An article in Der Spiegel reveals that the environmental impact study at a 12-turbine wind farm 30km off the coast of Germany has reported that during construction of the turbines, porpoises avoided an area in a 20-mile radius of the two-square mile construction site.  Harbor porpoises are well known to be more sensitive to sound than many ocean creatures, and may serve as a sort of “canary in the construction zone,” their stark behavioral response standing as an indicator of noise levels that likely interfere with other animals, as well.

Future construction could affect a far larger number of animals than the relatively modest construction that has taken place so far. (click to see larger Der Spiegel image)

This one passed under my radar in January, but has some potentially interesting implications for people working to minimize the negative effects of wind farms on wildlife and humans, in that the developer agreed to shut turbines down at night, at least temporarily.  In December, a Federal court halted construction of the Beech Ridge wind farm in West Virginia, because Indiana Bats, officially listed Endangered Species, live nearby, and the developers had not obtained the necessary Incidental Take Permits that govern activities that may impact such species.  In a settlement announced in January, Beech Ridge Energy, a subsidiary of Invenergy, agreed to forego construction of 24 turbines closest to the bat caves, while receiving approval to operate the 40 turbines that are already constructed, to complete construction of 27 more, and to move forward on planning for an additional 33 units (though the units not yet constructed may not begin operating until the ITP is received).

Most strikingly, the company agreed that all operational turbines will be shut down at night from April to November 15, when the bats are out and about.  During the hibernation season, from mid-November through March, the turbines can operate around the clock.  Future operating conditions, including the need for night-time curtailments, will be subject to the determination of the US Fish and Wildlife Service Incidental Take Permits. Noise is not the issue here, but rather bat mortality near wind turbines, likely caused by rapid changes in air pressure.

It is encouraging to see the viability of operational restrictions being experimented with, and accepted by  both industry and environmental groups as a way forward through a contentious issue.  Indiana Bats are not known to travel in the area of the wind farm, though the proximity of their caves suggests they may; monitoring done by the company was challenged in the lawsuit as insufficient.  Ongoing acoustic surveys will help clarify how common they are, and the USFWS may decide that night time restrictions are unnecessary.  As part of this settlement, the company agreed not to appeal the judge’s decision, and the environmental plaintiffs agreed not to appeal the eventual ITP decision by USFWS.

Happy talk all around after the agreement: Dave Burhman, spokesman for MCRE, said, “We believe our actions have sent a vitally needed message to the wind industry as a whole. Renewable energy projects do not get a pass on existing laws designed to protect endangered species and the natural environment. And although industrial wind turbines will now spin atop some of Greenbrier County’s highest ridges, they will forever be banned on those ridges in closest proximity to endangered Indiana bat caves.”  And Joe Condo, general counsel for the company, agreed that “We are very pleased to have reached an agreement that allows us to move forward with creating clean, renewable energy in Greenbrier County while at the same time meeting the goals of important wildlife conservation efforts.

Sources:
Beckley Register-Herald, 1/27/10
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, 2/10/10

As noted in a previous post, a recent report by the Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) in Ontario focused on the narrow question of whether there is a “direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects” experienced by some wind farm neighbors.  Based on a review of published research, the answer was, “no.”  This week, two of the people who were on the review committee providing feedback on the report as it moved from draft to final form noted that the final version dropped a section that some reviewers had urged be included, which would have more directly addressed the actual experiences of communities near wind farms.

Dr. Hazel Lynn, the Grey Bruce medical officer of health, told the Owen Sound Sun-Times, “The whole section that a couple of us really wanted in there on community health and community disruption went. It’s not in there. I suspect politically she can’t criticize another ministry, so I was a little disappointed.”

“I think it’s a fair comment that there is other material that could have been in the report and wasn’t,” added Dr. Ray Copes, the director of environmental and occupational health at the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion and another member of the committee that reviewed drafts of the report. Copes said there are “really important and quite legitimate” questions about wind farms that he and Lynn thought should be discussed, but “I guess the CMOH’s report wasn’t the place for it.”

Both Lynn and Copes stressed that they agreed with the report as far as it went, and that direct noise levels and sound qualities of wind farms don’t appear likely to directly cause health problems.  Lynn noted that there is an “association” between wind farms and some health effects, but that these effects also occur elsewhere; still, she said, “Basically, I think they (wind farms) disrupt communities if they’re not properly planned and instituted and when you disrupt people’s communities they get sick.” There is evidence to back that position up, she added, but “that doesn’t come through very clearly” in King’s report. Likewise, Copes stressed that the idea of a unique quality in wind farm noise causing a new set of health problems seems “implausible,” yet he also stressed (as did AEI) that the report highlights the need for more direct measurements of sound levels around wind farms.  Such measurements will add much-needed ground truthing to the sound models currently used in siting decisions, and could provide more concrete data to use in assessing both noise complaints and health concerns.

In recent months, several lawsuits and formal complaints have been filed, claiming unlawful nuisance and/or impacts on property values and quality of life near wind farms.  Most recently, sixteen residents sued the Michigan Wind I wind farm and its developers, laying out a series of complaints, including (as detailed in the Huron Daily Tribune):

• Private nuisance from, among other things, sustained and highly annoying audible noise and amplitude modulation in both audible and sub-audible frequencies
• Negligent design of a wind farm, including a noise assessment that estimated only audible noise levels within the dBA range, and did not consider low frequency noise or impulse noise
• Negligent misrepresentation, claiming the wind companies made false representations in board of commissioner and planning commissioner meetings and public hearings when company representatives said the wind farm’s operations would not result in a noise nuisance or cause adverse health effects to adjacent landowners. “(The defendants) were negligent in making these misrepresentations because, as the parties seeking approval to construct a wind turbine farm in Huron County, they had a duty to use reasonable care to provide Huron County and its citizens with both accurate and complete information,” the lawsuit states. The plaintiffs claim the wind companies provided inaccurate and/or incomplete information about the audible turbine noise levels, and no information about low frequency noise, infrasound and/or impulse noise emitted from the turbines.

