Been wondering what’s the latest on the Snowmobiles in Yellowstone front?  Then head on over to this good long article from New West, which sketches the history and explores the current tone in gateway communities.

The short story is that after spending the summer accepting public comments on the latest round of “permanent” winter use planning, the Park is operating this winter is operating under the same temporary plan as last year, which allows 318 snowmobiles per day.  Local businesses are adapting to the changing clientele, which includes more skiers and snow-coach tour riders, and far fewer snowmobilers.  My only quibble with the article’s narrative is that it downplays what appears to have been the key factor that has reduced snowmobile use: while the Bush administration overturned the Clinton-era ban which was about to go into effect, and set much higher daily limits (750 machines), a requirement was added that ALL snowmobilers must be part of guided tours.  The loss of free-wheeling exploration by groups of friends led to several winters in which the daily limits were rarely reached; there is plenty of gorgeous National Forest land in the region where snowmobilers can romp freely, so why putter along on group tours in the Park?

A new but long-simmering front has opened in the push-and-pull struggle between wind companies advocating the status quo and communities uncertain about how to deal with reports they hear from elsewhere that suggest industrial-scale wind farms have unintended consequences, including chronic noise impacts and reduced property values.

This may not be the first time it’s bubbled to the surface, but it’s the first one I’ve noticed: the Hammond, NY Town Council is considering a ordinance that would require wind farm developers to compensate property owners who see drops in their land values because of the presence of wind turbines. The proposal also requires the company to buy out any property owner who objects to living near a turbine. Iberdrola Renewables says these provisions in the rules “would eliminate any possibility” for a planned wind project in town.  Read the rest of this entry »

Orca populations around Vancouver Island won a decisive victory in Canadian Federal Court this week, as Judge James Russell ruled that the Canadian government cannot rely on voluntary protocols and guidelines to protect orca critical habitat.  The judge brought acoustics into his decision by stressing  that critical habitat protections must include ecosystem features, including prey availability and and noise impacts.

The decision, which is detailed in this article from the Vancouver Sun, could push the Canadian government toward some difficult decisions, especially regarding salmon harvests.  Declining salmon runs are a key factor in orca declines, and there is a push to limit fishing to assure that orcas (and other wildlife) have more access to this key prey species.  In addition, research continues to suggest that shipping noise may interfere with orca communication and foraging (recent AEI post); there’s no telling how this conflict might be resolved.

A new study of property values in the vicinity of a large wind farm in Illinois provides reinforcement for both sides in the debate.  I first saw mention of the study in an American Wind Energy Association press release that touted its consistency with previous studies that found no significant price impact in homes near wind farms.  After downloading and reading through the report, I find that the results do indeed match previous studies, though in my reading the results are subtler than the overall averages suggest, just as they were with the big DOE-funded study that came out about a year ago.

The new study, entitled “Wind Farm Proximity and Property Values: A Pooled Hedonic Regression Analysis of Property Values in Central Illinois, 2010” used complex multi-factor statistical analysis to compare many factors that affect the sales price of a home (that’s lay-speak for the “pooled hedonic regression analysis with difference-in-differences estimators” that were used).  The bottom line is interesting and potentially reassuring: Read the rest of this entry »

The VENUS ocean observatory network is clarifying the degree to which waters around Vancouver Island are infused with the shipping noise.  The data is reinforcing concerns that local orcas and other sea creatures are likely to experience several negative impacts, including chronic stress, the need to use more energy to talk louder, and perhaps interference in foraging. A good article in the Vancouver Island-based Times-Courier (excerpted below) details the findings.

“The noise is virtually continuous during daylight hours and quietens a little bit overnight,” Richard Dewey, associate research director on the University of Victoria’s VENUS (Victoria Experimental Network Under the Sea) project, said. “In addition to the annoyance of the constant din, [the whales] are likely to have to shout over the engine sounds and listen through the racket to pick out and identify the messages.” Tricky tasks, such as the use of broadband clicks to echo-locate fish — the sole diet for resident killer whales — is likely to be extremely difficult when boats and ships are nearby, Dewey said.

