The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutComments on Setback, Noise and Flicker Boarc Town 168 E Ithaca Dear Over mates issues read i regarc these So, I a Conne regarc these added Attach Cc: T s To: The Town From: Jude Lem Date: October 9 RE: Comment.. A In Iight of the fact i requirements oft , among other requi application and pe consider as part of Noise We are submitting of the Draft Suppl 20,2016,and "Am, Noise Pollution Cle, the Draft Supplem . conclusions reach for the original ap e As pointed out in tin provide residents wind farm. Other% any nuisance suit Likely fail. Furthermore,as th 27 dBA. This is tru BOWF itself. Thee 4 proposing just tha 45-46 dBA at resido' As part of the revi should exercise it any point on orbJ turbine is located t n r 1. 40 dBA Fa. 2. 35 dBA Fa, 3. 50 dBC Fa a 1 4. 45 dBC Fast Lm For this purpose,soun 4 specifications of the la Specifications for Gen specifications of the m a recognized laborator=. noted otherwise,mea "Outdoor Measureme Failing that,the standG property lines. k. f _ Setback Distances and x Nowhere in Draft EIS o and property Fine maki their property and ho Statement for the Win' 4 the nearest turbine fr review in connection Inadequate Setbacks There can be little disp adverse impacts cause neither the setbacks in adequate. As a case in point, in F ' r. foot long turbine blade with a man who lives a the blade was thrown bounced another 148f setbacks and the setba line setback of less tha `} potentially injuring so "Ice throw" is also a sig document found on th Black Oak.The GE doc It expressly states:"[i] turbine park." To mitigate these haza' contained in the Town setbacks [i]f icing is like. residences and public 1 a t r 1 remote boundaries n . standard but in doin y propertyboundar in development or inha those boundaries in appropriate to utilize' times the Hub Heigh Nonetheless, even th discussed in detail in, pages 13 to 15,studi i be significantly great manufacturer,Vesta regulations (Exhibit 3 property would be i foot or Vestas' 1,300 these setbacks. And a 2 of the committee r i deprives her of the u; of other residents, inc ,t BOWF's President, P A' turbines will automa Throw—Risk and Mit some models (with c r> g As part of the revie should exercise its di that,they should inc j 2.3MW-107 turbines Flicker :. The Wind Advisory C techniques relating t of BOWF's applicatio h ija concerns and to inco i Shadow flicker only o and is at a low angle( affected property,an w r considerable amount shadow flicker. Gener i These shadow flicker organisation promoting Denmark, France,the N g meters'from dwellings and limit the amount off I icker to no more than 30 ho cases, no more than 30 minutes per day. Research has shown that when turbi rotor diameters'or more from a dwelling,the potential for shadow flicker is w adopted a standard of 30 hours per year as its measure for what constitutes_a gives no support for that standard. There are many complaints by residents living near wind turbines about the it These complaints and concerns include,among other things, headaches,tinn'i earaches,vertigo and seizures. In many cases, residents have abandoned their were unable to sell them and could no longer stand living with the effects of t produced by the Bureau of Land Management,the BLM notes that flickering F an annoyance.8 With respect to seizures however,the BLM points out that m turbines are unlikely to cause epileptic seizures in the susceptible population' due to the low blade passing frequencies.1° The World Health Organization defines annoyance as a feeling of discomfort influencing of an individual or a group by any substances or circumstances.Ar malaise,fear,threat,trouble, uncertainty restricted liberty experience, excita While there has yet to be a direct causal Link established between flicker and World Health Organization does link annoyance to various diseases such as di? disease. Furthermore,the NIH's National Center for Biotechnology Informatio been little if any research conducted on how flicker could heighten the annoys in proximity to turbines." The BOWF data on shadow flicker provides no information about what the sta measurements and those measurements are based solely on average amount amounts of wind for the months,the amount of flicker could vary substantiall flicker shadow well in excess of the 30 hour per year standard BOWF has pro the amount of flicker that could occur on any one day at certain residences co z This equates to roughly 1,750 to 3,500 feet. s This equates to 1,070 meters or3,500 feet for the GE 2.3MW-107 turbines 4 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4 shadow-flickerevidence-base.pdf s https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/04/04/turbine-flicker-effect- drawscomplaints/UKgf7nOwM Hm8CWAtZ47V5t/story.htm 6 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/8386273/Shadow-flicker-rotatr headaches.html 7 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD6g3ixgO-s Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development in the Western United States, US Department of the Interior—Bureau of Land Manag 9 Around 0.5%of the population is epileptic and of these around 5%are photo-sensi- epileptics less than 5%are susceptible. zo http://onIineIibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01563.x/epdf 11 http://www.euro.who.int/_data/assets/pdf_file/0015/105144/WHO_Lares.pdf iz http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4063257/ minutes per day which is the standard set by European countries_13 Nonetheless,there is no meaningful mitigation provided for them in the Final EIS. Various mitigation steps can be taken to minimize the impact of flicker on nearby residents. Among other suggested mitigation tools are the use of blinds at residential properties or tree/shrub planting to screen shadow flicker to help minimize potential impacts. While BOWF mentions these potential mitigation steps, it does not actually propose any mitigation steps in the Final EIS. Nonetheless, many people complain that blinds do Kittle to actually block the impact of flicker and do nothing to alleviate its effects while outdoors. Planting trees or shrubs will do little to mitigate the impacts in the short run before the vegetation grows to a sufficient size to mitigate_ More meaningful mitigation steps would be to have BOWF shut down the turbines between the time the sun is rising and setting for approximately an hour around sunrise or sunset depending on where the residents reside in relation to the sun. Alternatively, BOWF can program their computers to control the direction of the turbine so the blades are directly parallel to the sun. As part of the review of BOWF's application and the Wind Energy Permit process,the Town Board should exercise its discretion to limit shadow flicker to no more than 30 hours per year and 30 minutes per day. Furthermore,the Town Board should impose mitigation steps that include shutting down the turbines between the time the sun is rising and setting for approximately an hour around sunrise or sunset depending on where the residents reside in relation to the sun. BOWF should also program their computers to control the direction of the turbine so the blades are directly parallel to the sun.. is Shadow flicker recommendations are based on the survey by Predac,a European Union sponsored organization promoting best practice at energy use and supply which draws on experience from Belgium, Denmark,France,the Netherlands and Germany. 1192 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48052/1416.-update-uk- shad ow-fI ickerevidence-base.pdf GE E SET 6 Set bac avoilobil Ice shed these h Table 1: If icing i 1.5 x!H All turbi 1.1 c T ir) All turbi 1.1 x BI The m Servic services Use 1/z °Grope inhabita GE reco recom custom of a pa listed in 1111._ C 2009 G Report on Wind Turbines Report to the Town of Enfield Town Board Enfield Wind Farm Advisory Committee April 12,2106 See http://townofenfield.ore/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Enfield-Wind-Farm-Advisory-Committee- Re po rts-2016-04-12.pdf vestas safety-radius.jhtit.11'! ti Inrr_c. 1654 2339 pkek)- ticiled ... huh: northcasm hidmills.com X%r-content Uploads.2013 05 vestas-sa... i'M i55ia0... ._pro:in4i J3fen Fir wlah:;i' fp•:l'£r2tO�r 3>J T$Cttl?JCL?n5 "•nss II !r. r,'� -;+�i•,i S!i!• .lit.