In Pennsylvania, the Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm settled out of court this week as a lawsuit brought by Todd and Jill Stull was moving toward a jury trial in July.  The suit alleged that the company misrepresented the noise levels that would be generated by assuring residents the noise would e minimal.  The agreement is bound by confidentiality, so no details are available. See earlier coverage of the lawsuit here.

Meanwhile, in neighboring Wisconsin, Read the rest of this entry »

Over the past week or so, two reports from Ontario have spurred a fair amount of notice and comment among those following wind development issues.  First, the provincial health office responded to the public’s concerns about health problems reported by some wind farm neighbors, framing its answer carefully and narrowly:  “According to the scientific evidence, there isn’t any direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects,” said Dr. Arlene King, Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer, as reported by the Vancouver Sun.  Since the report’s focus was to asses peer-reviewed science, its authors did not incorporate any reference to the experiences or changes in sleep patterns or health of real-life neighbors of wind farms who have reported negative impacts since the turbines began turning. It is no real surprise that the sound levels near wind farms aren’t loud enough to directly cause physiological damage or effects, though it seems clear that annoyance and sleep disruption may well contribute to health effects in some people; the report acknowledges the likelihood of some annoyance, and notes too that while low-frequency sound is below generally perceptible levels, and generally no louder than naturally-occuring low-frequency sound sources, some people who hear these frequencies better than most may be bothered.  While the report itself is brief and lacks the detail of the recent industry-funded AWEA/CanWEA report, which reached similar conclusions in addressing the same narrowly-focused questions, King’s report frames the results with two crucial but under-reported observations:

• By way of introduction, the report explicitly states a simple fact that is rarely acknowledged: “Little information is available on actual measurements of sound levels generated from wind turbines and other environmental sources. Since there is no widely accepted protocol for the measurement of noise from wind turbines, current regulatory requirements are based on modelling.”  Indeed, sound models are used to determine what distance a turbine needs to be from nearby homes in order to meet local statutory noise limits (which stand at 40dB in Ontario).
• And in its final words, the report stresses the corollary to this observation: “The review also identified that sound measurements at residential areas around wind turbines and comparisons with sound levels around other rural and urban areas, to assess actual ambient noise levels prevalent in Ontario, is a key data gap that could be addressed. An assessment of noise levels around wind power developments and other residential environments, including monitoring for sound level compliance, is an important prerequisite to making an informed decision on whether epidemiological studies looking at health outcomes will be useful.”

Actual rural ambient noise levels are often very low, so that wind farm noise becomes bothersome at lower levels than industrial or transportation noises prevalent in urban and suburban areas; and, as noted in the body of the report, most of the case studies and other reports of health effects lack any clear information on how loud the turbine sounds are in the homes of those being affected.  So while this report is in large part another seemingly definitive, yet stubbornly partial, assessment of the health effects reported near wind farms, it also lays the groundwork for much-needed on the ground assessment of noise patterns around wind farms. (See this more recent post, regarding a section on community health and disruption that was omitted in the final draft of this report.  And see this critique of the CMOH report, written by several doctors from Canada, the UK, and the US who have been advocating for closer study of these issues)

On a similar note, Ontario Ministry of Environment officials confirmed this week that they do not have the capability to record or assess the noise near wind farms where noise complaints arise.  According to the Windsor Star, “Although hundreds of wind turbines have already been built in Ontario, Michael Parker, district manager for the environment ministry, said staff have not yet been given noise-monitoring equipment. The ministry is responsible for ensuring that wind turbine noise reaching a residence doesn’t exceed 40 decibels, he said.  If a complaint about turbine noise is made to the ministry, two environment officers are sent to the area to listen for the noise and contact the turbine owner, Parker said, noting that the ministry could still intercede with turbine owners even without hard data on the noise levels. In some cases, turbine speeds have been scaled back or the turbine shut down completely.”  In January, the Ministry of Environment issued two Requests for Proposals seeking advice and technical standards to use in assessing wind farm noise. The RFPs said that “The Ministry requires a consultant to assist in the development of a measurement procedure to assess noise compliance of existing wind farms with the applicable sound level limits,” noting that “Unlike typical industrial noise sources, measurement of audible noise from wind turbines in general raises technical challenges.” At that time, the Ministry acknowledged that its “Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms…do not contain a measurement method for assessing the actual noise impact.”

The Morrow County Planning Board ruled this week that the Willow Creek Energy Center, an 80-turbine wind farm, is producing noise levels that violate Oregon’s noise limits, and gave Invenergy, the wind farm’s owner, six months to get the turbines into compliance.  The wind farm began operating in January 2009, and by March, several neighbors within a half mile had raised serious concerns about the noise (see this article for details), including regularly having difficulty sleeping. Noise monitoring then took place, and in January of this year, the Planning Board received the results, which showed that noise levels at four homes sometimes exceeded the limit of 37dB.

