WHEREAS, wind turbines were once assumed to have no adverse environmental impacts, however, onshore wind-energy facilities have killed thousands of bats and birds (Government Accountability Office 2003; Kunz et al. 2007b; National Research Council 2007); and,

WHEREAS, onshore wind-turbine construction and associated infrastructure have pronounced effects on wildlife habitat (Government Accountability Office 2005; Arnett et al. 2007), including increased habitat loss and fragmentation and subsequent loss of species from areas around developments, and alteration of dispersal or migration corridors; and,

WHEREAS, many onshore and offshore wind-energy facilities are being planned and constructed without adequately considering the potential or actual effects on wildlife (Barclay et al. 2007; Cryan and Brown 2007; Kunz et al. 2007b; National Research Council 2007); and

WHEREAS, fatalities of bats and other wildlife at existing onshore wind-energy facilities have raised concern that wind turbines may have population-level impacts on these species (Kunz et al. 2007b; Arnett et al. 2008); and,

WHEREAS, researchers independent of the wind industry have been unable to adequately evaluate the magnitude of impacts because of limited access to wind-energy facilities, but preliminary results indicate that species such as migratory tree bats already may be experiencing fatality rates that will lead to population declines (Kunz et al. 2007; Arnett et al. 2008); and,

WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of wind-energy development on wildlife likely will increase as new facilities are constructed (Kunz et al. 2007b; National Research Council 2007); and,

WHEREAS, proposed and existing wind-energy projects have the potential to severely impact species that cross state and national borders, particularly continental migrants, such that no single state or regional agency can adequately analyze or assess the cumulative impacts of these projects on wildlife (National Research Council 2007; Arnett et al. 2008); and,

WHEREAS, scientific guidance and leadership are required before negative effects on wildlife become severe and irreversible (Kunz et al. 2007; Arnett et al. 2008);

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the American Society of Mammalogists, meeting at their 88th Annual Meeting, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota, 21-25 June 2008, recommends the following steps be implemented to provide appropriate protection for our valuable wildlife resources:

(a) Commitments to comprehensive environmental assessments that include multi-year pre- and multi-year post-construction studies be made prior to selection and construction of sites for wind energy facilities (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003; Government Accountability Office 2005; National Research Council 2007).

(b) Environmental assessments by professional biologists or organizations with no conflict of interest in any aspect of financing construction or operation of wind energy facilities (Kunz et al. 2007a; National Research Council 2007).

(c) Independent external review of evaluations and reports before siting of wind energy facilities to insure the techniques and interpretation of results are appropriate, adequate, scientifically rigorous, and in the public domain Kunz et al. 2007a; Arnett et al 2008).

(d) Siting and placement of turbines and their associated infrastructure to avoid fragmenting large contiguous tracts of wildlife habitat (Arnett et al. 2007; National Research Council 2007).

(e) Siting and placement that avoids bat hibernation, breeding, and maternity colonies, or flight paths between colonies and feeding areas (Arnett et al. 2007; Cryan and Brown, 2007; National Research Council 2007).

(f) Siting and placement to avoid local pathways of bat or bird migration or areas where these species are highly concentrated (Arnett et al 2007; National Research Council 2007).

(g) Siting and placement that avoids documented locations of any species of wildlife protected under State or Federal authority, that could be affected adversely (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003; Arnett et al. 2007).

(h) Increased research on effects of onshore and offshore wind-energy facilities to assess the nature and extent of risks to wildlife (Arnett et al. 2007, 2008; Kunz et al. 2007a, 2007b). (i) Systematic investigation of effectiveness of operational procedures, such as feathering of blades or voluntary temporary shutdowns that might reduce impacts of wind turbines on wildlife (Barclay et al. 2007; Cryan and Brown 2007; Horn et al. 2008; Kunz et al 2007a; National Research Council 2007.

(j) Implementation of scientific peer-review of all aspects of wind-energy development (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003; Government Accountability Office 2005; Kunz et al. 2007b; National Research Council 2007).

References

Arnett, E. B., D. B. Inkley, D. H. Johnson, R. P. Larkin, S. Manes, A. M. Manville, J. R. Mason, M. L. Morrison, M. D. Strickland, and R. Thresher. 2007. Impacts of wind energy facilities on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Wildlife Society Technical Review 07-2. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Arnett, E.B., K. Brown, W.P. Erickson, J. Fielder, T.H. Henry, G.D. Johnson, J. Kerns,

R.R. Kolford, T. Nicholson, T. O’Connell, M. Piorkowski, and R. Tankersly. 2008. Patterns of fatality of bats at wind energy facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 72: 61-78. Barclay, R.M.R., E.F. Bearwald, and J.C. Gruver. 2007. Variation in bat and bird fatalities at wind energy facilities: assessing the effects of rotor size and tower height. Canadian Journal of Zoology 85: 381-387.