It was expected the Strait of Georgia would be noisy as it is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, but among recent changes is the increase in massive container freighters. “They travel at twice the speed that vessels used to travel at, they use four times as much energy and make four times as much noise in the ocean,” Dewey said.

One of the — as yet unanswered — research questions is whether the whales can survive increasing noise at the same time as they are coping with shrinking salmon runs and climate change. “Whether the whales and dolphins can adapt is an open question,” Dewey said.

Learn more at the VENUS website.

I just came across this fascinating article from the Martha’s Vineyard Times that discusses a recent trip by local residents and planners up to Maine to participate in a Sustainable Island Living conference sponsored by the Island Institute, which catalyzed the construction of the controversial wind farm on Vinalhaven.

The entire article is well worth reading, but I’ll highlight these two thoughtful comments from experienced local planners after they visited the Vinalhaven turbines:

Bill Veno, senior planner for the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, talked to some Vinalhaven residents about their concerns, and noted, “Something that strikes me is that the way communities have traditionally looked at noise and have a noise limit with decibels, that tool wasn’t really designed for the type of noise that seems to be involved with wind turbines. Because it’s not really the decibels so much, and it’s not exactly a pure tone situation, and so we’re really trying as a society to figure out where that appropriate level is.”

Veno’s wife Aubyn noted that “When we were at the site, it sounded to me like airplanes flying overhead. But then we stopped at the bus driver’s house, who lived about three-quarters of a mile away, and got out of the bus and listened from there, and it sounded really just like ocean waves do in the distance from our house on the Vineyard.” (Ed. note: this confirms that the turbines are indeed audible, even at three-quarters of a mile; if your rural home does not, in fact, have ocean waves or a constant road noise in the distance, the turbines will be a new sonic presence.)

Nick  Puner, a former Westchester County planning member now living on Martha’s Vineyard, said, “The Vinalhaven turbines dominate the landscape, and they’re awesome. They’re not ugly, but they’re right on top of everything. I definitely think it’s a mixed bag.”  He also felt that the sound was very close to that of the background noise that day, though clearly audible: “I didn’t think it was that dramatic, but on the other hand, I don’t dismiss that somebody could be seriously upset by the constancy of it,” he said. “One person’s music is another person’s noise.”

Two of the “hot button” wind farms of 2010 are headed into the new year with continuing local rancor, despite conciliatory talk from authorities in each town when neighbors began to raise noise issues a year ago.

In Vinalhaven, Maine, where three turbines went online in October 2009, providing power for the local electric co-op, the State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has agreed with neighbors that the turbines are exceeding state noise limits at times (see this detailed Bangor Daily News article and this recent OpEd by a neighbor)

Fox Islands Windfarm, Vinalhaven (courtesy Bangor Daily News)

The DEP ruled that recordings paid for by local residents suggest the turbines are “likely to exceed” night time noise limits of 45dB when the wind speed is higher at the top of the turbines than the bottom; the recordings found noise levels up to 47dB.  George Baker, CEO of Fox Island Wind, the local LLC formed to build the turbines, notes that FIW’s noise consultant “absolutely doesn’t agree” with the finding, suggesting that ambient noise contributions to the overall sound mean that the turbines themselves are operating at just under the acceptable noise limit.  The DEP gave FIW until January to submit an operational plan that will slow the turbines when wind conditions match those during the recordings.

Baker contends that the conditions are rare, and occur only in summer.  However, many locals have reported Read the rest of this entry »

The State of Oregon has begun an assessment of possible health effects experienced by wind farm neighbors.  The state Public Health Division held “listening sessions” in three communities over the past few days, to hear from citizens.  “With any development, you start learning more about potential concerns as more people start experiencing it,” said Sajata Joshi, an epidemiologist for the state. “Our goal now is to hear what people have to say, and see if we can find solutions that work for communities and for the state’s goals.”

UPDATE: Check out this comprehensive article on the Oregon health impact assessments and wind turbine noise in general, published in early 2011.