There was some contention at that meeting, as neighbors had hired independent noise monitoring consultants, whose records showed more consistent violations than those of the Invenergy-hired consultant; the differences were pegged to the fact that the Invenergy consultant did not record in high wind speeds, contending that the noise gets no louder above wind speeds of 9m/s.  It is unclear from initial news reports whether the wind farm will be required to comply with the noise limits based on the Invenergy sound monitoring protocol, which found excess noise just 10% of the time at one house, and less frequent slight violations at three others, or whether they’ll use the more comprehensive techniques used by the local citizens, which found violations more consistently at two homes (one just over the limit, the other often over 40dB), with one home experiencing excess noise on 22 out of 37 nights.

Carla McLane, Planning Director for Morrow County, noted that while the commission did rule the wind farm was violating state regulations, it found the turbines only crossed the noise threshold at certain times of day and under certain conditions. “Some would want to view it in black and white and if it’s a violation then you have to shut them down,” McLane said.  “Others would want to view it in terms of shade of gray and say it’s not an ongoing and continuous violation. It’s an intermittent violation.”

”I’m not sure how someone can say this is an unusual, infrequent event,” said Kerrie Standlee, one of the neighbors’ noise consultants. “To me, 59 percent (of nights with excess noise) is not occasional or unusual.” Standlee’s noise study also went beyond Invenergy’s in that he gave the residents a sheet of paper to log their experiences with time and date. He then overlaid those comments on the data and showed that when the residents reported high noise, the wind was blowing from a particular direction or at a particular speed.  This last bit of information may offer Invenergy some direction about when they might shut down turbines if they want to avoid the worst of the noise issues, during the six months they have to get into compliance.

The Planning Board struggled with the conflicting approaches, according the the East Oregonian (article archived here). “I have a very hard time coming to a concrete conclusion on which study I feel is accurate,” Commissioner Pamela Schmidt said. “I’m not a licensed engineer in acoustics myself and there’s been so much information I can’t make a decision.”  Invenergy claimed that the background ambient noise varies, so that in higher wind periods, it should be allowed to exceed 36dB; yet, in its permit, it used the 26dB ambient standard, which is the state’s default if measurements are not made ahead of time. Complicating matters more is the fact that, as the East Oregonian noted, “the rule does not direct agencies on how to administer the rule or decide conflicts such as the one between Invenergy and its neighbors. The agency that originally enforced the rule, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, has since defunded and destaffed its noise program.”

It’s worth noting that the noise issues seem to be quite pronounced even at sound levels of 40dB.  Oregon’s 36dB limit is among the most conservative in the country; it’s based on being 10dB above average night time ambient noise levels, which have been measured at 26dB.  It appears that noise issues may well be present even when the measured sound levels are at or very near 36dB; this is in synch with reports from elsewhere, which suggest that people accustomed to quiet rural night time soundscapes are quite easily disturbed when turbine noise becomes one of the loudest local sounds, even when absolute noise levels are not extreme. In general, acousticians consider a sound to become readily audible when it is 5dB above ambient, with disturbance considered likely when it reaches 10dB above ambient.

UPDATE, June 2011: The state Land Use Board of Appeals issued a ruling that questioned the county’s interpretation of the 36dB noise limit. In its ruling, LUBA sided with the wind developer, which had said that the state laws allow wind farms to produce up to 10dB more than ambient sound levels; the county had been suggesting that if the developer doesn’t conduct ambient noise studies before construction, they must assume ambient of 26dB (typical night time ambient).  The LUBA decision said that this requirement to choose whether or not to do an ambient study prior to construction did not appear in the state rules, leaving room for companies to show later that measurements of turbine noise levels exceeding 36dB were  made when the ambient was above 26dB.

A private landowner in Clifton, Maine, is hoping to erect four commercial wind turbines on a small ridge known as Pisgah Mountain, and sell the energy to the local utility, Bangor Hydro.  Hearing of negative experiences in other Maine towns, including Mars Hill and Vinalhaven, some local residents are concerned about noise impacts and effects on wildlife.  The town of Clifton has drafted a new ordinance that sets 4000 feet as the minimum distance between a turbine and a neighboring house; this ordinance will go before voters on June 8.  In both other towns, affected families live within 3500 feet of the local turbines.

“What we have on this site is setbacks to the closest residence of a little over 4,300 feet,” says Paul Fuller, who owns the 240 acres where the turbines would be built. “I think we could boast that that is the farthest setback of any wind farm in the state of Maine at this point.”  Several other homes are within a mile to mile and a half of the location.

If this project moves ahead, it would be one of the first to do so with regulatory setbacks of over 1500-1700 feet, which are commonly used in Maine and elsewhere in the US, as developers aim to reach a 45dB limit at homes.  The ordinance allows sound levels of up to 50dB during the day and 40dB at night; past experience would suggest that at this distance, these sound levels are unlikely to be reached, though it is entirely possible that the turbines will be somewhat audible up to a mile or so away at times (night time noise levels in rural areas can be as low as 20-25db).  Some community advocates urge setbacks of a mile or mile and a quarter, to more surely eliminate audible noise issues; this project would be a valuable “guinea pig” for the helping answer the crucial question of where the proper balance lies between wind development and respecting the rural soundscape of small towns.

Read more and see a news clip at WLBZ2.com

If you’re within easy reach of the Bay Area, here’s an annual event that is always fun, intimate, and rewarding:

Excite your ears—explore nature sound recording and natural quiet at the Nature Sounds Society’s 26th annual field recording workshop

The workshop will be June 25-27 at San Francisco State University’s Yuba Pass Field Station, in the beautiful Sierra Nevada Mountains. This year’s theme is “Vision of Sound.”