Cryan, P.M., and A.C. Brown. 2007. Migration of bats past remote island offers clues to the problem of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Biological Conservation, 139: 1-11.

Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters. 2005. Wind Power, Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife. GAO-05-906. Washington D. C., 64 pp. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-906

Horn, J. W. E. B. Arnett and T. H. Kunz. 2008. Behavioral responses of bats to operating wind turbines. Journal of Wildlife Management 72: 123-132. http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wpcontent/uploads/horn_et_al_2008.pdf

Kunz, T. H., E. B. Arnett, B. M. Cooper, W. P. Erickson, R. P Larkin, T. Mabee, M. L. Morrison, M. D. Strickland, and J. M. Szewczak. 2007a. Assessing impacts of wind-energy development on nocturnally active birds and bats: a guidance document. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2449-4486. http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/wild-71-0845.pdf

Kunz, T. H., E. B. Arnett, W. P. Erickson, A. R. Hoar, G. D. Johnson, R. P. Larkin, M. D. Strickland, R. W. Thresher, and M. D. Tuttle. 2007b. Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Frontiers of Ecology and Environment, 5: 315-324. http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/kunzbatswind.pdf

National Research Council. 2007. Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. http://www.eswr.com/latest/307/nrcwind.htm

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Memorandum to Regional Directors, Regions 1-7 on Service Interim Guidance on Avoiding and Minimizing Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines, 13 May 2003, 57 pp. http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/wind.pdf

Download “ASM Resolution: Effects of Wind-Energy Facilities on Bats and Other Wildlife”

1. Audible Sound Limit.

a. No Wind Turbine or group of turbines shall be located so as to cause an exceedance of the pre-construction/operation background sound levels by more than 5 dBA or dBC. The background sound levels shall be the L90 dB sound descriptor (both A and C weighting) measured during a pre-construction noise study during the quietest time of evening or night. Measurements shall be for ten (10) minutes or more. L90 results are valid when L10 results are no more than 15 dB above L90 for the same time period. Noise sensitive sites are to be selected based on wind farm’s predicted sound emissions (in dBA, dBC and 1/3-octaves to blade passage frequency), which are to be provided by developer.

b. A 5 dB penalty is applied for pure tones or when the sound emissions fluctuate in amplitude or frequency over time in reasonable synchronicity with the blade revolution.

2. Inaudible (e.g., Low Frequency) Sound Limit.

a. Not to exceed dBC − dBA greater than 20 dB inside or outside any occupied structure.

3. General Clause.

a. Not to exceed 40 dBA or dBC within 100 feet of any occupied structure.

L. Setbacks. Setbacks shall be measured from the outermost edge of the closest of the circular path of the wind turbine rotor blade. The Town Board may increase the following minimum setbacks on a case-by-case basis, in order to protect public health and safety.

1. Participating Property Line: 1.1 times the total height of the Wind Turbine from the nearest property line of a participating property owner.

2. Non-participating Property Line: Five (5) times the rotor diameter but not less than 1,300 feet from the nearest property line of a non-participating property, unless the owner of the non-participating property grants an easement for a lesser setback. The easement must be recorded with the County Register of Deeds and may not provide for a setback that is less than 1.1times the total height of the Wind Turbine.

3. Public Roads and Highways: 1,300 feet or three (3) times the total height of the Wind Turbine, whichever is greater.

4. Above Ground Power/Telephone Lines: 1,300 feet or three (3) times the total height of the Wind Turbine, whichever is greater, from the nearest above-ground public electric power line or telephone line.

5. Residences & Other Buildings: 2,640 feet from the nearest residence, business, school, daycare facility, church, hospital and other sensitive receptors.

6. Wetlands: 1,000 feet from all sinkholes and wetlands.

7. Water Bodies Setbacks: 1,300 feet from the ordinary high water mark of all navigable water bodies.

8. Parks & Public Property: 2,640 feet from any town, county or state park, property, recreational or rest area.

Download “Wilton, Wisc., Wind Ordinance” (PDF)

Download “Ridgeville, Wisc., Wind Ordinance” (Word document)

Download ‘The “how to” guide to criteria for siting wind turbines to prevent health risks from sound’

Prepared for the California Wind Energy Collaborative
By Scott Larwood, University of California, Davis

June 16, 2005

Download the paper.
Download the presentation.