`—_ -;I:tY,�; Rule 3 of 32 Introduction A turbine connected to the grid implies certain elements of dangei if it is handled without exercising prop('(ca,ition For safety reasons.at east two persons ha%.e to be presort during a work procedure. The work rnust be properly carried out in accordance vAth this ananual and other related manuals. This implies,among other things that personnel must be instructed in and familiar with relevant warts of this manual ;:urthei mom personnel must be familiar vAth the contents of the"3ubstances and Materials' regulations Caution must especially be exerted in situations,,,(here measurement and.vork is done in junction boxes that car.be connected to popier Consequently the foflo•rring safety regulation,must be observed 2. Stay and Traffic by the Turbine Do not stay-within a radius of 300rr.i 300ft)fr:••m the turbine unless it is necessary. If you have i:' inspect an ;resting turbine from the g:nund -i, not„ay under the rotor plane but observe the!otor from the front. INAake sure that children do not stay by or play nearby the turbine.If necessary,fence the foundation. 'r The access door to the turbine must be locked in order to prevent unauthorised persons from stopping or damaging the turbine due to mal-operatior,of the controller. _ 7 r-, 3. Address and Phone Number of the �� ? Turbine Cc Note the address and the access road of the turbine in:vase an emergency situation should arse.The addiess of the turbine can often be found in the sera ice reports it-,the rung binders next to the ground controller.Find the phone number of the local life-saving seance .iSs'i r"f1d.�iYSrC'T15�:S L`!cy _ ;:QA.';�^.•3Cr5 _nr.:vt2Tk ..,..vQsids CGlYt 1 vl'I 11 30 201 j I:48 PM G4 I m POND I I APPROX. y _. -�.CRK. .� , I •, 41.067 Acres I I N I (net to rd. r/w) - I 521 I00 'WOODS- I P`QOt o i t _N W09*43' E 758.81'_ \ 660.31'(P TO P) — — 45.13' •i i 53.37' EVERHART(R.O.) (P TO P) i 583096-001 TAX MAP NO. 18-2-2.2 I V I I EVERHART(R.O.) 91 434264-001 'WOODS" I O \ .�.. TAX MAP NO. 18-2-4.I 'rl -WAS"EVERHART (R.O.) I I� BK. 766 PAGE 449 W & 8K..439 PAGE 526 _ I W 'ICARY INSTIME OF ECOSYSTEM $ l\\\ 7"/1 16 I00 # TAX MAP NO. 18-2-8.2 I I � I l O ; 1 I 'Woods" I I m I i I OPEN FIELO" 1 DASHED LINES I I P1 ARE APPARENT SURVEY LINES PER REF. MAP I 1 � *N 88'52'41" W 463.26' I z / C� N O Barney,Mu Gr Ft WII'm Fre / CERTIFICATION a(the Len 'WOODS' # McMASTER(R.O.) Si wart CrossmoTt 2510/1851 Ihereby pert li tothat I am a licensed loud sunreyc TAX MAP NO. 18-2-10 I N. 050096, and that this map e I V \ survey on the ground made ty m and that I found no visible eneroc (A ' / across property lines except as sf n'1 SIGNED: �/Lc08.4` � 1 N 87.37'15' E 810.20' -- � - T 'I(�A\\//'' TITLE: . S 01'S7'26••E , 320.59• .• \.•, '' APPROX. NO. _ Mc MASTER(R.O.) .. •. CRIC / T. C. MILLER P.C.2510/1851 TnwN /N Energy ice Shedding and Ice Throw - Risk and Mgitiation David Wahl Philippe Giguere Wind Application Engineering GE Energy Greenville, SC Ice shedding and Ice Throw Risk and Mitigation Introduction Institut IDEWO,it should be noted that the actual distance is As with any structure,wind turbines can accumulate ice under dependant upon turbine dimensions,rotational speed and certain atmospheric conditions,such as ambient temperatures many other potential factors.Please refer to the References near freezing(0°C)combined with high relative humidity,freezing for more resources. rain,or sleet.Since weather conditions may then cause this ice to ® Physical and Visual Warnings:Placing fences and warning signs be shed,there are safety concerns that must be considered during as appropriate for the protection of site personnel and the public[4) project development and operation.The intent of this paper is to . Turbine Deactivation:Remotely switching off the turbine when share knowledge and recommendations in order to mitigate risk. site personnel detect ice accumulation.Additionally there are The Risk several scenarios which could lead to an automatic shutdown of the turbine: The accumulation of ice is highly dependent on local weather conditions and the turbine's operational state."-"Any ice that is - Detection of ice by a nacelle-mounted ice sensor which is accumulated may be shed from the turbine due to both gravity available for some models(with current sensor technology, and the mechanical forces of the rotating blades.An increase in ice detection is not highly reliable) ambient temperature,wind,or solar radiation may cause sheets or - Detection of rotor imbalance caused by blade ice formation fragments of ice to loosen and fall,making the area directly under by a shaft vibration sensor;note,however,that it is possible the rotor subject to the greatest risks").In addition,rotating turbine for ice to build in a symmetric manner on all blades and not blades may propel ice fragments some distance from the turbine trigger the sensor(2) up to several hundred meters if conditions are right."-',"Falling ice - Anemometer icing that leads to a measured wind speed may cause damage to structures and vehicles,and injury to site below cut-in personnel and the general public,unless adequate measures are put in place for protection. Operator Safety:Restricting access to turbines by site personnel while ice remains on the turbine structure.If site personnel Risk Mitigation absolutely must access the turbine while iced,safety precautions The risk of ice throw must be taken into account during both may include remotely shutting down the turbine,yawing to place project planning and wind farm operation. GE suggests that the rotor on the opposite side of the tower door,parking vehicles the following actions,which are based on recognized industry at a distance of at least 100 m from the tower,and restarting the practices,be considered when siting turbines to mitigate risk for turbine remotely when work is complete.As always,standard ice-prone project locations: protective gear should be worn. ® Turbine Siting:Locating turbines a safe distance from any occupied structure,road,or public use area.Some consultant groups have the capability to provide risk assessment based on site-specific conditions that will lead to suggestions for turbine locations,in the absence of such an assessment,other guidelines may be used.Wind Energy Production in Cold Climate[61 provides the following formula for calculating a safe distance: 1.5*(hub height+rotor diameter) While this guideline is recommended by the certifying agency Germanischer Lloyd as well as the Deutsches Windenergie- GE Energy I GER-4262(04/06) 1 References The following are informative papers that address the topic of wind turbine icing and safety.These papers are created and maintained by other public and private organizations.GE does not control or guarantee the accuracy,relevance,timeliness,or completeness of this outside information.Further,the order of the references is not intended to reflect their importance,nor is it intended to endorse any views expressed or products or services offered by the authors,of the references. [11 Wind Turbine Icing and Public Safety-a Quantifiable Risk? Colin Morgan and Ervin Bossanyi of Garrad Hassan, 1996. [21 Assessment of Safety Risks Arising From Wind Turbine Icing: Colin Morgan and Ervin Bossanyi of Garrad Hassan,and Henry Seifert of DEWI,1998. [31 Risk Analysis of Ice Throw From Wind Turbines:Henry Seifert, Annette Westerhellweg,and Jurgen Kr6ning of DEWI,2003. [4) State-of-the-Art of Wind Energy in Cold Climates:produced by the International Energy Agency,lEA, 2003. [S] On-Site Cold Climate Problems:Michael Durstewitz,Institut fur Solare Energieversorgungstechnik e.V.(ISET),2003. [61 Wind Energy Production in Cold Climate:Tammelin,Cavaliere, Ho[ttinen,Hannele,Morgan,Seifert,and Santti,1997. GE Energy J GER-4262(04/06) 2 02006.General Electric Company.All rights reserved. GER-4262(04/061 Critique of the Noise Analysis of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Black Oak Wind Farm Legend Sound Level 35 dBA 40 dBA 45 dBA 50 dBA �►�' � X� Y l - 55 dBA ((("' � • Turbines LL El Occupied Structures t�owl ♦ - t i d •� � cro April 20, 2016 Prepared by Les Blomberg, Noise Pollution Clearinghouse, PO Box 1137, Montpelier VT 05601 Contents Critique of the Noise Analysis of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Black Oak Wind Farm Introduction............................................................................................................ I. Understanding Noise and Noise Pollution................................... ........., ............................................3 Noise:a sound that interferes with a task,function, process, health or wellbeing;a sound that is inharmonious or out of place................