While the Health Impact Assessment will “use the best available science to evaluate public health risks,” the Oregon process is also including anecdotal reports from neighbors, such as those received in these listening sessions.  A limitation of most previous state and industry-funded health impact reports has been that they considered only “direct, causal” impacts: that is, their focus was narrowed to studying previous research to address the narrow question of whether the sound levels being experienced can directly cause physiological symptoms to appear.  It is very likely that many of the reports of health problems, such as headaches, dizziness, and the like are indirect effects of sleep disruption or stress caused by moderate levels of audible wind farm noise at relatively close ranges, and it’s promising that Oregon is taking into account the actual experiences of wind farm neighbors who have been affected.

Jae Douglas, Oregon Public Health’s moderator, said the most frequent wind-farm concern she’s heard is about stress. Her office is charged with writing an assessment of any health impacts from turbines for consideration by the siting council, Oregon Department of Energy and county commissions — agencies that make the decisions on wind-energy projects. A draft will come in March and the final assessment in June.  You can stay current on the process at this Oregon DHS website.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service is going back to the table to write a new EA or EIS to assess the impacts of exploratory oil and gas wells in the Baca National Wildlife Refuge in southern Colorado.  After initial approvals were derailed by a lawsuit and injunction that stressed the noise impacts of drilling at Great Sand Dunes National Park, the FWS settled the lawsuit in September by withdrawing its previous approvals and agreeing to more comprehensive environmental studies.  Wasting no time, the scoping meetings for the new EA or EIS took place in late October, and scoping comments are being accepted until November 10, after which FWS will begin writing a new EA; if significant impacts are found, an EIS will be produced. A pdf version of the FWS Powerpoint at the public meeting can be viewed online. Drilling operations at each of the two sites would last for 90 days; if the exploratory wells find significant potential for commercial development, further environmental analysis would precede any future activity on the Refuge.

Baca National Wildlife Refuge

The Baca NWR was established in 2003 and is not yet open to the public; a “conceptual management plan” was released in 2005; the lack of a completed management plan was part of the reason that the earlier drilling was challenged.

In September, the Arizona Game and Fish Department released a noise study for a proposed shooting range on a site that lies 1-3 miles from the boundary of Walnut Canyon National Monument, east of Flagstaff. The results have spurred the Superintendent of Walnut Canyon to express concerns to the Game and Fish Department about the effects of the noise on visitors and wildlife, in the hopes that planned berming and other noise mitigation measures at the facility can reduce noise to the point that it is inaudible in key areas.

The Foster Ranch Shooting Range site was purchased last year after a 16-year effort to find a suitable location for a state-run range in Northern Arizona; previous sites fell victim to local resistance or grazing leases that were still active.  The noise study found that shooting was audible, but well within state noise limits, at all locations monitored, which included a nearby residence, random sites a mile away, and one site at Walnut Canyon, 3 miles from the range (download pdf of study). At Walnut Canyon, gunshot noise ranged up to 52dB, Read the rest of this entry »

Irv Teibel passed away on Oct. 28 in Austin, TX. He was 72, and died of cancer that was diagnosed only a couple weeks before his death.  Irv first opened my ears to our living soundscapes in around 1972, when as a teenager I purchased two of his Environments LPs. He released this series under the banner of Syntonic Research Inc. between 1970 and 1979. The series ignited a worldwide interest in field recordings  and was an initial entry into the world of carefully recorded natural sounds for both listeners and later recordists. Irv’s family has created a page on the Caring Bridge website that explains the circumstances of his final years, as well as providing a space for folks to leave remembrances.

The Environments series (see detailed Wikipedia entry) featured a simple, classic format, with side-long tracks that allowed deep experiences of one particular soundscape.  The most popular titles included The Ultimate Thunderstorm (recorded from a balcony in the city!) and the The Psychologically Ultimate Seashore (in which he manipulated recordings from the beach to more closely imitate the auditory experience of being there). These, while not unlike later relaxation-oriented productions, were more primarily respected due to their immersive, high fidelity sonic standards.  The series also explored some themes that were more experimental, often pairing one side of natural soundscape with a flip side of featuring themes such as a Central Park “Be-in”, electronic bell sounds,  and a chorus chanting “om.”  (Perhaps these did not sell so well, as the series was limited to natural soundscapes during its final few releases.)