• George W. Kamperman, INCE Bd. Cert. Emeritus, INCE Kamperman Associates, Inc., george@kamperman.com
• Richard R. James, E-Coustic Solutions, rickjames@e-coustic.com

Rev. 1.0, July 27, 2008

Industrial scale wind turbines are a familiar part of the landscape in Europe, U.K., and other parts of the world. In the U.S., however, similar industrial-scale wind energy developments are just beginning operation. The presence of industrial wind projects will increase dramatically over the next few years given the push by the Federal and state governments to promote renewable energy sources through tax incentives and other forms of economic and political support. States and local governments in the U.S. are promoting what appear to be lenient rules for how industrial wind farms can be located in communities, which are predominantly rural and often very quiet. Studies already completed and currently in progress describe significant health effects associated with living in the vicinity of industrial grade wind turbines. This paper reviews sound studies conducted by consultants for governments, the wind turbine owner, or the local residents for a number of sites with known health or annoyance problems. The purpose is to determine if a set of simple guidelines using dBA and dBC sound levels can serve as the “safe” siting guidelines. Findings of the review and recommendations for sound limits will be presented. A discussion of how the proposed limits would have affected the existing sites where people have demonstrated pathologies apparently related to wind turbine sound will also be presented.

… Our review covered the community noise studies performed in response to complaints, research on health issues related to wind turbine noise, critiques of noise studies performed by consultants working for the wind developer, and research/technical papers on wind turbine sound immissions and related topics. The papers are listed in Tables 1-4.

Table 1 — List of Studies Related to Complaints

• Resource Systems Engineering, Sound Level Study — Ambient & Operations Sound Level Monitoring, Maine Department of Environmental Protection Order No. L-21635-26-A-N, June 2007
• ESS Group, Inc., Draft Environmental Impact Statement For The Dutch Hill Wind Power Project — Town of Cohocton, NY, November 2006
• David M. Hessler, Environmental Sound Survey and Noise Impact Assessment — Noble Wethersfield Wind Park — Towns of Wethersfield and Eagle NY, For: Noble Environmental Power, LLC, January 2007
• George Hessler, “Report Number 101006-1, Noise Assessment Jordanville Wind Power Project,” October 2006
• HGC Engineering, “Environmental Noise Assessment Pubnico Point Wind Farm, Nova Scotia, Natural Resources Canada Contract NRCAN-06-0046,” August 23, 2006
• John I. Walker, “Sound Quality Monitoring, East Point, Prince Edward Island” by Jacques Whitford, Consultants for Prince Edward Island Energy Corporation, May 28, 2007

Table 2 — List of Studies Related to Health

• Nina Pierpont, “Wind Turbine Syndrome — Abstract” from draft article and personal conversations. www.ninapierpont.com
• Nina Pierpont, “Letter from Dr. Pierpont to a resident of Ontario, Canada, re: Wind Turbine Syndrome,” Autumn 2007
• Amanda Harry, “Wind Turbine Noise and Health” (2007)
• Barbara J. Frey and Peter J. Hadden, “Noise Radiation from Wind Turbines Installed Near Homes, Effects on Health” (2007)
• Eja Pedersen, “Human response to wind turbine noise — Perception, annoyance and moderating factors, Occupational and Environmental Medicine,” The Sahlgrenska Academy, Gotenborg 2007
• Robin Phipps, “In the Matter of Moturimu Wind Farm Application, Palmerston North, Australia,” March 2007
• WHO European Centre for Environment and Health, Bonn Office, “Report on the third meeting on night noise guidelines,” April 2005

Table 3 — List of Studies That Review Siting Impact Statements

• Richard H. Bolton, “Evaluation of Environmental Noise Analysis for ‘Jordanville Wind Power Project’,” December 14, 2006 Rev 3
• Clifford P. Schneider, “Accuracy of Model Predictions and the Effects of Atmospheric Stability on Wind Turbine Noise at the Maple Ridge Wind Power Facility,” Lowville, NY — 2007

Table 4 — List of Research and Technical papers Included in Review Process

• Anthony L. Rogers, James F. Manwell, Sally Wright, “Wind Turbine Acoustic Noise,” Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, Dept. of ME and IE, U of Mass, Amherst, amended June 2006
• ISO. 1996. Acoustics — Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors — Part 2: General method of calculation. International Organization of Standardization. ISO 9613-2. p. 18
• G.P. van den Berg, “The Sounds of High Winds — the effect of atmospheric stability on wind turbine sound and microphone noise,” Ph.D. thesis, 2006
• Fritz van den Berg, “Wind Profiles over Complex Terrain,” Proceedings of Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Lyons, France, Sept. 2007
• William K. G. Palmer, “Uncloaking the Nature of Wind Turbines — Using the Science of Meteorology,” Proceedings of Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Lyons, France, Sept. 2007
• Soren Vase Legarth, “Auralization and Assessment of Annoyance from Wind Turbines,” Proceedings of Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Lyons, France, Sept. 2007
• Julian T. and Jane Davis, “Living with aerodynamic modulation, low frequency vibration and sleep deprivation — how wind turbines inappropriately placed can act collectively and destroy rural quietitude,” Proceedings of Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Lyons, France, Sept. 2007
• James D. Barnes, “A Variety of Wind Turbine Noise Regulations in the United States — 2007,” Proceedings of Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Lyons, France, Sept. 2007
• M. Schwartz and D. Elliott, “Wind Shear Characteristics at Central Plains Tall Towers,” NREL 2006
• IEC 61400 “Wind turbine generator systems, Part 11: Acoustic noise measurement techniques,”.rev:2002