_.. .._.................. ...................._ ......... ......._........................3 Noise Pollution:A Noise Emitted into the Environment ......................................................................4 When Is Noise Pollution a Problem?.....................................................................................................4 11. Quiet Is the Expectation in Rural Areas ..............................._..................._..................... ....................5 111.Wind Turbine Noise is Different from Other Noise Sources:...............................................................9 IV. Critical Questions the DSEIS Noise Analysis Failed to Answer... .....................................................11 V. DSEIS Fabricated a Local Regulatory Standard and Made a Mess of the Local Standard Assessment .... .......... ...... ...... .. ... ..... 12 VI. DSEIS Fabricated an Ambient Noise Level and Messed Up the NYSDEC Criterion of Significance Assessment................................................................._....._......._.............................................................14 VII. DSEIS Modeling Is Unreliable.......................................,..........._......................._................................20 VIII. DSEIS Noise Monitoring is Unreliable............................._................................................................21 IX. DSEIS Noise Modeling Shows Significant Increases Above HIS Noise Modeling..............................22 X.The Project Causes Significant Noise Impacts Even If Only DSEIS Data Is Considered.. ..._..............24 XI.As Many as 30 Non-Participating Residences Meet the DSEIS Criterion of Significant Noise Impact ............................................................................................................... ........................ ..25 XII.As Many as 53 Non-Participating Residences Meet the DSEIS Criterion for Significant Noise Impact atNight ............................................................_........................._..............,...._........._..............................28 XIII.The DSEIS Understated the Scope of the Project and Shielded Noise Impacts from Scrutiny........30 Conclusion........................................._............................._.......................................................................30 2 Intro This re the Bla of the (FEIS) a also crit The rep noise i for signi proble 1. 2. 3. 4. S. The DSE (Parts V- noise im Before BOWF, i environ I. Und Noise: that is The ter range o that are dripping with we The wor suggest pressur persona the figh N P' gi c h' rE a, N 0 N Ir ei gi Pi e; ai N' a e N a w la la T to n c N e as T ty a w II. Quiet Is the Expectation in Rural Areas Character of the neighborhood (quiet, rural, suburban, urban, etc.) can be one of the best indicators of the extent of a problem caused by intruding noise. The nature of the soundscape and the expectations of people who live there significantly shape people's reaction to noise. In a soundscape with a quiet background, noise is much more intrusive. A 55 decibel noise, which might be around the background level in an urban area near roadways, could be 30 decibels above the background in a rural setting. As a rough approximation, each 10 decibel increase is a doubling of the loudness,'so the noise would dominate the soundscape, being 8 times louder than the background. 55 dBA 55 dBA —50 dBA —50 dBA —40 dBA —40 dBA —30 dBA —30 dBA —20 dBA —20 dBA —10 dBA —10 dBA 0 Figure 1.Graphic Noise Thermometer The noise thermometer shows that the loudness of noise doubles with each 10 dBA increase in the noise level. The noise on the left is 25 dBA, a common level for a rural area at night. The noise on the right is 55 dBA. It is 8 times louder than the 25 dBA noise. A 45 dBA noise would be four times as loud. A 45 dBA or 55 dBA noise would absolutely dominate a rural nighttime soundscape. The other factor important in the character of the neighborhood is the community's expectation. Rural communities tend to have a greater expectation of and place a greater value on quiet. An ISO noise standard notes that this expectation for quiet can account for a 10 decibel difference in reaction to noise. The figure below provides the results of an interesting study that confirms the expectation for peace and quiet in rural areas. The number one expectation of rural living, among urban, suburban, and rural residents is that rural areas are quiet. EPA, 1981, Noise Effects Handbook,7-2. 5 Item Agree Undecided Disagree Agree Undecided D,saggee Agree Undecided Disagree Rural tile brings out the best in Rural families are more cioSeknit Because rural life 1%closer to Rural communities are the most work and play Rural people are more likely than are are more characteristic of rural communities than other areas, Life in niral communities is less There is less crime and violence and quiet than do other areas, u Number m cases varies slightly from item m item due m missing data. u Emphasis added. rouwz. Responses in percent from rural,urban and suburban residents to items dealing with positive images of rural life (after Willits er,u.1nno. Schomer, 20O1,Assessment of Noise Annoyance, 27 Figure 2. Expectation mf Quiet in Rural Areas Character of the neighborhood played a central role in the EPA's development of a 55 dBA criterion. This is because their data on the community response to noise was essentially unusable before the noise levels were adjusted or normalized to an urban residential neighborhood. Figure 3 below shows the EPA data on community response to noise, before it was normalized. You can see that a noise level that falls below 50 dBA might result in no reaction or widespread reaction. A noise between 50 dBA and 60 dBA might cause no reaction, sporadic complaints, widespread complaints, or several threats of legal action. There appears tobe little relationship between noise level and community response. The problem was that the EPA data focused solely on the source noise and not the existing noise level and expectation of the community. When the EPA took that existing soundscapeinto account,the results were much better. In this case there is a clear relationship between ' increasing noise and increasing community response. See Figure 4. The EPA had to adjust or normalize its data to an urban residential situation. The adjustments tp the data that the EPA made are given in Figure 5. Quiet suburban or rural communities were adjusted 10 decibels; normal suburban communities were adjusted 5 decibels. In addition, communities with no prior experience with intruding noise were adjusted another 5 decibels. COMMUNITY REACTION _ + VIGOROUS ACTION SEVERAL THREATS OF LEGAL ACTION *•• s ■ OR STRONG APPEALS TO LOCAL OFFICIALS To STOP NOISE WLDESPREAO COMPLAINTS OR SINGLE THREAT e ■ seas a. . . a OF LEGAL ACTION Sf'+7RADI C � a a • COMPLAINTS ` NO REACTION ALTHOUGH NOISE I5 : +• ; ss e• •• a GENERALLY NOTICEABLE 40 50 60 70 $O 90 OUTDOOR DAY MIGHT SOUND LEVEL OF INTRUDING NOISE IN dB RE 20 MIcRO VA-CCAL5 Figure 3. EPA Data: Community Reaction vs Sound Pressure Level. (Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, EPA, 1974). COI+RVOITY REACTION VIGOROUS ACTION •+ SEVERAL THREATS OF LEGAL ACTION . OR STRONG APPEALS TO LOCAL OFrICIALS TO STOP NOISE WIOESPREAO COMPLAINTS a OR SINGLE THREAT •• •• « "• •• OF LEGAL ACTION « � • • DATA NORMALIZED To; SPORADIC «• RESIDENTIAL URBAN RESIDUAL NOISE COMPLAINTS SQUE PRIORI EXPOSURE WINDOWS PARTIALLY OPEN NO PURE TONE OR IMPLUSES NO REACTION - . ALTHOUGH NOISE IS `s• � • �•...r GENERALLY NOTICEAOLE 40 SO 60 70 130 90 eOWALIZED OUTDOOR DAY/NIGHT SOUND LEVEL Or 1I4TRUDING N01K III dS Figure 4. EPA Data: Community Reaction vs Sound Pressure Level. (information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, EPA, 1974). 7 CORRECTIONS TO BE ADDED TO THE MEASURED DAY-NIGHT SOUND LEVEL(LA OF INTRUDING NOISE TO OBTAIN NORMALIZED La„ Type of l Amount of Correction ;Correction Description to be Added to Measured Ld„ in dB !Seasonal Summer(or year-round operation) €0 ,Correction Winter ;only(or windows always closed) �- 5 arletctiesrb d from industrial ral activite1 �_ _.. .__ _... ..._._ _... ._ community note from 1 g y and +10 trucking) ;Correction - .-- -----m jfor Outdoor Normal suburban community (not located near �+5 Noise Level #industrial activity) ;Measured Urban residential community (not immediately lin Absence ?adjacent to heavily traveled roads and industrial 10 Hof Intruding }areas) Noise noisy urban residential community (near relatively _5� busy roads or industrial areas) 'Very noisy urban residential community 10 to prior experience with the intruding noise ',+5 =Community has had some previous exposure to ?intruding noise but little effort is being made to E 'control the noise. This correction may also be `applied in a situation where the community has not 0 been exposed to the noise previously,but the ;Correction people are aware that bona fide efforts are being !for Previous i nade to control the noise. xposure & I ..... !Community lCornmunity has had considerable previous Attitudes °exposure to the intruding noise and the noise `.