Irv’s work was a precursor to much of what EarthEar and modern environmental sound artists have done, combining state of the art field recording with careful and sensitive studio composition.  There’s no doubting that the Environments series, which garnered widespread press coverage and appreciation, was the foundation for all later efforts to create and market compelling field recordings to the general public.  For many of us who have continued to care about the health of acoustic habitats and who revel in the complexity and diversity of natural soundscapes, Irv’s work was an aesthetic entry point that affirmed our own passions for listening and honoring the natural world’s rich voice.

Thanks, Irv.  We were listening!

Irv Teibel, 1938-2010

Zion National Park has become the first of its brethren to adopt a formal Soundscape Management Plan, the culmination of three years of work.  For the first time, soundscape measurement metrics that have been in development at the NPS Natural Sounds Program office in Ft. Collins, Colorado, will be driving forces in ongoing Park management and assessment procedures.  One of these metrics is the “noise-free interval,” or average time between the audible presence of human sound.  According to Frank Turina, an NPS Natural Sound Program planner, “Now it’s two to three minutes before you hear a human-caused sound, usually involving an overflight, and we want to expand that to a seven-minute period. If we meet that goal we will reassess the situation to see if a longer interval is warranted.”

While some environmental groups had pushed for the Park Service to set a higher standard for back country visitors, this first step, if successful, would effectively reduce sound intrusions to less than half their current level.  And the fact is, even this first step will depend on cooperation from the Federal Aviation Administration, which has so far been slow to take on the necessary shared responsibility for National Park overflight issues.

In more active areas of the Park, such as around visitor centers and within the first mile of trailheads, where the vast majority of visitors spend their time, the goal is to reduce noise by changing some Park staff and maintenance procedures. For example, the use of leafblowers may be reduced in favor of rakes, and new vehicles will be assessed for possible noise-reduction systems.  “Surveys have shown that 90 percent of people who visit the national parks want natural quiet and to be able to hear the sounds of nature,” said Kezia Nielson, who worked on the plan. “They cannot have that experience with human-caused sound.”

For more, see this article in the Salt Lake Tribune, or visit the NPS Natural Sounds Program website.

Gar Lipow over at Grist has a quite detailed post today that looks at the promise of various proposed “Flying Energy Generators:”  tethered kite- or plane-like flying platforms for wind generation, able to tap into orders-of-magnitude more available wind energy than ground-based towers.  The piece addresses questions and concerns that are sure to arise about such a “pie in the sky” idea, and concludes that several designs that have completed a proof of concept phase are ready and enticing targets for truly modest government or venture funding to quarter and full scale commercial prototypes.  Links to companies working on several of the most promising approaches will really whet your appetite for more. Well worth a look!
More Than Pie in the Sky: Flying Energy Generators, Maybe the Next Big Thing

Two pieces of wind farm noise news out of Australia this week, both of which address health concerns.  Residents near the Waubra wind farm in Victoria, which began operating in February 2009, have been affected by the noise, some to the point where they’ve moved away.  A recent report by the federal government health office came to the familiar conclusion that there is no “direct, causal” link between wind farm noise and health effect, but as is common in these reports, little attention was directed toward looking at indirect impacts of sleep disruption or annoyance, and the authors of the report did not meet with any of the people who have experienced changes in their health after wind farms became operational.

In response, a Melbourne Senator has called for further inquiry. Senator Steve Fielding noted that “I think it’s only fair that if a cluster of symptoms arise in a local population at approximately the same time we owe it to the people to take a closer look,” said Senator Steve Fielding. “We all want to live in a clean environment, but we need to make sure it’s not at the cost of the local population who have to live near wind farms. It may be the case that we need to set out guidelines as to how close wind farms can be built to someone’s home, but I wouldn’t want to pre-empt any Senate inquiry.”