After reviewing the materials in the tables; we have arrived at our current understanding of wind turbine noise and its impact on the host community and its residents. The review showed that some residents living as far as 3 km (two (2) miles) from a wind farm complain of sleep disturbance from the noise. Many residents living one-tenth this distance (300 m. or 1000 feet) from a wind farm are experiencing major sleep disruption and other serious medical problems from nighttime wind turbine noise. The peculiar acoustic characteristics of wind turbine noise immissions cause the sounds heard at the receiving properties to be more annoying and troublesome than the more familiar noise from traffic and industrial factories. Limits used for these other community noise sources do not appear to be appropriate for siting industrial wind turbines. The residents who are annoyed by wind turbine noise complain of the approximately one (1) second repetitive swoosh-boom-swoosh-boom sound of the turbine blades and “low frequency” noise. It is not apparent to these authors whether the complaints that refer to “low frequency” noise are about the audible low frequency part of the swoosh-boom sound, the one-hertz amplitude modulation of the swoosh-boom sound, or some combination of both acoustic phenomena.

To assist in understanding the issues at hand, the authors developed the “conceptual” graph for industrial wind turbine sound (Figure 1). This graph shows the data from one of the complaint sites plotted against the sound immission spectra for a modern 2.5 MWatt wind turbine; Young’s threshold of perception for the 10% most sensitive population (ISO 0266); and a spectrum obtained for a rural community during a three hour, 20 minute test from 11:45 pm until 3:05 am on a windless June evening in near Ubly, Michigan a quiet rural community located in central Huron County. (Also called: Michigan’s Thumb.) It is worth noting that this rural community demonstrates how quiet a rural community can be when located at a distance from industry, highways, and airport related noise emitters.

During our review we posed a number of questions to ourselves related to what we were learning. The questions (italics) and our answers are:

Do National or International or local community Noise Standards for siting wind turbines near dwellings address the low frequency portion of the wind turbine’s sound immissions? No! State and Local governments are in the process of establishing wind farm noise limits and/or wind turbine setbacks from nearby residents, but the standards incorrectly presume that limits based on dBA levels are sufficient to protect the residents.

Do wind farm developers have noise limit criteria and/or wind turbine setback criteria that apply to nearby residents? Yes! But the Wind Industry recommended residential wind turbine noise levels (typically 50-55 dBA) are too high for the quiet nature of the rural communities and may be unsafe for the nearest residents. An additional concern is that some of the methods for implementing pre-construction computer models may predict sound levels that are too low. These two factors combined can lead to post-construction complaints and health risks.

Are all residents living near wind farms equally affected by wind turbine noise? No, children, people with pre-existing medical conditions, especially sleep disorders, and the elderly are generally the most susceptible. Some people are unaffected while some nearby neighbors develop serious health effects caused by exposure to the same wind turbine noise.

How does wind turbine noise impact nearby residents? Initially, the most common problem is chronic sleep deprivation during nighttime. According to the medical research documents, this may develop into far more serious physical and psychological problems

What are the technical options for reducing wind turbine noise immission at residences? There are only two options: 1) increase the distance between source and receiver; and/or 2) reduce the source sound power immission. Either solution is incompatible with the objective of the wind farm developer to maximize the wind power electrical generation within the land available.

Is wind turbine noise at a residence much more annoying than traffic noise? Yes, researchers have found that “Wind turbine noise was perceived by about 85% of the respondents even when the calculated A-weighted SPL were as low as 35.0-37.5 dB. This could be due to the presence of amplitude modulation in the noise, making it easy to detect and difficult to mask by ambient noise.” [JASA 116(6), December 2004, pgs 3460-3470, "Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise-a dose-relationship" Eja Pedersen and Kerstin Persson Waye, Dept of Environmental Medicine, Goteborg University, Sweden]

Why do wind turbine noise immissions of only 35 dBA disturb sleep at night? This issue is now being studied by the medical profession. The affected residents complain of the middle to high frequency swooshing sounds of the rotating turbine blades at a constant repetitive rate of about 1 hertz plus low frequency noise. The amplitude modulation of the swooshing sound changes continuously. The short time interval between the blade’s swooshing sounds described by residents as sometimes having a thump or low frequency banging sound that varies in amplitude up to 10 dBA. This may be a result of phase changes between turbine emissions, turbulence, or an operational mode.. The assumptions about wall and window attenuation being 15 dBA or more may not be sufficiently protective considering the relatively high amplitude of the wind turbine’s low frequency immission spectra.