--5 E maker's relations with the community are good Community is aware that operation causing noise is ,'every necessary and it will not continue indefinitely. This correction can be applied for an operation of -10 limited duration and under emergency j rcumstances. E Pure Tone No pure tone or impulsive character 0 for Impulse � Pure tone or impulsive character present [4-5 0 Figure 5. EPA Normalization Factors (EPA, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, 1974). 8 The EPA recommendation of 55 dBA which is found in the NYSDEC criterion of significance, is a recommendation for urban residential neighborhoods. For Enfield, New York, one would subtract 10 dBA from 55 because it is a quiet rural area, 5 dBA because it has no prior experience with wind turbine noise, and 5 dBA because of the character of turbine noise. A noise level of 35 dBA is necessary to protect the rural area using the EPA data. The more important criterion of significance in the NYSDEC document is the 6 dBA increase criterion. The EPA noted that, "The data in Figure D-7 [Figure 4 in this report] indicates that widespread complaints may be expected when the normalized value of the outdoor day-night sound level of the intruding noise exceeds that existing without the intruding noise by approximately 5 dB, and vigorous community reaction may be expected when the excess approaches 20 dB. The standard deviation of these data is 3.3 dB about their means and an envelope of+5 dB encloses approximately 90 percent of the cases. Hence, this relationship between the normalized outdoor day-night sound level and community reaction appears to be a reasonably accurate and useful tool in assessing the probable reaction of a community to an intruding noise and in obtaining one type of measure of the impact of an intruding noise on a community." (EPA, 1974, D-20.) III. Wind Turbine Noise is Different from Otber Nome Source- Wind turbine noise is different from traditional noise sources. Wind turbine noise elicits reactions that are more commonly associated with much higher sound pressure levels. Some of the factors that make wind turbine noise unique are listed below. • Wind turbines are an overhead source. Overhead sources are difficult or impossible to block with barriers, and they enter houses both from above and the sides, often requiring more insulation. • Wind turbine noise is often more prominent in the evening and nighttime. Typical noises tend to better correlate with when people are working. Wind turbine noise often is not masked by wind due to wind gradients (low ground wind speeds but higher turbine height wind speeds). • Wind turbine noise is unpredictable. People cannot know ahead of time when the noise will be present, so that they can plan around the noise. • Wind turbine noise is not reciprocal. Typical rural noises have no impact on wind turbines, but wind turbines impact rural life. • Wind turbine noise is unique and unusual in a rural environment. There is nothing equivalent to it. • Wind turbine noise is not constant. It has a time varying component that various people have described as beating, swishing, or thumping. • Wind turbine noise has a low frequency that more easily penetrates homes. • In rural areas,wind turbines are audible at a greater distance than almost every other rural noise source. 9 That wind turbine noise is different from other noise sources can be seen from studies of individual reactions to noise. Annoyance from wind turbine noise has been studied and dose-response relationships(the quantification of how impact increases as the noise increases)for turbine noise has been developed by Pedersen and Waye, as well as other researchers. The salient aspect of this research is that the dose-response curve for wind turbine noise is much steeper than for other noise sources. For the same noise level, people find wind turbine noise much more annoying than other noise sources such as road noise or aviation noise. This is due to the unique characteristics of wind turbine noise and possibly the interaction with visual impacts that may draw people's attention to the turbine noise. Pedersen's 2004 paper published in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,the premier journal in the field,compares the dose-response curves for turbine noise and other noise sources, and is shown in Figure 6. Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise--a dose—response relationship E;a Pi°Cer:¢n"a.t Ker;tas PersSan 4Yd'r`Eti 50 r _ t 5.., re w}n I-11 1u, i v n 46 40 wind turbines Aircraft 35 € 30 i 25 d Road traffic 20 �r i 15 Railways 10 eJ 5 0 432 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 Sound exposure(MA) Sound exposure is for wind turbines calculated A-weighted Lam, for a hypothetical time period and for transportation DNL. 3488 J Accust.Sac.Am„Vol.118,No.8,December 2044 E Pedersen and K Per—Waye Annoyance due W—d WIN-notse Figure 6.Wind Turbine Noise Elicits a Greater Response at Lower Noise Levels than Other Noise Sources It is clearfrom Figure 6 that wind turbine noise is very different from other noise sources: it is much more annoying and at lower noise levels than other noise sources. Consequently,to protest the public from the effects of wind turbine noise, much lower noise limits are needed. 2 The primary measure of noise effects on humans for the last 60 years has been annoyance. Annoyance is perhaps the most easily studied noise effect,and until the advent of the documentation of health effects related to noise in the 21st century and the release of World Health Organization's Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise in 2009,annoyance was the best metric to quantify noise effects. Annoyance acts as a composite measure of human response to specific health and other effects of noise. People who,for example,suffer sleep interference,communication interference,activity interference,or stress related effects will likely report that they are annoyed by noise. People are annoyed because of specific effects of noise they experience. 10 IV. Critical Questions the DSEIS Noise Analysis Failed to Answer An environmental assessment is an evaluation of the known or potential environmental consequences of a proposed action. According to the SEQRA Handbook, "The draft EIS is the primary source of environmental information to help involved agencies consider environmental concerns in making decisions about a proposed action. The draft also provides a basis for public review of, and comment on, an action's potential environmental effects. The draft EIS accomplishes those goals by examining the nature and extent of identified potential environmental impacts of an action, as well as steps that could be taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts." (SEQRA Handbook, 117.) Noise, as discussed in Part I above, has a host of impacts. The problem is that the DSEIS didn't identify any relevant areas of environmental concern related to noise,3 didn't thoroughly analyzed them for significant adverse impact, and provided no reason for ignoring the environmental impacts of noise. Figure 7 lists impacts of noise that were not considered in the DSEIS and were not analyzed in the DSEIS. A red X means the question was not addressed;green check means it was addressed, and a very small green check means it was somewhat addressed. What is truly striking is that these were not even addressed in the Noise Appendix H of the DSEIS. Noise Impacts Not Investigated in the DSEIS NOISE IMPACT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED Investigated in DSEIS? APP.H? How will the turbine noise change the character of the area? X X Where will turbines be audible? X X Where will turbine noise dominate current ambient conditions? X X Will neighbors be able to escape the noise by going indoors? X X Where will turbines be audible inside homes? X X Where will the noise be annoying?Highly annoying? X Where will the noise interfere with outdoor activities or their enjoyment? X X How will the community react to the turbine noise? X X Predicted response based on EPA's Levels Document,Table D-7? X X Will the noise change the acceptable uses of neighbors'properties? X X Where will lands be unsuitable for future residential use? X X Where will health impacts of noise occur? X X Cardiovascular/stress related effects? X X Sleep interference,awaking,sleep stage changes,difficulty falling asleep? X X Secondary sleep interference effects such as fatigue,reduced performance,irritability? X X Decreased helping behavior and increased aggressive behavior? X X Decreased performance? X X What will be the noise effects on wildlife and where will they occur? X X Will infrasound from the turbines cause impacts? X X Figure 7. Noise Impacts Not Investigated in the DSEIS. 