Featured speakers at this year’s workshop are “The Sound Tracker,” Gordon Hempton, Emmy award-winning nature recordist and author of One Square Inch of Silence and the subject of a new documentary film, Soundtracker, by Nick Sherman. Hempton and Sherman will present the film at the workshop. The program also includes John Muir Laws, illustrator, naturalist and teacher, author of The Field Guide to the Sierra Nevada and the new Laws Pocket Guide; director Gina Farr of Farr Visions and the creator of Wild Sound Stories; and Dan Dugan, renowned sound designer. Each guest has a unique point of view of the natural world and vividly expresses him or herself through art, environmental activism and education. As an additional option, participants may choose to take an overnight backpack on Sunday June 27th to a recording location free from mechanical sound, organized by Steve Sergeant of the Sierra Club.

The “early bird” (prior to June 1) cost of the workshop is $175 for NSS members, $200 for non-members, and includes a one-year NSS membership. After June 1, the cost is $200 for NSS members and $225 for non-members. Lodging in tent cabins and meals are included. The optional Sunday night backpacking expedition will be an additional cost.

For more information, contact the Nature Sounds Society at (415) 821-9776 or e-mail Dan Dugan

Nature Sounds Society: http://www.naturesounds.org

England’s primary environmental agency, the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), has commissioned a study to improve techniques for assessing wind farm noise.  “There is a possibility that local authorities are not currently investigating complaints about noise from wind farms due to the absence of any formal technical guidance,” an internal document reads. “Defra wishes to let a contract to provide local authorities with a methodology by which to investigate noise from wind farms, to support local authority enforcement of statutory nuisance legislation.”  According to the Telegraph, the report is due out later this year, and should make it easier for local councils to respond to noise complaints.  A recent survey suggests that about one in seven UK wind farms have spurred noise complaints; noise campaigners contend that many people who are bothered do not file formal complaints, since they are rarely acted upon.

(UPDATE, 8/2/10): Apparently, the news report cited above was about a call for proposals, or plans to let the contract; in August, Energy Minister Charles Hendry announced that the consulting firm Hayes McKenzie had been hired to conduct this review of noise assessment techniques.  The firm will begin work in September and is expected to complete its report by the end of the year.

Meanwhile, also in the UK, the Bradford Planning Inspector upheld a ruling by the city Council to deny a permit for building a single large turbine at a factory in town.  The applicant had appealed the denial, since its noise studies showed that that the turbine would be in compliance with the federal noise code ETSU-R-97, which is the only code named in the statutes.  However, the investigating Bradford Council Environmental Health officer used several other noise level methodologies when he visited a similar turbine in Norfolk. Using World Health Organisation and British Standard guidelines and codes of practice, as well as ETSU-R-97, he came to the conclusion that the Princes Soft Drinks turbine would cause a noise nuisance for nearby residents. The Planning ruling noted that even according to the company’s modeling, “for some dwellings under certain conditions, the emitted turbine noise is likely to lead to complaints. Furthermore, according to WHO standards, there would be times when this noise could result in sleep disturbance, or prove to be a serious annoyance to residents. I find this to be unacceptable.”

Councillor John Ruding said: “I am delighted that the inspector agreed with the local community and their voices have been heard. “These proposals were an experiment on people’s lives which was not acceptable.”  Earlier, at the time that the company appealed the initial denial, another Councillor, James Cairns, had noted, “The Council has done its best. Its officers didn’t believe it was feasible in the area. Bradford is not against wind turbines – if you go up onto the moors, you will see them. But turbines of this size have not been tried and tested in urban areas.”

The Center for Biological Diversity has filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the Department of Interior, claiming that the Minerals Management Service (MMS) has been approving oil and gas exploration and development for years without making the companies obtain the “incidental harassment permits” required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act.  While the CBD’s press release focuses on the 100 seismic surveys and 300 drilling operations approved since the Obama administration came into office (and uses some pretty inflammatory language aimed at Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar), the Gulf has been one of the world’s most industrialized ocean regions for many decades, and the practices described are long-standing.  According to the CBD press release, the primary impact that has not been addressed is the effects of industry noise on whales and other sea life; CBD point out that some of the sounds are loud enough to damage whale hearing (though fails to note that this occurs only at very close range) as well as disrupt important behaviors (which can occur many miles away). The North Sea is the only other ocean region that’s been so widely impacted for so long by oil and gas development, with West Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, and the South China Sea all working hard to join the party in recent years.

The CBD stresses that the many oil and gas activities in the Gulf must be more thoroughly examined, especially since in some conditions noise can reverberate and become nearly continuous.  While the National Marine Fisheries Service was consulted by the MMS, with NMFS issuing a Biological Opinion that included the assessment that whales would be affected, no harassment  or  permits were issued or required by MMS. (Ed. note: I haven’t read the Biological Opinion, but there’s a good chance that NMFS considered the effects to be negligible; this is a common bottom line in agency consideration of noise impacts, and is the grounds used to issue the harassment permits.  It is likely that while CBD’s suit is based on the procedural question of missing permits, the root of their challenge is a disagreement that the effects are negligible.) The notice of intent concludes by saying: “An appropriate remedy that would prevent litigation would be for the Secretary to initiate the process to authorize the take of marine mammals in the Gulf of Mexico pursuant to Section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA by a date certain. Meanwhile, the Secretary must stop approving lease sales, exploration and development plans, and seismic exploration permits in the Gulf of Mexico until and unless it obtains the required authorizations under the MMPA and ESA.”