What are the typical wind farm noise immission criteria or standards? Limits are not consistent and may vary even within a particular country. Example criteria include:

• Australia: the lower of 35 dBA or L₉₀ + 5 dBA
• Denmark: 40 dBA
• France: L₉₀ + 3 (night) and L₉₀ + 5 (day)
• Germany: 40 dBA
• Holland: 40 dBA
• United Kingdom: 40 dBA (day) and 43 dBA (night) or L₉₀ + 5 dBA
• Illinois: 55 dBA (day) and 51 dBA (night)
• Wisconsin: 50 dBA
• Michigan: 55 dBA

Note: Illinois statewide limits are expressed only in nine contiguous octave frequency bands with no mention of A-weighting for the hourly leq limits. Typically, wind turbine noise just meeting the octave band limits would read 5 dB below the energy sum of the nine octave bands after applying A-weighting. So the Illinois limits are approximately 50 dBA (daytime 7 AM to 10 PM) and 46 dBA at night, assuming a wind farm is a Class C Property Line Noise Source.

What is a reasonable wind farm sound immission limit to protect the health of residences? We are proposing an immission limit of 35 dBA or L_90A + 5 dBA, whichever is lower, and a C-weighted criteria to address the affected resident’s complaints of wind turbine low frequency noise: For the proposed criteria the dBC sound level at a receiving property shall not exceed L_90A + 20 dB. In other words, the dBC operating immission limit shall not be more than 20 dB above the measured dBA (L_90A) pre-construction nighttime background sound level. A maximum not-to-exceed limit of 50 dBC is also proposed. … The World Health Organization and others have determined a sound emitter’s noise that results in a difference between the dBC and dBA value greater than 20 dB will be an annoying low frequency issue.

Is not L_90A the minimum dBA background noise level? This is correct, but it is very important to establish the statistical average background noise environment outside a potentially affected residence during the quietest (10 pm to 4 am) sleeping hours of the night. This nighttime sleep disturbance has generated the majority of the wind farm noise complaints throughout the world. The basis for a community’s wind turbine sound immission limits would be the minimum 10 minute nighttime L_90A plus 5 dB for the time period of 10 pm to 7 am. This would become the Nighttime Immission Limits for the proposed wind farm. This can be accomplished with one or several 10 minute measurements during any night when the atmosphere is classified stable with a light wind from the area of the proposed wind farm. The Daytime Limits (7 am to 7 pm) could be set 10 dB above the minimum nighttime L_90A measured noise, but the nighttime criteria will always be the limiting sound levels.

A nearby wind farm meeting these noise immission criteria will be clearly audible to the residents occasionally during nighttime and daytime. Compliance with this noise standard would be determined by repeating the initial nighttime minimum nighttime L_90A tests and adding the dBC (L_eqC) noise measurement with the turbines on and off. If the nighttime background noise level (turbines off) was found to be slightly higher than the measured background prior to the wind farm installation, then the results with the turbines on must be corrected to determine compliance with the pre-turbine established sound limits. …

Including wind as a masking source in the criteria is one method for elevating the permissible limits. Indeed the background noise level does increase with surface wind speed. When it does occur, it can be argued that the increased wind noise provides some masking of the wind farm turbine noise emission. However, in the middle of the night when the atmosphere is defined as stable (no vertical flow from surface heat radiation) the layers of the lower atmosphere can separate and permit wind velocities at the turbine hubs to be 2 to 2.5 times the wind velocity at the 10m high wind monitor but remain near calm at ground level. The result is the wind turbines can be operating at or close to full capacity while it is very quiet outside the nearby dwellings.

This is the heart of the wind turbine noise problem for residents within 3 km (approx. two miles) of a wind farm. When the turbines are producing the sound from operation it is quietest outside the surrounding homes. The PhD thesis of P.G. van den Berg “The Sounds of High Winds” is very enlightening on this issue. See also the letter by John Harrison in Ontario “On Wind Turbine Guidelines.” …

The simple fact that so many residents complain of low frequency noise from wind turbines is clear evidence that the single A-weighted (dBA) noise descriptor used in most jurisdictions for siting turbines is not adequate. The only other simple audio frequency weighting that is standardized and available on all sound level meters is the C-weighting or dBC. A standard sound level meter set to measure dBA is increasingly less sensitive to low frequency below 500 Hz (one octave above middle-C). The same sound level meter set to measure dBC is equally sensitive to all frequencies above 32 Hz (lowest note on grand piano). It is well known that dBC readings are more predictive of perceptual loudness than dBA readings if low frequency sounds are significant.