3 The DSEIS did mention "annoyance," but only in passing,and only with respect to noise in the 31.5 and 63 Hz frequency bands. 11 It is not reasonable to ignore noise impacts, including health related impacts, in a DSEIS noise analysis. The point of the EIS process is to identify impacts early in the DSEIS process and to disclose them to the public, so that they can be mitigated if needed. This is not a problem that can be addressed by adding a couple paragraphs to the FSEIS, because the impacts would have been hidden from the public until the final moment when the public can no longer comment or participate. A new DSEIS is needed to address these impacts. V. DSEIS Fabricated a Local Regulatory Standard and Made a Mess of the Local Standard Assessment As noted in Part IV above, the DSEIS did not analyze or even mention noise impacts, or any criteria of significant impact related to any specific noise impact. Instead,the DSEIS relied on the local wind law and the NYSDEC criterion of significance. Part V shows that the DSEIS botched the local standard noise analysis. (The critique of the NYSDEC criterion of significance analysis is found in Part VI below.) The crux of the problem related to the DSEIS, FEIS, and DSEIS treatment of the local regulatory noise limit is that these documents used as a test for significant adverse environmental impacts a criterion that is entirely fabricated. The result is that the DSEIS noise assessment is fatally flawed and needs to be corrected before the DSEIS can take a hard look at the noise impacts. The DSEIS states that "[t]he criteria against which to compare the predicted noise from the Modified Project to determine if any significant adverse environmental impacts might result include the local regulatory noise limits ....The same assessment criteria described in the DEIS for the Approved Project were applied to the Modified Project...." (DSEIS, 37.) Note that the DSEIS didn't specifically say what the Enfield regulatory noise limit in is in the DSEIS noise analysis. Appendix H of the DSEIS states: "The Town of Enfield's Local Law Number 1 of 2009, entitled 'Wind Energy Facilities Local Law' sets a sound limit of 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA) at the nearest Non- Participating residence." (DSEIS, Appendix H, 1.) Table 13 on page 21 of the DSEIS states that sound levels "[s]hall not exceed 60 decibels at nearest offsite residence." Neither of these statements, however, is true. The standard in the DSEIS is completely fabricated. The real local regulatory limit can be found in Local Law Number 1 of 2009, tilted "Wind Energy Facilities Local Law." Section 17 reads as follows: Sound Levels and WTG Setbacks. The following standards and requirements shall apply to each WTG: A. Sound Levels. The statistical Sound Pressure Level generated by a WTG shall not exceed 60 decibels above ambient sound levels measured at the nearest off- Site Residence. The authors of the DSEIS presumably didn't use this standard as a criterion of significance because they realized it is a totally ridiculous standard. The standard of 60 decibels above ambient sound levels is 12 unsupported by any science. A 60 decibels above ambient standard would permitted noise levels that would lead to significant impacts including hearing loss and a host of other health consequences. It is important to understand that a 60 dBA above ambient level is 100 dBA,at least according to the DSEIS. The DSEIS claims that the ambient levels are 39.8 dBA. If we round that to 40 dBA,60 dBA above ambient is 100 dBA. This is so loud that noise at this level can cause numerous health problems. To protect against hearing loss,for example,the US EPA and the World'Health Organization recommend people be exposed to this level for less than 90 seconds each day. I have surveyed "above ambient" noise standards from across the United States in a fourth coming paper entitled, Preliminary Results of an Analysis of 491 Community Noise Ordinances.4 "Above ambient"standards are a common and accepted regulatory tool, but the Enfield standard of 60 decibels above ambient is far from reasonable—it is an outlier of the outliers. The Town of Enfield standard did not qualify for inclusion in the survey,-'but if it had,it would have been the worst noise ordinance in the country, by 45 decibels. Here are the rankings of the least protective "above ambient standards in the United States,if Enfield's had been included: 1. 60 dB Enfield, NY 2. 15 dBA Norman,OK 2. 15 dBA Kenosha,WI 2. 15 dBA West Valley City, UT In the study, a 15 dBA"above ambient"criterion was an outlier,used by only three communities. "There were 47 communities employing an over ambient standard. Over ambient standards range from 0-15 dBA over ambient,with the median and mode being 5 dBA." (Blomberg, 2016.) Moreover,scientific research conducted by the US EPA suggests that a 5 dBA increase or greater can cause widespread complaints. According to the US EPA: The data... indicate that widespread complaints may be expected when the normalized value of the outdoor day-night sound level of the intruding noise exceeds that existing without the intruding noise by approximately 5 dB,and vigorous community reaction may be expected when the excess approaches 20 dB. EPA, 1974, D-206 The authors of the DSEIS probably didn't realize that the local regulation was set 55 decibels above the typical level in regulations in the United States,45 decibels above the next highest standard in the United States, and 40 decibels above the level where the EPA found vigorous community reaction. 4 Blomberg,2016,Preliminary Results of an Analysis of 491 Community Noise Ordinances, Institute of Noise Control Engineering,Noise-Con 2016. 5 All of the regulations in the 491 ordinance sample came from communities with greater than 60,000 people. 6 US EPA, 1974,Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, D-20. 13 They, nonetheless,seem to realize it is a ridiculous standard because the 60 decibels above ambient standard is not mentioned in the DSEIS, but the law that contains it is referenced indirectly.' Moreover, neither the HIS(2014) nor the DEIS(2013)mention the 60 decibel above ambient local standard. The DEIS, like the DSEIS,fabricates a new standard: "The Town's Wind Energy Facilities Local Law sets a sound limit of 60 dBA at the nearest non-participating residence" (DEIS, 191). These documents make two very significant changes to the local regulatory standard: removing"above ambient" changes the standard from a relative-to-ambient standard to an absolute standard,and the addition of the"A" after"dB"adds a frequency weighting to the standard that does not appear in the text of the local regulation. These changes to the local noise limits are arbitrary and not justifiable. Faced with a ridiculous local standard with no foundation in science,and faced with a problem that has been known since at least February 20138, instead of correcting the problem,the DSEIS, FEIS,and DEIS chose instead to fabricate a new noise standard. There are two problems with this. First, if the DSEIS is going to use local regulatory laws as a criterion of significance, it needs to use those laws. A fabricated local noise standard for the determination of significant impacts cannot qualify as a "hard look." Second,only the Enfield Town Board,and not the authors of the DSEIS(and earlier DEIS and FEIS),can change the noise standard,and those changes must be done in a manner consistent with local and state laws. The town must correct its local wind turbine noise regulatory limits before the DSEIS can take a hard look at the noise impacts of the project,and the DSEIS must correct the fabricated local noise limits with which it judges significant noise impacts before the DSEIS can be accepted. The fabricated local regulatory limits cannot be considered a criterion for significant adverse environmental impacts. VI. DSEIS Fabricated an Ambient Noise Level and Messed Up the NYSDEC Criterion of Significance Assessment Parts IV,V, and VI examine the inadequacies of the DSEIS noise analysis. In Part IV we noted that the DSEIS did not consider any criteria of significance with respect to specific noise impacts. In Part V,we showed that the DSEIS used a fabricated local standard as a criterion of significance. Part VI will show that the DSEIS ignored critical parts of the NYSDEC's guidance and fabricated an ambient level with which to assess significance that vastly understated noise impacts. "The criteria against which to compare the predicted noise from the Modified Project to determine if any significant adverse environmental impacts might result include the local regulatory noise limits and the noise assessment guidelines found in the NYSDEC's Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts(2000).The same assessment criteria described in the DEIS for the Approved Project were applied to the Modified Project...."