UPDATE: According to a Reuters report, the Interior Department and the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) announced on Friday the 15th that they would initiate a review of MMS’s NEPA procedures, especially their obligations under the MMPA and ESA.  Earlier in the week, Secretary Salazar had announced a plan to split the MMS into two parts, one of which would collect royalties, with the other overseeing regulatory enforcement.

When the town-owned wind turbine began operating at the Falmouth, MA wastewater treatment facility in March, most townspeople saw it as the most striking example of the town’s far-reaching commitment to sustainability.  Since then, it’s generated about a third of the town’s electricity needs, and a second turbine is being readied for installation nearby this summer.  As noted at a forum on the town’s many energy-savings initiatives, in discussing the second turbine: “The special thing about the site is it’s remote. The nearest home is about 1/3 mile away, which is important in terms of noise and appearance.” (This is just under 1800 feet, or 600 yards.)

But over the few weeks since the first turbine began operating, residents are finding the noise much more disruptive than they’d imagined.  According to the Cape Cod Times, some neighbors who live in the sparsely populated, wooded area around the treatment facility were horrified when they heard the noise. “It’s destroyed our capacity to enjoy our homes,” Kathy Elder said. Elder said the noise surrounds her residence, alternating between a jet’s whine, thunder and a thumping that sometimes can be felt.

The town has received formal complaints from six residents, one of whome, Annie Hart Cool, has gathered over 40 names of people within a mile or so who say they are affected.  She notes that her husband enjoys working in their yard after work, “but when he comes back inside and his head is hurting, you know something’s wrong.”

Assistant Town Manager Heather Harper says that the town has asked Vestas, the turbine manufacturer, to come check whether there are any mechanical issues that may be causing elevated noise levels, and is asking residents to compile records of when the sound is worst, to help the town figure out how to respond. “This has been a community project from the beginning,” Harper said. “We’re genuinely concerned and we take the complaints very seriously.”  At the same time, Harper noted that “We didn’t expect no sound, but it should meet all governmental standards.”  This is, indeed, often the issue: governmental noise standards, which tend to range from 40-50dB, are not always sufficient to avoid negative impacts on the nearest neighbors.

UPDATE: Another local newspaper covers the brewing controversy.

An excellent 3-part series on wind farm development ran this week in the Bismark Tribune. It has a good balance of the excitement and economic benefits that attract farmers to the industry, and well-stated concerns from those who want larger setbacks in order to protect neighbors from noise.  The grey area around health impacts is navigated quite well, with a well-grounded emphasis on sleep disruption; and most strikingly, the piece includes acknowledgement that there is individual variability in how easily people can adapt to a new and potentially intrusive noise source.

Interestingly, there are repeated indications that in this community, as in others, a half mile setback was seen as the “sweet spot” that could accommodate both industry and neighbors; in initial community meetings, there was significant support for a one-mile setback, while a general consensus emerged that a half mile would be tolerable to most people.  Nonetheless, the county decided to go with a third of a mile (1750-foot) setback, which has some community members concerned that the turbines will be audible enough to be disruptive at times.

A small item in the Marine Technology Reporter just clued me in to what looks to be an interesting new line of acoustic imaging products that could have potential to augment, or perhaps reduce the need for, repeated seismic surveys of active oil and gas fields. PanGeo Subsea has announced new financing to develop their Acoustic Zoom, which they compare to a “deep earth telescope” capable of providing detailed imagery of subsea geology down to 6000m below the sea bed.  Current information does not clarify any details about the products’ acoustic output.

Most companies now utilize repeated seismic surveys in order to track the depletion of offshore oil fields; doing repeated 3D seismic surveys over time is termed “4D” surveying.   According to a recent PanGeo press release and backgrounder, one of the major limitations of current marine 4D surveys is that the resolution at reservoir depths is often too coarse to be able to focus the seismic attributes to a specific compartment or feature of the reservoir. Their Acoustic Zoom is pitched as a novel high resolution method which uses steered beams on reception and on transmission to produce images with higher definition than can be attained with conventional seismic techniques. They project that it will “reduce the cost, scheduling and logistics involved with 4D seismic imaging, including reductions in the amount of equipment, data acquisition time, as well as the time to compute and interpret seismic results. We expect our technology to become an important tool for permanent reservoir monitoring applications.”  To , read more about the Acoustic Zoom, see the these two press releases, announcing private funding received in July, and Canadian government funds received in February.

PanGeo Acoustic Corer: the arms turn to image a full circle below

There is no information on the company’s website about the source levels or frequencies of the acoustic pulses used by any of their innovative systems.  In addition to the Acoustic Zoom, which is still under development, PanGeo has previously brought to market two related products, the Acoustic Corer and the Sub-Bottom Imager.  The Acoustic Corer provides high-resolution images that can be manipulated in great detail; each scan covers an area 14m in diameter and 30-80m deep.  See this page for three videos of the Acoustic Corer and its data.  The Sub-Bottom Imager is an ROV that moves along the seabottom, making images 5m wide and 5m deep.  Both of these products are more oriented toward pre-construction surveys to help avoid surprises as infrastructure is being placed on or into the seafloor.

