestingly, a commenter on the Beam Reach website notes that the Canadian Navy’s safety zone for their mid-frequency active sonar is 4000 yards, or over two miles.  Whether they can effectively detect whales at that distance, especially at night, is highly questionable. The Seattle Times clip above mistakenly presumes that the sounds travel only that far. In fact, this is just where they tend to drop below the sound levels considered likely to seriously disrupt behavior; mid-frequency active sonar can be heard for tens of miles, and in the complex underwater landscape of where this event took place, is likely to create dramatic peaks and drops in sound levels as the noise bounces from islands and the seabed, making it difficult for animals to know how to reduce their exposures.

Three years after the NRDC and U.S. Navy reached an agreement that was meant to create avenues for dialogue and collaboration, a new lawsuit filed this week suggests that the hopes both sides held have not been realized. The main sticking point remains the same now as it was then: environmental advocates insist that some biologically rich areas should be entirely off limits to any sonar training activity, while the Navy holds that short-term exercises pose no great risk to wildlife. The final Environmental Impact Statements submitted by the Navy, and the permits issued by the NOAA Fisheries Service (which collaborates closely with the Navy in developing guidelines), allow the Navy full access to extensive training ranges that stretch along most of the coastlines of United States. The suit filed this week challenges NOAA permits issued in 2010 for one of the Navy’s dozen or training ranges, off the coast of Washington, Oregon, and northern California. It differs from an earlier high-profile legal challenge, which reached the Supreme Court, in that the previous suit challenged the Navy’s sonar operational guidelines, whereas this one challenges NOAA’s permits.

The Navy is already beginning work on Environmental Impact Statements that will accompany new permit request for all of its ranges, each of which must receive fresh authorization from NOAA every five years. The Navy has recently completed its first-ever EIS’s for training ranges around the world (a process spurred largely by earlier legal challenges); these 5-year permits were issued for some ranges in 2009, and are due for renewal in 2014 and beyond.  The operating conditions proposed by the Navy and approved by NOAA for the first-round EISs and permits are generally similar to the way the Navy had been doing things for many years. Marine mammal monitoring is maintained on sonar vessels, with sonar intensity reduced when whales are seen nearby, and operations stopped when whales approach very close to boats. The litigants point out that visual monitoring misses 25-95% of whales, and is particularly ineffective in high seas. “We learn more every day about where whales and other mammals are most likely to be found,” said Heather Trim, director of policy for People for Puget Sound, “We want NMFS to put that knowledge to use to ensure that the Navy’s training avoids those areas when marine mammals are most likely there.”

By and large, ocean noise regulations concern themselves only with noise that may be loud enough to cause injury, which occurs only at very close range (under a half mile). More moderate noise, which may cause behavioral changes up to 50 miles away, is assessed in the EIS, but these behavioral changes are generally considered to be of negligible impact to the animals. Recent NOAA permits routinely allow for tens or hundreds of thousands of animals to respond in some way to the sounds of naval maneuvers, with sonars mounted on ships, on floating buoys, and dangled from helicopters being the primary noise source triggering behavioral responses (any behavioral response is considered a “take” in permitting language).

The Navy says that in the Northwest Training Range Complex sonar training exercises typically

Read the rest of this entry »

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA), the province’s largest farm organization, has called for a moratorium on wind power development.  In a statement, the OFA says that “we are hearing very clearly from our members that the wind turbines situation is coming to a head – seriously dividing rural communities and even jeopardizing farm succession planning.”

While also stressing the need to address the price paid for wind power, as well as noise issues and concerns about health impacts, Mark Wales, OFA’s President, said that “Most disconcerting of all is the impact wind turbines are having on the relationships across rural communities. When wind developments come to a community, neighbours are pitted against neighbours. The issue of industrial wind turbine development is preoccupying the rural agenda.”

Both the Canadian Wind Energy Association and Ontario Energy Minister Chris Bentley expressed disappointment with the OFA’s position, saying that a current provincial review of the feed-in-tariff program is already addressing many of the OFA’s concerns.  This may well be true of the economic issues, but the deeper question of community impacts is what appears to be at the heart of the OFA’s position, and that’s a question that may not be so easily addressed.

(Image: The Globe and Mail)