(DSEIS,37.) 8 In a February 2013 report entitled Acoustic Study of the Black Oak Wind Farm by Tech Environmental,that later became Appendix T of the DEIS,the authors state:"The Wind Energy Facilities Local Law sets a sound limit of 60 dBA at the nearest non-participating residence." In a footnote,they acknowledge changing the standard:"Actually the Local Law states'60 dBA above ambient sound levels'which will be interpreted to mean 60 dBA."(DEIS, Appendix T,7,emphasis added.) Actually,the local law does not even say"dBA". It says"60 decibels above ambient sound levels,"not 60 A-weighted decibels above ambient. Appendix T knowingly changed the standard from 60 decibels above ambient to an absolute level of 60 dBA. 14 The DSEIS states that"[t]he criteria against which to compare the predicted noise from the Modified Project to determine if any significant adverse environmental impacts might result include ...the noise assessment guidelines found in the NYSDEC's Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts (2000)." (DSEIS, 37.) As the DSEIS notes,the NYSDEC's Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts(2000)states that"[i]n non- industrial settings the SPL should probably not exceed ambient noise by more than 6 dB(A)at the receptor." (NYSDEC,2000, 14.) Moreover, "[t]he goal for any permitted operation should be to minimize increases in sound pressure level above ambient levels at the chosen point of sound reception." (NYSDEC, 2000, 13.) The NYSDEC's Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts (2000) notes that "[i]n order to evaluate the above factors in the appropriate context,one must identify the following: 1) appropriate receptor locations for sound level calculation or measurement;2) ambient sound levels and characteristics at these receptor locations; and 3)the sound pressure increase and characteristics of the sound that represents a significant noise effect at a receptor location." (NYSDEC,2000, 13.) The DSEIS errored in the selection of receptor locations and in obtaining accurate ambient sound levels at those locations. The NYSDEC's Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts (2000)state: Appropriate receptor locations may be either at the property line of the parcel on which the facility is located or at the location of use or inhabitance on adjacent property.The solid waste regulations require the measurements of sound levels be at the property line.The most conservative approach utilizes the property line.The property line should be the point of reference when adjacent land use is proximal to the property line. Reference points at other locations on adjacent properties can be chosen after determining that existing property usage between the property line and the reference point would not be impaired by noise, i.e., property uses are relatively remote from the property line. (NYSDEC, 2000, 13, emphasis added.) The DSEIS did not use the property line locations, and did not assess the adjacent land uses proximal to the property Lines. Moreover,the DSEIS and Appendix H did not show the property lines in its noise analysis. Therefore,there is no way the DSEIS could have analyzed the property line noise levels. There are, however, areas proximal to the property lines that need analysis. For example, areas that are used as hiking trails or that are intended as home sites for children of the adjoining property owner. Moreover, noise levels at the property lines exceed 50 dBA in many cases and even exceed 55 dBA according to the modeling. 15 • x � T i • ' � 1 • s I AD ' 1 Figure 8. Predicted Noise Levels at the Property Line near Turbine 6. Figure 8 shows the predicted noise levels near Turbine 6. It is a composite of Figure 3 from Appendix H of the DSEIS (the dotted contour lines) and Figure 2 of Appendix T of the HIS (the solid contour lines). According to the legends of these Figures,the red line corresponds to the 55 dBA level;the orange, to the 50 dBA level. The property lines are shown in white. The red dotted line representing 55 dBA from the DSEIS turbine configuration clearly touches the property line south of Turbine 6 in Figure 8.This location has an existing hiking trail nearby. 16 C ' Jeo -mom c Figure 9. Predicted Noise Levels at the Property Line near Turbine C. Figure 9 shows the predicted noise levels near Turbine C (not shown but inside the dashed red circle). It is a composite of Figure 3 from Appendix H of the DSEIS (the dotted contour lines) and Figure 2 of Appendix T of the HIS (the solid contour lines). According to the legends of these Figures, the red line corresponds to the 55 dBA level; the orange,to the 50 dBA level. The property lines are shown in white. The orange dotted line representing 50 dBA from the DSEIS turbine configuration clearly crosses the property line northwest of Turbine C in Figure 9 marked 13.-2-1.1.This location is intended as a home site for the homeowners children,for which it would not be suitable if it were built. 17 ` ' i• t r ' 49 PWis. , ' , r • u I , Yw Z' 4 T Via ,. • _ � i �� ` r R107 MON Figure 10. Predicted Noise Levels at the Property Line near Turbine A. Figure 10 shows the predicted property line noise levels north of Turbine A from Figure 2 of the DSEIS Appendix H. The white property line of a non-participating neighbor has been added. From the figure one can see that the noise levels approach and exceed 45 dBA in this area. There is what the home owner calls his "second field" in this vicinity. It is a maintained grassy area with a structure. Ambient levels at these and similar locations are not presented in the DSEIS. In an accompanying report from the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse,Ambient Sound Levels NeareOWF, ambient levels at these locations were measured, and they are shown Figure 11. 18 Ambient Sound Levels Near Selected Turbines Daytime Ambient Nighttime Ambient Near Turbine 6 31.9 dBA 27.2dBA Near Turbine C 34.1 dBA 27.1 dBA Near Turbine A 30.1 dBA NA Figure 11.Ambient Sound Levels Near Selected Turbines. According to the DSEIS noise modeling,the predicted noise levels at the above locations are 55 dBA, 53 dBA,and 45 dBA. The results of subtracting the ambient sound levels from Ambient Sound Levels Near BOWFfrom the projected noise level are shown in Figure 12. The result is the approximate decibels above ambient that the turbine noise would cause, based on the modeling and the measured ambient noise levels. Turbine Noise Level Compared to Ambient Near Selected Turbines Daytime Nighttime Near Turbine 6 -23 dBA above ambient -28 dBA above ambient Near Turbine C -19 dBA above ambient -26 dBA above ambient Near Turbine A ^15 dBA above ambient NA, but most likely>-15 dBA Figure 12.Turbine Noise Level Compared to Ambient Near Selected Turbines. By not considering the property line as the appropriate receptor location,the DSEIS missed clear exceedances of the NYSDEC's 6 dBA above ambient criterion of significance. There are many possible examples like these around the project, since there are miles of property line around the project. These three examples clearly show that significant noise level increases do occur. The DSEIS failed to identify a significant impact of greater than a 6 decibel increase because it failed to take a hard look. In fact, it failed to take any look along property lines. The NYSDEC document notes that increases in sound pressure level of over 20 dB are "very objectionable to intolerable." The DSEIS failed to identify a very significant increase in noise levels. There is yet another way the DSEIS failed to take a hard look at the noise impacts. There are no ambient measurements near the three newly proposed turbine locations. The DSEIS relied on measurements taken for the original DEIS that were taken south and west of Turbines B and C, north and west of Turbine A, and generally over a mile away. The language of the NYSDEC document is clear. To assess the noise impact the DSEIS should have identified "1)appropriate receptor locations for sound level calculation or measurement;2) ambient sound levels and characteristics at these receptor locations; and 3)the sound pressure increase and characteristics of the sound that represents a significant noise effect at a receptor