“As goes Maine, so goes the Nation?”  While this old political truism has faded in recent decades, the State of Maine is currently blazing trails in carefully considered wind power development.  At the local level, small towns continue to pass moratoriums and strict setback standards.  Most recently, Thorndike became the third town to set a one-mile setback, with the neighboring town of Dixmont taking up a similar ordinance at this week’s town meeting.  Meanwhile, two more towns, Avon and New Vineyard, joined four others who have hit the pause button on any wind farm developments by adopting moratoriums on any permits.  These actions come in the wake of three projects that have generated significant noise issues for neighbors out to as far as 3000-3500 feet; thus, half-mile setbacks are being seen as not enough to avoid risk of disrupting rural lifestyles.

While these towns see the state as being overly aggressive in supporting ridgetop wind farms (abetted by the fact that a former Governor is one of the state’s leading wind developers), when it comes to offshore wind development, the state’s goals will be much more welcome for most coastal communities.  Instead of opening Maine state waters to windfarm leasing, the legislature’s Committee on Utilities and Energy is redrafting controversial ocean windfarm bill LD 1810 to do the very opposite. Under changes to be finalized today at the committee’s 2nd worksession on the bill, “An Act To Implement the Recommendations of the Governor’s Ocean Energy Task Force” will focus Maine instead on constructing floating deepwater windmills on land, and then deploying them at locations ten miles offshore and further, where wind speeds and higher and more consistent and fisheries are less impacted.

The plan received an enthusiastic response from the Maine Lobstermens Association, which has been very concerned about the impacts of any traditional bottom-mounted wind turbines on their activities near shore.  Habib Dagher, who leads the University of Maine’s offshore wind project, offered a timeline for getting deepwater wind energy going off Maine. “Our goal is build our first demonstration floating turbine – a third-scale turbine about 120 feet above the water – next year, and place it in the water the year after in the Monhegan site,” Dagher said. “In 2013 we would build the first 4 or 5 megawatt unit, In 2014 and 2015, a 25 megawatt farm.” He predicted that offshore wind would keep growing: “The next phase is development of a large scale 500 to 1,000 megawatt farm. We have at least one developer interested to do that and have it operational in 2020”

UPDATE: The offshore Maine project will not have its first scale model test unit in the water until 2013.

UPDATE 3/25: In response to a quick wave of outrage on editorial pages and some Park Service lobbying, Senator McCain has withdrawn his proposed amendment.  It remains to be seen whether he will let the NPS EIS process set the final rules, or seek to have the Senate write rules if the process lags or heads toward a resolution that differs from his sense of the proper balance.

That John McCain can sure be a puzzle.  Or is it a case of the old maverick’s bait and switch, staking the high moral ground while pursuing a typically old-guard agenda?  Whatever he’s up to, let’s hope the rest of his Senate colleagues don’t buy into it.  Way back in 1987 McCain led the push to enact the National Parks Overflights Act, which called for the FAA and NPS to come up with a plan to reduce the aircraft noise experienced by Grand Canyon visitors.  This was a truly welcome and indeed, maverick move.  In the 23 years since then,  as noted by the Arizona Republic this week, “the process of adopting a noise-management plan often seemed to move at the same geological pace as the forces shaping the Canyon. ”  This has frustrated advocates for natural quiet, and it has frustrated Senator McCain.  So when the Senator introduced an amendment last week to codify air tour rules, saying that  the amendment reduces excessive aircraft noise “without waiting another 23 years for progress,” it might appear that he’s still taking the high road, standing up to the ridiculous bureaucracy.

But wait: what the good Senator neglected to mention is that the NPS Environmental Impact Statement governing overflights is due out sometime in April.  Yes, the 23-year wait is at its end, after years of collaborative dialogue and NPS research, and within a few weeks, we’ll see what the NPS has proposed.  Yet for some reason, the great champion of the process wants to undercut that work and impose his own version of what would be right and good.  According to the National Parks Conservation Association, the plan McCain is putting forward would allow more air tours than are currently permitted, and otherwise constrain the Park Service’s ability to manage air tours in order to fulfill the original 1987 Act’s stated purpose of “substantial restoration of natural quiet.”  While most of McCain’s amendment seems to mimic what the NPS has indicated it’s aiming for, an FAA-convened working group fell apart over some of the NPS ideas, seasonal limits on certain popular air-tour corridors.  Air tour managers were upset at some NPS provisions, and in the wake of the group’s failure, the FAA’s role is diminished as the NPS moves ahead.  While the EIS is due in April, comment period will follow, and of course, lawsuits by air tour groups or environmentalists looking for more quiet could also delay implementation.  All this may well fuel McCain’s efforts to get something closer to the FAA or air tour groups’ sense of a fair balance into law, rather than wait through the likely challenges.

The Senate is likely to vote on McCain’s amendment this week; the measure may well slip through, as it is co-sponsored by both Arizona and both Nevada Senators (yes, Harry Reid); many air tours originate in Las Vegas.  The NPCA is urging members to call their Senators, and the Arizona Republic also weighed in against short-circuiting the nearly completed EIS.  (Ironically, the NPCA honored McCain in 2001 for his leadership on the overflight issue.)  See also Senator McCain’s floor statement, and the text of his amendment.  If you do call your Senator, this is Amendment 3528, being attached to the Senate’s consideration of HR 1586, which proposes a tax on bonuses paid by some recipients of TARP funds.