Meanwhile, one of the residents who had to move from his house, Noel Dean, commissioned a sound assessment by an independent acoustical engineer, Robert Thorne.  Thorne has submitted his findings to several regulatory agencies in recent months; there has been no significant challenge to his findings from wind farm developers, though he has responded to some specific critiques in his final report, which was just released.  Thorne’s report includes detailed sound measurements taken at the Dean residence; the results largely affirm that infrasound is well below audible levels, while also showing that the turbine sound spectrum (how loud the turbine is at each frequency) is often weighted toward lower-frequency audible and inaudible infrasound frequencies.  He finds a strong pulsing character to the noise, and notes the many meteorological factors that contribute to variability in actual sound levels that are not fully captured by current sound models. The report also contains a section assessing health effects, with good reference to other studies; his conclusion is that “Adverse health effects such as sleep disturbance, anxiety, stress and headaches are, in my view, a health nuisance.” Thorne takes some of the government reports to task for being incomplete assessments, and themselves not peer-reviewed.  The report concludes with a section assessing vibration, which is present, but well below levels considered problematic.  Addendums include a detailed assessment of noise complaints at several wind farms, including the Te Rere Hau wind farm in Palmerston North, New Zealand, where noise issues have occurred at far greater ranges than are observed elsewhere (surprisingly severe impacts are reported at distances of 2100-3100 meters, or almost two miles).

While it looks like it’s been on the drawing board since at least 2004, today I ran across a news report on what appears to be an increasingly well-defined plan to outfit surface ships with a new Continuous Active Sonar (CAS) system.  In the face of what is perceived as an increasing threat from quiet subs, along with the increasing costs of compliance with environmental regulations that now govern current sonar systems (primarily the mid-frequency active sonar deployed on hundreds of ships, along with gradually increasing use of low-frequency active sonar on two US and a few UK ships), research and development efforts are turning toward the possibility of using a continuous, lower power sonar system to protect Naval vessels.

The sinking of a South Korean vessel, along with the embarrassing appearance of a Chinese sub that surfaced, undetected, within firing range of a US aircraft carrier group in 2006, has highlighted the gaps in detection that are inevitable using a sonar surveillance system that is only activated at times.  While none of the news or technical pages that I found specified the projected source level or frequency range of the new CAS system, one of its benefits was repeatedly claimed to be that it would broadcast at a lower power level, thus reducing impacts on marine species.  It sounds like they would trade the drawbacks of high sound levels for the different but not insignificant effects of adding more continuous background noise to the ocean environment.  One of the rarely-noted factors that may well contribute to the behavioral responses seen in reaction to the the current generation of mid-frequency active sonar is the chaotic, and quite disturbing, nature of the sound source; this is sometimes referred to as the kurtosis of the sound (how many sharp or abrupt elements there are in the sound itself, including sudden rise times rather than more rounded sine-like changes in intensity that are heard in most naturally-produced sounds).  If there is to be a new generation of continuously-broadcasting sonars, let us hope that the sounds themselves are more closely modeled on naturally-occuring sound patterns.

For more on the Continuous Active Sonar system, see:
The recent news report, about research at Alion Science and Technology in Mystic, CT
These two pages from Signal Systems Corporation, also researching the system
A recent Congressional earmark for research
This 2006 news report on a Signal Systems contract that mentions CAS
A September 2009 Navy powerpoint presentation on advanced development plans for undersea systems, which includes a slide on CAS

Ocean Conservation Research has been studying the implications of kurtosis and rise times to ocean noise sources, especially sonar.  For more, see this research page, and especially these two papers and this audio-video demonstration.

Most of the new wind turbine designs you see floating around the tech blogosphere are oriented toward small backyard turbines, in the tens or hundreds of kW range.  So it was kind of a thrill to see this new design for a 10MW offshore turbine, partly inspired by a spinning sycamore seed:

Aerogenerator X concept

After an 18-month feasibility study funded by a consortium of energy companies and the UK government, new funding and agreements are moving the project forward, with the goal of building a full-scale test version of the design by 2013 or 2014.  The current version is over 900 feet across, but half the height of vertical turbines (which would have the benefit of creating a markedly lower visual profile from shore, and even being “over the horizon” in many more near-shore locations).  The power-generating equipment sits at the bottom, rather than the top as in a tower, greatly reducing both the cost and complications of servicing. The horizontal design reduces pressure on the blades (which rotate just 3 times per minute), thus breaking through a stress barrier that will likely limit traditional turbine designs from moving much past the currently-envisioned 5MW size.  The drawback is that the lower profile will not access higher wind speeds at greater heights.