location." (NYSDEC, 2000, 13.) The DSEIS assessed the increase in noise levels for 19 three new turbines without actually measuring the ambient sound levels at any nearby receptor location. Finally,the DSEIS used a composite ambient noise level of 39.8 dBA. Part VIII below will undermine this value more fully, but there is a specific problem with this value in that it doesn't represent a value for any particular receptor location. It is an average level over both time and space. The average of Leq values is not linear(meaning that the average of 40 dBA and 30 dBA is not 35 dBA, but 37 dBA. The average is logarithmic and more heavily weighted to the higher noise levels. Moreover, by averaging the noise levels, the impact on quieter locations and quieter times is lost. For example, Table 1 of the HMMH Noise Study for Black Oak Wind Farm Project,found in Appendix T of the DEIS, gives nighttime Leq values of 25.3, 30.1, 29.1 and 26.1 dBA for locations ST-1, ST-2, ST-3, and ST-4. Using 39.8 dBA as the average background over all the times and places monitored, means that nighttime impacts at the specific locations are understated by 14.5, 9.8, 10.7, and 13.7 dBA respectively. Moreover,the DSEIS made no ambient measurements in the vicinity of the proposed new turbine sites. The only ambient measurements in these areas were reported in,Ambient Sound Levels Near BOWF. The only ambient levels in evidence do not support the use of 39.8 dBA as the ambient near the new Turbines A, B, and C. VII. DSEIS Modeling Is Unreliable The DSEIS noise analysis is based on estimated future noise levels of the wind turbines derived by noise modeling. We have asked the town and applicant to provide that modeling so that we can examine it and verify that it correctly models the proposed project. Providing the noise modeling is very simple, and can be done by copying and saving a computer file to a flash drive or an internet file sharing platform. They refused, however,to provide the modeling. In land use, planning, and EIS processes, noise modeling is routinely provided to interested parties so that they can verify the accuracy of the modeling. In fact,there is no other way to verify the accuracy of the modeling. Without our being able to examine the modeling, it is nothing more than the output of a black box. It is a black box because the inner workings and implementation are hidden from the Board and from interested parties. It is "black." It is secret. BOWF will not allow us or the Board to see how it arrived at the output. All we have is an output, a noise level,with no supporting evidence. Output without supporting evidence is reallyjust speculation and conjecture. All reference to the output in the DSEIS should be deleted. The opposite of a black box system is one in which the inner workings are available for inspection, a "glass box." Had the modeling been provided to us, we and the Board would be able to understand how the output was arrived at, and whether or not it was accurate. A thought experiment will show the weakness of relying on black box modeling. If I submitted a report, claiming that the output of my modeling documented significant adverse environmental impacts, but that the modeling must remain secret,the Board would reject that claim as unverified and unverifiable. For the very same reason, BOWF's modeling output should be rejected as unverified and unverifiable. BOWF has given the Town an "answer"to a math problem, but not shown its work. 20 BOWF claims that the modeling data contains proprietary information. This is not true and not necessary. There is no need for secret settings and secret modeling to estimate the noise levels for the DSEIS. The only reason for BOWF to not provide the modeling data is because BOWF is afraid it will not survive scrutiny. If BOWF's black box can't survive daylight,the output of the black box has no place in the DSEIS. All reference to the output should be deleted. VIII. DSEIS Noise Monitoring is Unreliable The case against the reliability of BOWF's noise monitoring is the same as the one against the reliability of its noise modeling. It is impossible for the Board and us to know how the background level of 39.8 dBA was derived. The DSEIS noise analysis is based on changes from the existing or ambient noise levels. We have asked the town and applicant to provide their monitoring data so that we can examine it and verify that it correctly represents the existing conditions. Providing the noise monitoring data is very simple and can be done by copying and saving a computer file to a flash drive or an internet file sharing platform. They refused, however,to provide the monitoring. In land use, planning, and EIS processes, noise monitoring data is routinely provided to interested parties so that they can verify the accuracy of the monitoring. In fact,there is no other way to verify the accuracy of the monitoring. Without our being able to examine the monitoring, it is nothing more than the output of a black box. It is a black box because the inner workings and implementation is hidden from the Board and from interested parties. It is "black." It is secret. BOWF will not allow us or the Board to see how it arrived at the output. All we have is an output, a noise level,with no supporting evidence. Output without supporting evidence is really just speculation and conjecture. All reference to the modeling and modeling output in the DSEIS should be deleted. The opposite of a black box system is one in which the inner workings are available for inspection, a "glass box." Had the monitoring data been provided to us, we and the Board would be able to understand how the output was arrived at, and whether or not it was accurate. A thought experiment will show the weakness of relying on black box monitoring data. If I submitted a report, claiming that the output of my monitoring documented significant adverse environmental impacts, but that the monitoring data must remain secret, the Board would reject that claim as unverified and unverifiable. For the very same reason, BOWF's monitoring output should be rejected as unverified and unverifiable. BOWF has given the Town an "answer' to a math problem, but not shown its work. BOWF claims that the monitoring data contains proprietary information. This is not true and not necessary. There is no need for secret processes to establish existing noise levels for the DSEIS. The only reason for BOWF to not provide the monitoring data is because BOWF is afraid it will not survive scrutiny. If BOWF's black box can't survive daylight, the output of the black box has no place in the DSEIS. All reference to the monitoring and monitoring output of 39.8 dBA should be deleted. 21 IX. DSEIS Noise Modeling Shows Significant Increases Above FEIS Noise Modeling Parts IV-VIII have identified inadequacies in the DSEIS. The DSEIS should be rejected, not only because of what isn't there (such as a noise impacts analysis, a local regulatory law analysis, and an adequate above ambient noise analysis, and the supporting evidence as discussed in Parts IV-VIII), but also because the evidence in the DSEIS leads to the conclusion that significant noise impacts exist. Specifically,the DSEIS modeling shows significant increases in turbine noise levels and in land impacted by turbine noise over the HIS modeling. h.ai. --- - ' t'- 47egend � c Sound Level 35 dBA yZir 40 dBA 45dBA Affl _ 50 dBA aid 55 dBA n. 0 Turbines U Occupied Structures I • ilk 0 500 1,000 :CCO 3.000 4 COC Figure 13. Predicted Noise Levels from the DSEIS and FEIS. 22 Figure 13 shows the predicted noise of the DSEIS and FEIS. It is a composite of Figure 3 from Appendix H of the DSEIS and Figure 2 of Appendix T of the FEIS. The dashed contour lines are the noise levels from the DSEIS. They are superimposed on top of the map from the HIS and its solid contour lines. According to the legends of these Figures,the red line corresponds to the 55 dBA level;the orange,to the 50 dBA level;the yellow,to the 45 dBA level; and the green,to the 40 dBA level. The property Fines are shown in white. Similar maps could be made for the other turbine configurations in the DSEIS. Several indicators of significant noise impacts can be derived from this map: 1. The total area of noise impacted land is much greater in the DSEIS. This can be seen from the map,and also from analysis of the map. Figure 14 below describes percent increase in lands above 55 dBA,50 dBA, and 45 dBA. Contour line FEIS Figure 2:Area SgFt DSEIS Figure 3:Area SgFt % Increase Red (Lands>55 dBA) 552,000 1,622,000 1945/6 Orange (Lands>50 dBA) 5,930,000 10,739,000 81% Yellow(Lands>45 dBA) 21,697,000 29,446,000 36% Figure 14. Percent Increase in Land Impacted by Turbine Noise. There are a number of reasons for the increase in lands impacted by turbine noise. One is that the new locations in the DSEIS result in a greater area of impact. Another possible reason is that BOWF may have misrepresented the impacts of increasing from 1.7to 2.3 MW turbines to the Board. In the June 24,2015 letter submitted to the Board it is claimed that the changes from the 1.7 to 2.3 MW turbines "further minimize and mitigate potential impacts analyzed during the SEQRA process."The increase could also be due to errors in the modeling, either for the DSEIS or FEIS. Neither we nor the Board can know for sure because the modeling was not provided to us so that it could be verified. 