Natural England, a recently-established “statutory consultee” charged with advising the UK government on projects that may affect wildlife or the English countryside experience, has published a document that outlines its approach to providing guidance on wind farm siting.  The guidance considers both established parks and other unprotected wild lands and geo-diversity sites, as well as areas of deep peat, and areas of hightened bird sensitivity.  It also mentions previously-mapped areas of the greatest tranquility, though it is not clear just how much weight each of these various designations will carry as it balances the many factors that go into its recommendations.

Read more about the guidance on this post at New Energy Focus, or read Natural England’s press release here.  You can download the guidance document from this web page.

The Acoustic Ecology Institute has published Ocean Noise 2009, the fourth in its annual series of reports reviewing new research and regulatory developments in ocean noise. AEI’s annual recaps are widely anticipated and circulated among ocean noise scientists and regulators, as well as within NGO and journalist communities.

The report can be viewed or downloaded as a 45-page PDF, or viewed in the SlideShare plug-in, below.

This year’s report includes coverage of two ongoing issues, seismic surveys and Naval active sonars, with particular focus on the Navy’s continuing roll-out of Environmental Impact Statements for its offshore training ranges and the targeting of Columbia University’s seismic research vessel by environmental activists.

This year’s report introduces a new feature that will be of special interest to journalists: AEI Resource Collections on two topics that will be central to ocean acoustics policy and research in the coming years.

More details below the fold Read the rest of this entry »

Zion National Park is gearing up to begin incorporating soundscape planning into their management priorities.  Park Superintendent Jock Whitworth has announced two open houses in March on the topic, and public comments are being accepted until April 9 as part of an initial information-gathering stage.  This will inform the drafting of a Soundscape Management Plan Environmental Assessment, which will aim to to link soundscape management to the existing park management direction, and “ensure that natural soundscapes are protected for present and future generations.”

Zion NP. Photo: David Iliff

To participate in the public comment process, see this National Park planning page.

You can also learn more about the Park Service’s efforts to protect natural soundscapes by visiting the NPS Natural Sounds Program website, and by reading this 2007 review of Park Service soundscape management by sound consultant Nick Miller.

Here’s a bit of news that might be spun either way, depending on your predilection.  Jane Davis, who was driven from her home by wind farm noise, has been compiling information on English wind farms and noise complaints; she has found that 37 wind farms have spurred some sort of noise complaints nationwide.  This amounts to about 1 in 7 UK wind farms, in contrast to an oft-repeated mantra that “only four” UK wind farms had noise issues, and they’d been “resolved.”  The new numbers could support those cautioning that wind farm noise issues are more widespread than generally acknowledged, AND those who claim that noise issues are the exception rather than the rule; it certainly reinforces AEI’s theme that we need to acknowledge that a minority of people are affected by noise around wind farms, and that we must come to grips with how to address this.

This article in the Telegraph details some of the information shared at a gathering of wind farm noise campaigners, WindCon2010.  Gillian Haythornthwaite, who lives near the wind farm in Askam with her partner Barry Moon, said it has been a “devastating” experience. “It is a dreadfully irritating whoosh, whoosh noise,” she said. “It is unbearable to be outside in the garden when there is the noise.”

Read the rest of this entry »

The final EIS in the Navy’s multi-year effort to get its training activities into legal compliance with NEPA requirements is heading for the finish line.  Adding to the drama, however, is the fact that the Navy is pushing to introduce active sonar training into the Gulf of Alaska—while previous EISs at other training ranges proposed continuing sonar training at or near levels that have been taking place for years, the Alaskan proposal would bring sonar training for the first time into Alaskan waters rich with marine mammal habitat.  While the Alaskan range where sonar training would take place is relatively small compared to many of the other ranges on the east and west coasts of the continental US, it is within dozens of miles of key whale habitat, and locals have expressed much concern at public hearings.  For more detail, see these links to Alaskan newspaper coverage.

Meanwhile, as the Navy completes the EIS, it has also applied for the Incidental Harassment Authorization from the National Marine Fisheries Service, which announced in early February its intention to issue a Letter of Authorization to permit Navy activities as planned from December 2010 to December 2015.  The Navy estimates that its covered activities will take individuals of 20 species of marine mammals (15 cetaceans and 5 pinnipeds) through Level B behavioral harassment. “Further, the Navy requests authorization to take 3 individual beaked whales (of any of the following species: Baird’s beaked whale, Cuvier’s beaked whale, Stejneger’s beaked whale) annually by serious injury or mortality.” See the Navy’s IHA application here, and NMFS notice of intent to issue the LOA here.

The Fox Islands Electrical Cooperative on Vinalhaven, an island off the coast of Maine, has begun a month-long experiment as a first step in trying to come up with a local solution to noise issues from three wind turbines that began operating in November.  About two dozen people within a half-mile of the turbines have reported annoying levels of noise, with six property owners claiming that their lives are severely impacted.  Others in the same area who can hear the turbines are not particularly bothered by the noise.

Shortly after the turbines started operating, and some residents (including some who were excited about the wind farm, and some who had been skeptical) reported unexpected noise issues, neighbors began noting the times that the sound was most troublesome, in an effort to identify what wind directions or atmospheric conditions might be most to blame.  At its January meeting the Board of the electric coop decided to conduct a month-long “experiment” during February, in which the turbines would be slowed down in random patterns.  Sound measurements will be made throughout the month, and the 38 households within a half-mile are being asked to log their sense of the noise on a regular basis (half these households are summer people, so are unlikely to be participating). In a letter to coop members, the board said the experiment “will enable us, as a community, to figure out what to do and come to a solution that works, as well as possible, for everyone.”