We are proposing to use the commonly accepted dBA criteria that is based on the preexisting background sound levels plus a 5 dB allowance for the wind turbine’s immissions (e.g. L_90A +5) for the audible sounds from wind turbines. But, to address the lower frequencies that are not considered in A-weighted measurements, we are proposing to add limits based on dBC. The Proposed Sound Limits are presented in the text box at the end of this paper. For the current industrial grade wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3 MWatt range, the addition of the dBC requirement will result in an increased distance between wind turbines and the nearby residents. For the generalized graphs shown in Figure 1, the distances would need to be approximately double the current distance. This will result in setbacks in the range of 1 km or greater for the current generation of wind turbines if they are to be located in rural areas where the L_90A background sound levels are 30 dBA or lower. In areas with higher background sound levels, turbines could be located somewhat closer, but still at a distance greater than the 305 m (1000 ft.) or less setbacks commonly seen in U.S. based wind turbine standards set by many states and used for wind turbine developments.

Proposed Wind Turbine Siting Sound Limits

1. Audible Sound Limit
1. No Wind Turbine or group of turbines shall be located so as to cause an exceedance of the pre-construction/operation background sound levels by more than 5 dBA. The background sound levels shall be the L_90A sound descriptor measured during a pre-construction noise study during the quietest time of evening or night. All data recording shall be a series of contiguous ten (10) minute measurements. L_90A results are valid when L_10A results are no more than 15 dBA above L_90A for the same time period. Noise sensitive sites are to be selected based on wind development’s predicted worst-case sound emissions (in L_eqA and L_eqC) which are to be provided by the developer.
2. Test sites are to be located along the property line(s) of the receiving nonparticipating property(s).
3. A 5 dB penalty is applied for tones as defined in IEC 61400-11.
2. Low Frequency Sound Limit
   The L_eqC and L_90C sound levels from the wind turbine at the receiving property shall not exceed the lower of either:
1. L_eqC − L_90A greater than 20 dB outside any occupied structure, or
2. A maximum not-to-exceed sound level of 50 dBC (L_90C) from the wind turbines without other ambient sounds for properties located at one mile or more from State Highways or other major roads or 55 dBC (L_90C) for properties closer than one mile. These limits shall be assessed using the same nighttime and wind/weather conditions required in 1.a. Turbine operating sound immissions (L_eqA and L_eqC) shall represent worst case sound immissions for stable nighttime conditions with low winds at ground level and winds sufficient for full operating capacity at the hub.
3. General Clause
   Not to exceed 35 dBA within 30 m. (approx. 100 feet) of any occupied structure.
4. Requirements
1. All instruments must meet ANSI or IEC Precision integrating sound level meter performance specifications.
2. Procedures must meet ANSI S12.9 and other applicable ANSI standards.
3. Measurements must be made when ground level winds are 2m/s (4.5 mph) or less. Wind shear in the evening and night often results in low ground level wind speed and nominal operating wind speeds at wind turbine hub heights.
4. IEC 61400-11 procedures are not suitable for enforcement of these requirements except for the presence of tones.

Download “Simple guidelines for siting wind turbines to prevent health risks”

2 NOISE CRITERIA

The general approach in setting noise criteria for new developments is to require compliance with a base noise level.

This base noise level is typically 5 dB(A) lower than the level considered to reflect the amenity of the receiving environment. Designing new developments at a lower level accounts for the cumulative effect of noise from other similar development and for the increased sensitivity of receivers to a new noise source.

The impact of a given noise is also closely linked to the amount it exceeds the background noise. For example, the same noise in a quiet rural area will generally have a greater adverse impact than in a busy urban area because of the masking effect of high ambient noise environments.

If the noise generated does not exceed the background noise by more than 5 dB(A) the impact will be marginal and acceptable.

A unique characteristic of wind farms is that the noise level from each wind turbine generator (WTG) increases as the wind speed at the site increases. As an offset, the background noise also generally increases under these conditions and can mask the WTG noise.

Comparison with a base noise level alone will therefore not be sufficient to indicate the potential impact of a wind farm: a farm could comply with this base level at lower wind speeds but exceed it when the wind speed rises.

Most international and interstate jurisdictions … set a base noise level for low wind speeds and also ensure that the wind farm noise does not exceed the background noise by more than 5 dB(A) as the wind speed increases.

This general approach recognises the unique noise generating characteristics of wind turbines and the particular ambient noise environments of most sites and is the one used by these guidelines.

Most wind farm sites are within or next to areas where low ambient noise levels are a significant component of that area’s amenity. These might include rural living zones or zones that are not intended to be subject to any other significant ambient noise sources from adjacent premises. …

— – — –
The New Zealand Standard NZS 6808 sets the predicted base level (LAeq) at 40 dB(A). This is higher than the approach of these guidelines, but the specified propagation model to be used in accordance with that standard does not account for factors such as ground absorption and topography effects that can substantially reduce the noise level in practice. In addition, the New Zealand Standard requires the criteria to be met at all receivers, regardless of their relative amenity or relationship with the wind farm development.