Here at AEI, we have great hopes for offshore wind, which moves the noise far from people’s homes, while tapping into a very consistent wind resource.  It’s not clear from the current news reports whether this design can be adapted to our ideal long-term scenario of floating turbine platforms (which allow deployment farther offshore in higher winds, and also greatly reduce the amount of loud construction noise, which is the primary impact off offshore wind on ocean acoustic ecology.) New conceptual technologies should always be treated as speculative, but this one does seem to be moving forward at a pretty good clip.  For more info:
Here’s the company press release, which has the most detail
And here are three blog reports on the announcement.

As noted here on AIEnews in May, a single new wind turbine in Falmouth, Massachusetts triggered noise problems for many nearby residents (12 formal complaints were filed, an unusually high number for any community, and residents of up to 45 of the 120 homes within a mile raised concerns in informal local meetings).  The town appears to have responded quickly: this news report from mid-June notes that the turbines had been shut off 39 times in the preceding month, when winds topped 22mph and noise would have been at its worst.  Both the town and a group of neighbors have hired lawyers and sound consultants to help them work through the situation; everyone spent a month discussing the nature of the noise issues as a study was designed to assess the conditions in which noise is the worst.  This recent article from the Falmouth Enterprise (sorry, no direct link found) summarizes the recent noise measurements made by both the town and residents’ sound consultants, and the first survey that recently took place.  Everyone seems to agree that the sound was much worse in its first three months of operation (March-May), when winds were higher, so it’s not altogether clear whether this survey, taken at a time when the air was quite hot and still, will suffice to answer the longer-term questions.
UPDATE: A more recent article, from the Cape Cod Times, appeared on August 1st.

Falmouth is the second small New England town to run into unexpected noise problems after installing wind turbines in an effort to reduce electric bills and contribute to a sustainable energy future in their localities. Residents of Vinalhaven, Maine are also trying to find the balance between wind energy and local quality of life; AEInews has tracked their efforts since last December. It appears that Falmouth is being a bit more pro-active, as evidenced by the quick decision to shut down turbines in high winds.  By contrast, the sound study project proceeded a bit more slowly in Falmouth, which may also be a good thing; in Vinalhaven, there was some confusion and uncertainty as a noise survey commenced suddenly this winter, without much pre-consultation with neighbors of the turbines on the design of the study or the sorts of qualitative descriptors used on the surveys (which some neighbors found did not encompass the sounds they experienced).

This is new territory for every town that grapples with it; both Falmouth and Vinalhaven are at the forefront of constructively dealing with noise issues (especially in contrast most wind projects, where the turbines are owned by large and comparatively impersonal energy companies).  As more towns and energy co-ops consider erecting small wind projects, the lessons learned in Falmouth and Vinalhaven will serve to make the process of dealing with noise issues a bit easier elsewhere.

As many of you know, over the past two years, the Navy has completed its first-ever Environmental Impact Statements for mid-frequency active sonar, in concert with applying for permits to allow them to do sonar training missions in Naval training ranges off most of the coastlines of the US.  This training activity has been ongoing for decades, but after the infamous stranding event at a Bahama range in 2000, and legal pressure applied by NRDC and others, in the mid-2000’s the Navy initiated the process of complying with NEPA provisions that govern activities that may have harmful consequences for wildlife (an internal memo shortly after the Bahamas incident suggested the need to comply with NEPA, but formal compliance activities did not begin until after a 2004 lawsuit).