A very detailed article in The Working Waterfront, a local paper, features a variety of comments from a locals about the process that is underway to find a community-based solution to the noise problems. Some find that the noise is moderate enough to be tolerable, easily drowned out by other sounds such as the TV or a car passing by, or being no more bothersome than a dishwasher running in another room; one person remembers the noisy generator that used to provide power to the town in the 60s and 70s, which people got used to.  Some who have been disturbed share their perceptions, as well;  Ethan Hall notes that “I’ve never heard anything in my life that sounds like it.”  Both he and Lindgren (another neighbor being affected) believe that current sound measurement standards do not take into account the complexity of turbine noise and its true impact. “The nature of the sound is so unique, that to try and quantify or qualify it with a strict dBa [decibel] measurement is an entirely inadequate way of describing the effect on people and surroundings,” Hall feels.  An hour-long radio interview with Hall and others being affected, recorded this past December, is available on the WERU website.

The new Navy Undersea Warfare Training Range (USWTR), being planned for off the coast of northern Florida, has hit a roadblock that’s been fairly visible since the location was announced last July: environmental groups are challenging the permitting process that allows construction to commence before the Navy completes its environmental assessment of future operations there.  The USWTR will encompass 500 square miles, beginning 50 miles offshore, while a key winter birthing and nursing ground for North Atlantic right whales extends out to 20 miles offshore.

UPDATE, 10/2013: Court sides with Navy, USWTR plans continue forward

While the Navy released its final EIS in July (see AEI summary), including its proposed operational and mitigation measures to protect whales, it became clear soon after that the Navy was only applying for permits from NOAA related to construction activities; the Navy said it would apply for permits to allow actual Navy training activities in 2012 or 2013, in advance of planned opening of the range in 2014. (Update, 2015: the USWTR website now estimates that operations will commence in 2019; no operations permits filed yet.) The EIS indicates that the range will be heavily used:  up to 480 anti-submarine mid-frequency active sonar exercises per year, including 100 ship-based events (2/week on average, lasting 3-4 hours each).

From the start, NRDC and other environmental groups questioned the Navy’s legal standing to commit to $100 million in construction costs before receiving National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) permits that would approve their plans for operations, including safety measures to protect marine life.  The new lawsuit alleges Read the rest of this entry »

NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco has announced a series of sweeping new initiatives designed to push the Navy forward in its efforts to understand and mitigate the impacts of mid-frequency active sonar on marine mammals.  In response to a request from the Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ), which asked NOAA to conduct a comprehensive review of this controversial issue, Lubchenco outlined several important new initiatives which mark a more active role for NOAA in moving both the science and policy efforts forward.  Previously, NOAA had worked closely with the Navy on its Environmental Impact Statements, but had largely rubber-stamped the resultant Navy mitigation plans, which consistently rejected any alternatives that set biologically important portions of US coastal zones off-limits to sonar training.

The new NOAA initiatives include four key elements, three of which dovetail closely with long-time concerns and requests from environmental organizations for NOAA to more actively protect areas of biological significance from both Navy and oil and gas noise, and three of which will help fill key data gaps identified by research scientists over the past decade.

• First, NOAA will work with other civilian agencies (e.g., MMS) to reinitiate comprehensive aerial cetacean and sea turtle surveys, in order to establish more fine-scale population estimates, especially in Navy training ranges.  Currently, many Navy EISs rely on coarse, regional population estimates, leading to unrealistic estimations of population density being spread evenly across large areas.
• Second, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service will host a workshop aimed at developing a plan to create a comprehensive “ocean noise budget.”  This is a long-time desire of both researchers and environmentalists, and would identify areas in the ocean where human noise is relatively sparse, as well as areas in which new human activity would not add substantially to already high noise levels.
• Third, another NMFS workshop will be organized to identify marine mammal “hot spots” of particular biological significance.  All three of these initiatives tie together nicely to bring acoustics into the Obama administration’s stated aim of moving toward more coherent Marine Spatial Planning, a sort of ocean zoning approach that would help guide human activities toward areas where they will have less impact on animals.  In a clear indication that NOAA may take a more proactive role in pushing the Navy to leave some areas out of its training zones, the letter stresses that “Protecting important marine mammal habitat is generally recognized to be the most effective mitigation measure currently available.”
• Finally, NOAA has already begun taking an active role in ongoing meetings between the Navy and the National Resources Defense Council; these meetings were part of a legal settlement and are designed to resolve outstanding differences about Navy active sonar operational and mitigation measures.  Lubchenco notes that “NOAA’s participation will enhance these discussions and help resolve differing views….I also expect the Navy to be open to new ideas and approaches to mitigation that are supported by the best available science.”

Indeed, including “spatio-temporal restrictions” (areas or times when activity is prohibited) in active sonar permitting has been a major sticking point between the Navy and NRDC and other environmentalists, and is something the Navy has consistently and explicitly rejected in the first round of sonar EISs, which have been finalized over the past year for most of the key Navy ranges (California, Hawaii, East Coast and just this week, the Gulf of Mexico), none of which included any limits on where and when the Navy could do sonar training. “The Navy’s Southern California range is over 120,000 nautical miles in size — about the size of California itself,” NRDC’s Michael Jasny points out. “The Bush administration did not put a square mile of this vast area off limits to sonar.”

All in all, this is a remarkable and very productive first step for this administration as it enters the long-contentious waters of active sonar regulation, ocean noise in general.  You can download Lubchenco’s detailed letter at the NOAA website.

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

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

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

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

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