A comprehensive publication developed by the wind farm industry for the UK Department of Trade and Industry (1996) sets the base level (LA90) at 35 — 40 dB(A). The actual value chosen within this range depends on the number of dwellings affected, the effect on the capacity of the wind farm of meeting the standard, and the duration and level of exposure.

Wind turbines and wind farms have been being developed in Denmark for over 20 years. Denmark has set a base noise level only (and does not consider the influence of background noise). The base noise level (LAeq) is set at 40 dB(A) for a wind speed of V10m = 8 m/s. These guidelines will provide a similar result given the expected influence of background noise. …
— – — –

Where the wind farm sites are within or next to areas where more intensive activity is expected, the base noise level may also be increased commensurate with the amenity of that area. It is recommended that the developer discuss such a situation with the EPA and the relevant planning authority.

2.1 Determining wind farm operating criteria

The Environment Protection (Industrial Noise) Policy 1994 limits the noise level from non-domestic noise sources including wind farms to 40 dB(A) or the lowest typical background noise level plus 5 dB(A) (whichever is the greater) in rural areas from 2200 hrs until 0700 hrs the following day.

This limit applies to existing noise sources and does not necessarily reflect the preferred noise criterion for new (planning) development. The general approach for new development applies a night time level of 35 dB(A) to significant development in a rural location.

To prevent adverse impacts from the increased noise of WTGs under high wind conditions, the increasing noise level must also be compared to the corresponding background noise at the relevant receiver.

2.2 Noise criteria — new wind farm development

The predicted equivalent noise level (LAeq,10), adjusted for tonality in accordance with these guidelines, should not exceed:

· 35 dB(A), or

· the background noise (LA90,10) by more than 5 dB(A)

whichever is the greater, at all relevant receivers for each integer wind speed from cut-in to rated power of the WTG. …

2.5 Cumulative development

Separate wind farm developments in close proximity to each other may impact on the same relevant receiver.

Therefore, as for staged development, any additional wind farm that may impact on the same relevant receiver as an existing wind farm should meet the criteria using the background noise levels as they existed before the original wind farm site development. The noise generated by existing WTGs from another wind farm should not be considered as part of the background noise in determining criteria for subsequent development. …

3.1 Background noise

What is background noise?

Background noise is the ‘lull’ in the ambient noise environment.

Intermittent noise events such as from aircraft flying over, dogs barking, mobile farm machinery and the occasional vehicle travelling along a nearby road are all part of the ambient noise environment but would not be considered part of the background noise unless they were present for at least 90% of the time. …

4.4 Tonality

Where, in the opinion of an officer authorised under the Environment Protection Act, the wind farm exhibits tonality as a characteristic, the developer should conduct a tonality test in accordance with a procedure acceptable to the EPA.

An addition of 5 dB(A) should be made to the measured background noise level from a wind farm where tonality is shown to be a characteristic.

Download “Environmental Noise Guidelines: Wind Farms”

This letter provides each of you with notice that the failure of each individual agency to reinitiate consultation violates the substantive requirements of sections 7(a)(1), 7(a)(2), and 7(d) of the Endangered Species Act. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(1)(2) & (d).

Litigation can be avoided if the agencies re-initiate consultation so that each biological opinion includes an analysis of the threat of white-nose syndrome in conjunction with ongoing management activities. …

Download “Sixty-Day Notice Letter of Intent to Sue for Violations of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act”

MYTH # 2: These industrial machines don’t make THAT MUCH noise.
Fact: Like the generator in your garage, they ARE very quiet – when they aren’t working. But at their loudest, they generate up to 90dB of noise, equivalent to a tractor or a loud car stereo. The noise can be clearly heard (and felt) for 1000’ and beyond, and much farther based on local conditions. And except on a still day, IT DOESN’T STOP.

MYTH # 3: There won’t be THAT many towers here in Prattsburgh.
Fact: The two wind companies are planning for nearly 100 wind power generating towers – and that’s just PHASE ONE.

MYTH # 4: These industrial towers will be safe to be around.
Fact: The rotating blades have tip speeds up to 180 mph, with the potential to throw ice at high velocity up to 1800’.

MYTH # 5: Besides ice throw, which would never happen in the Summer, there are no other potentially damaging health effects from close proximity to these wind towers.
Fact: At sunrise and sunset, shadow flicker can turn the 230’ spinning rotors into giant strobe generators, which can cause seizures in susceptible individuals. Also, research indicates that the persistent extreme low frequency noise wind towers generate can cause neurological problems. “Wind Farms Make People Sick Up to a Mile Away”, Sunday Telegraph, January 25, 2004.