During 2009 and 2010, the Navy has filed its final EIS’s on most of its ranges, but the environmental compliance treadmill never really ceases, because their authorizations must be renewed every five years: this week, work began on the next round of EIS’s, aiming for 2014 deadlines by which the new ones must be finalized.  The initial scoping phase has begun for activities along the Atlantic Coast and around Hawaii and off Southern California, including some public hearings and fall deadlines for initial comments, which will inform the first Draft EIS’s for each area. The Portland (Maine) Press Herald covers the Atlantic process (and here’s a link to the Navy’s Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing EIS page) and the San Jose Mercury News chimes in on Hawaii and SoCal, which generated separate EIS’s in the initial round, but will be combined this time into a Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing EIS.

You are invited to participate in the first World Listening Day, which happens on Sunday, July 18, 2010. The purposes of World Listening Day are:

• To celebrate the practice of listening as it relates to the world around us, environmental awareness, and acoustic ecology
• To raise awareness about issues related to the World Soundscape Project, World Listening Project, World Forum for Acoustic Ecology, and individual and group efforts
• To creatively explore phonography to design and implement educational initiatives which explore these concepts and practices

July 18 was chosen as the date for World Listening Day because it is the birthday of the Canadian composer R. Murray Schafer. Schafer is one of the founders of the Acoustic Ecology movement. The World Soundscape Project, which he directed, is an important organization which has inspired a lot of activity in this field, and his book Soundscape: The Tuning of the World helped to define many of the terms and background behind the acoustic ecology movement.

For more information see this info from the World Listening Project, download a press release that includes links to other sponsors and participating organizations, or contact: worldlistening@gmail.com

I’ll be one of three presenters at what promises to be an informative 90-minute webinar taking place on Tuesday July 13.  It’s one of a series of wind energy programs being produced by the New England Wind Energy Education Project, a DOE-funded public information effort.  My piece will add a look at the experiential reports of wind farm neighbors, as well as the few studies we have that help clarify how common noise disturbances are around wind farms (hint: it’s much more than many people think, but also less than some believe); I also take a stab at understanding the variable responses of people hearing the same levels of sound/noise.  Joining me on the panel are Mark Bastasch, who will provide a primer on noise measurement and the sources of wind turbine sounds, and Ken Kalinsky, who will focus largely on the various approaches to regulating wind farm noise.  The three 20-minute presentations will be followed by a discussion and question and answer session that will last for roughly a half hour or so.

The webinar will take place on Tuesday July 13, from 2-3:30pm Eastern Daylight Time.  You must pre-register to receive login information.
For more information on this free webinar, see this PDF information sheet.  You can register from there by email; or, just use this email link and request registration information for Webinar #2.

Indian cities are renowned for their wild and exuberant variety of sounds: honking horns, bellowing loudspeakers, raucous holiday parades, and, much much more.  Now, urban areas are beginning to try to rein in the noise-making, at least at night.  A nationwide decree deems 10am to 6am as a time for quiet, during which restrictions have been imposed on the use of horns, sound-emitting construction equipments and bursting of firecrackers,” the federal environment ministry said.

Indian officials also announced noise-monitoring stations in major cities, including New Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore, by September.  Eighteen more cities will join the system by 2011, the ministry said. “With the new system in place, a systematic national level monitoring and reporting network in the country will be available, as in case of air and water pollution.”

For more, see this CNN report.

Ontario’s environment ministry has released proposed siting guidelines for offshore wind turbines that set a minimum distance of 5km (3.1 miles) from shore.  The rules, which are now open for public comment, will be subject to public hearings in the fall. Ontario does not have ocean frontage; the rules are meant to govern wind farms planned for the Great Lakes.

The proposed standard would undermine some proposed wind farms, which are aiming to be 2-4km from shore.  It is likely that the proposal would greatly minimize the visual impact of turbines, and would may also reduce sound impacts to an acceptable level.  As noted in this brief essay, sound travels very easily over water, so that typical onshore setbacks could be insufficient for offshore sites.  Some reports from near the Wolfe Island wind farm (at the end of Lake Ontario, near the start of the St. Lawrence Seaway) suggest they are often quite audible from two miles, and occasionally somewhat audible at five to seven miles.  While there is often an assumption that wave sounds will easily drown out distant turbines, it’s likely that people living somewhat inland from the shoreline in otherwise very quiet rural areas would be the most affected by offshore turbine sounds.

One of the more promising green energy technologies is wave power: off every coastline, near urban centers, a steady surge of waves holds the promise of round-the-clock power generation.  As ever, though, there are possible environmental impacts; one of the main ones for wave energy is the possibility of collisions with migrating whales.  Large baleen whales (gray, humpback, fin, blue) don’t use echolocation to forage, so are unlikely to notice offshore installations from a distance.  They are, however, careful listeners, and so Oregon State University researcher Bruce Mate is preparing to test a noise-making system that he hopes will hit the Goldilocks spot for migrating Gray whales: loud and un-natural enough to get there attention, but not so loud that it will cause widespread impacts.

“We do not even expect gray whales to react to the sound unless they are within 500 to 750 meters of the mooring location,” Mate said. “We’re not talking about much sound here.”  Mate said the acoustic device would emit one-eighth of one watt, which they hope will make the whales alter their paths about 500 meters from the noise. The system will be tested this fall, during the migration of single male Gray whales, and be suspended before mother-calf pairs begin their transit of the Oregon coast.

Ocean Power Technologies mockup

Ocean Power Technologies aims to deploy 12 wave power units 2.5 miles off Reedsport, Oregon, by 2012.  While whales may adapt fine to the new structures, the risk of a collision is considered to be something that could set back offshore renewable energy development for years.  The current research could inform future protective measures, should regulators or industry decide that they are necessary.

For more, see this OSU press release, this good overview article in Forbes, and this post on the Smart Planet blog.

The American Society for Acoustic Ecology is pleased to announce ASAE Chicago: Listening for the Future.

This is the first-ever national gathering of the ASAE membership and the general public. Hosted by the Midwest Society for Acoustic Ecology and the World Listening Project, Listening for the Future will take place from July 9-11, 2010. We think it’s going to be a fantastic three days, with plenty of information and inspiration to go around. We hope you will join us at this landmark event.

Additional details will be posted on the Listening for the Future web page. Please bookmark and check back often as we’ll be making frequent updates from here forward. A registration page will be posted early next week, along with locations of all venues, maps, schedules etc.

Event Highlights

Friday (7/9) – Friday (7/9) – ‘Citizen Sound’ symposium featuring a wine and cheese reception, introductions to each of the ASAE chapters, and presentations by leaders in Chicago’s cultural and advocacy scene. Featured guests include Lou Mallozzi, Executive Director of Experimental Sound Studio and architect Graham Balkany of the Gropius in Chicago Coalition. A media lounge, where guests can sample CDs and peruse publications by participants, performers and ASAE members, will be open all night. Following dinner at a local eatery, Read the rest of this entry »

Litchfield NY is considering a relatively flexible, while stringent, local ordinance to govern construction of wind farms.  As proposed by a committee of residents charged by the Town Council, the ordinance would avoid strict setback or decibel limits, and instead require easements to be obtained from all residents within 6500 feet of a turbine (just under a mile and a quarter).

The proposed ordinance now goes to the Council for consideration, where some changes are expected to be made.  Involving all neighbors who may be affected by new wind turbines could be a very effective approach, as both studies and experience shows that when people are involved in the decision to move forward with a wind farm (and compensated financially, or feel shared ownership), they are far less likely to have negative reactions and experiences.  I’m sure that the distance at which easements are required will be a sticking point for all concerned; as proposed, it encompasses a large grey area (from roughly 3500-6500 feet) in which acoustic effects are likely to be minimal, yet possible a small proportion of the time.  If the easements don’t effectively become vetoes, it’s quite likely that being involved in the decision could play a key role in this range.  Closer than a half mile or so, the proposed easements may well be sometimes used as a veto, as at least a few residents are apt to feel that the risk of noise issues is not outweighed by financial benefits in the project.  Still, the easement approach has many benefits over a strict decibel or setback limit, assuring that the developer is engaged with everyone who may be affected by the project.