MYTH # 6: These windfarms won’t take up THAT MUCH space.
Fact: Ecogen’s first 50 towers will have a capacity of 150 megawatts (MW), generating on average 50 MW, only one-third of capacity. A 50MW gas-fired power plant can be sited on a city block. Ecogen’s proposed “Project Area” covers 35 SQUARE MILES. This is the size of the city of Rochester. And this is JUST ONE of the wind companies.

MYTH # 7: Wind power will help free us from foreign oil for generating power.
Fact: The Department of Energy projects that wind power will represent only 1.3% of US generating capacity in 2025 (Annual Energy Outlook 2005). Projected delivered power would be about four-tenths of one percent of US electricity consumption – 17 years from now.

MYTH # 8: Wind power adds to our supply of dependable electricity.
Fact: Because wind power output is highly variable – UNDEPENDABLE – it must be backed up by spinning reserves from fossil fuel electric generating facilities in order to ensure dependable power delivery. Wind power does NOT free us from dependence on conventional electric power generation.

MYTH # 9: These industrial wind projects will generate A LOT OF JOBS.
Fact: Each 50 tower project will generate 8 jobs, or less than one-sixth of a job per tower. Think of it: SIX wind power-generating factory sites for ONE job.

MYTH # 10: The taxes or payments these wind companies will pay will all be “extra” money.
Fact: In similar locales, non-leasing adjacent landowners have experienced a significant drop in property values, in some cases 20-40%. The potential flight of landowners and reductions in the value of recreational, vacation home and retirement property could have a severe negative impact on tax revenues. And now there are concerns that the State would also reduce payments to towns and schools, claiming we’ll no longer need the money.

MYTH # 11: Windmills are safe for the environment.
Fact: Inappropriately sited and constructed wind towers can negatively affect groundwater, and the nearly one-acre swept area of the 230’ spinning rotors is a killing ground for birds.

MYTH # 12: They can’t put these towers THAT CLOSE to my property.
Fact: Prattsburgh has no zoning protection for non-participating landowners. The edge of the rotating blades for these towers can be sited as close as 374 FEET from your property line (489′ from the tower base). The leasing landowners have a say regarding where their towers are placed on their property, you DON’T. Will they want these nearly 400’ noisemaking industrial towers near their house, or NEAR YOURS (or where you want to build your future home)?

MYTH # 13: If I lease my land to the windfarms, it’s “safe” money.
Fact: Unless you require that they do so, the windfarm developers will not indemnify leasing landowners against legal liability for instances in which your neighbors, their visitors, or visitors to YOUR property incur injury or loss resulting from the operation of these windtowers.

MYTH # 14: These industrial towers will be safely sited in an industrial park.
Fact: No. If you live or own property in the 35 square-mile Ecogen “Project Area” – where the great majority of the landowners have NOT leased to the windfarm developers – the industrial park has been brought to you, and you and your neighbors live inside it.

MYTH # 15: Windfarms make good financial sense. They are more cost-effective than other sources or electricity, because they pay nothing for fuel.
Fact: Factoring in all the costs, wind power is nearly TWICE as expensive as fossil fuel electric power generation. Wind power is made financially viable – and, short term, highly profitable for windfarm developers – through multiple tax incentives, power production credits, power purchase guarantees, and NYSERDA cash transfers, and this financial burden is borne by us, the taxpayers. And the electrical utility can pass on higher prices to us, the ratepayers. The green from this “green” power goes to the developers, who often sell off the projects within two years to large corporations for their value as tax shelters.

MYTH # 16: These windfarms are “green” power. We need then to help save us from global warming, and I should pay my utility a premium for it.
Fact: The U.S. Department of Energy projects that, even with the continuation of massive subsidies, wind power will represent only a fraction of the INCREASE in future power production, so wind power won’t impact global warming. Far worse, many wind projects receive Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) based on their projected production, which are then traded to heavy polluters, allowing outdated fossil fuel plants to generate pollution beyond normal regulatory limits. These wind projects are not green power, but BROWN POWER, and your electric utility wants you to pay a premium for it. Extraordinary.

MYTH # 17: We as citizens and land owners have no say in preventing the inappropriate siting of these 400’ high industrial machines.
Fact: Yes, we can step forward and defend ourselves. Concerned residents and landowners in Prattsburgh, Naples and Italy and throughout Upstate New York should join Advocates for Prattsburgh. We need your participation and contributions to help us with our fight to protect our property values, our personal rights, the special character of our towns, and our freedom to live our lives and enjoy our property in peace and quiet. Contact us at Advocates for Prattsburgh, PO Box 221, Prattsburgh, NY 14873, and through our website: www.advocatesforprattsburgh.org.