2. Many areas with significant increases of 10 dBA or more can be seen by examining the map. The solid lines represent the HIS noise level The dashed lines represent the proposed DSEIS noise level. Areas where the solid blue 35 dBA contour line intersect the dashed yellow 45 dBA line represent areas of a 10 dBA increase. Similarly,areas where the solid green 40 dBA contour line intersect the dashed orange 50 dBA contour line represent areas of a 10 dBA increase. This is noticeable around the areas of Turbines B and C to the north,although if an option with Turbine A were considered the increase in the south would be approximately 10 dBA. 3. Every turbines location has moved enough to alter the noise contour lines_ The change in the locations of Turbines 4, 5,and 6 are the easiest to see, but the location of all the turbines has moved. Again, because the noise modeling was not provided to us,we do not know if the change is due to poor modeling or the BOWF's misrepresentation of the changes being considered in the DSEIS. 23 X. The Project Causes Significant Noise Impacts Even If Only DSEIS Data Is Considered Even if the problems identified in Parts IV-IX are ignored,and only DSEIS data is considered,the DSEIS shows significant noise impacts. The DSEIS sets out two tests as criteria of significant noise impact. They are the local regulatory laws and the NYSDEC 6 dBA test: The criteria against which to compare the predicted noise from the Modified Project to determine if any significant adverse environmental impacts might result include the local regulatory noise limits and the noise assessment guidelines found in the NYSDEC's Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts(2000).The same assessment criteria described in the DEIS for the Approved Project were applied to the Modified Project.... (DSEIS,37.) As discussed above and in the DEIS,the NYSDEC's Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts(2000) criterion is a 6 dBA increase in noise levels above ambient,or 45 dBA according to the DEIS. Moreover, the DSEIS actually determined that the noise at four non-participating residences exceeded the criterion of significant impact. According to the DSEIS, "[t]he noise study completed for the Modified Project predicted that each alternative under consideration would result in 4 non-participating residences exceeding the 45 dBA NYSDEC Guideline." (DSEIS, 38.) After setting out this criterion of significant impact,the DSEIS ignores it and the four cases of significant noise impact. The DSEIS ignores this result for two reasons. 1) It suggests that"[tjhe 45 dBA level is not an enforceable regulatory limit." (DSEIS,37.) While this is true, it is irrelevant. The 45 dBA level was selected by the DSEIS as a criterion of significant impact,and it is that regardless of whether it is also a legal requirement of the town. 2)The DSEIS also dismisses this criterion because it says three non- participating residences exceeded the standard in the Findings Statement related to the FEIS. (DSEIS, 38.) This too is not a reason to ignore cases where the noise exceeds the criterion of significance. Moreover, it is not clear where this claim comes from. The actual modeling output from Appendix K of the FEIS and Appendix H of the DSEIS show different numbers. See Figure 15. HIS Modeling DSEIS Configuation 7AB DSEIS Configuration AC DSEIS Configuration BC ID Residence Total ID Residence Total ID Residence Total ID Residence Total Status Level Status Level Status Level Status Level (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) R14 Participating 45.9 R8 Non-Participating 46.2 R8 Non-Participating 46.2 R8 Non-Participating 46.2 R8 Non-Participating 45.8 R45 Participating 45.7 R45 Participating 45.7 R45 Participating 45.8 R16 Non-Participating 45.2 R107 Non-Participating 45.1 R107 Non-Participating 45.1 R50 Non-Participating 45.3 R42 Non-Participating 45.1 R42 Non-Participating 45.1 R100 Non-Participating 45.1 R44 Participating 45.1 R44 Participating 45.1 R42 Non-Participating 45.1 R50 Non-Participating 45.1 R50 Non-Participating 45.1 R44 Participating 45.1 R68 Non-Participating 45 R68 Non-Participating 45 R96 Participating 45.1 R101 Non-Participating 45 Total Participating 1 Total Participating 2 Total Participating 2 Total Participating 3 Total Non-Participating 2 Total Non-Participating 5 Total Non-Participating 5 Total Non-Participating 5 Total 3 Total 7 Total 7 Total 8 Figure 15. Exceedances of the Criterion of Significance in the HIS and DSEIS. 24 In the DSEIS there are either seven or eight homes meeting or exceeding the 45 dBA level of significance. Five of them are non-participating. With the exception of R8,these are entirely different residences from the FEIS. They clearly experience a significant impact according to the criterion selected by the DSEIS. Yet the DSEIS ignores this and does not clearly state how the impacts will be avoided or mitigated. Xl.As Many as 30 Non-Participating Residences Meet the DSEIS Criterion of Significant Noise Impact The CADNA/A noise model used to estimate future noise levels of the wind turbines in the DSEIS implements the equations found in the international standard ISO 9313 Part 2. (Appendix H of the FEIS, 1.) This standard has an average error of 3 dB (see Figure 17 below from the ISO standard). This error is independent of the input uncertainty that the DSEIS claims was accounted for. (Appendix H of the FEIS, 2.) Moreover, the error is independent of the conservative modeling assumptions used in the modeling. These conservative assumptions are the way noise ought to be modeled: "it should be noted that these predictions are based on a worst case scenario with conservative assumptions required by ISO-9613-2 propagation standards." (FEIS, 38.) In addition, it is important to remember the caution ISO 9613 Part 2 gives concerning error: NOTE 24 The estimates of accuracy in table 5 are for downwind conditions averaged over independent situations (as specified in clause 5). They should not necessarily be expected to agree with the variation in measurements made at a given site on a given day. The latter can be ex- pected to be considerably larger than the values in table 5. ISO 9313 Part 2, page 13 Figure 16: Modeling error in ISO 9613 is an average error The error is an average error.There can be a much greater error at times. Figure 17 shows Table 5 from the ISO 9613 Part 2 Standard, which describes the error. 25 ISO 9613-2:1996(E) ®ISO The use of equations (1) to (5) and (7) to (20) (and in the use of individual equations. Equation (9) is, for therefore also table 5) is limited to case a): meteoro- example, limited to approximately flat terrain. These logical conditions only. Case b) is relevant only to the specific limitations are described in the text ac- use of equations (6), (21) and (22). There are also a companying the relevant equation, substantial number of limitations (non-meteorological) Table 5—Estimated accuracy for broadband noise of LA7(DW)calculated using equations(1)to(10) Height,h 11 Distance,d I 0<d<100m 100m<d<1000m 0<h<5m t3dB ±3dB 5m<h<30m tt dB ±3dB • h is the mean height of the source and receiver. d is the distance between the source and receiver. NOTE—These estimates have been made from situations where there are no effects due to reflection or attenuation due to screening. !SO 9613 Part 2, page 14 Figure 17:Table 5 from ISO 9613 Showing a 3 dBA Error It is critical that the accuracy of the modeling be taken into account when assessing noise impacts with respect to a criterion of significance. The modeling error must be added to the modeled results when testing for compliance with significance criteria; otherwise the DSEIS risks missing significant noise impacts. This was not done. All of the contour lines and output noise results at the various receptor locations should be increased by 3 dBA. The accuracy issue cannot be ignored because it is a plus or minus 3 dBA. What this means is that sometimes the value might be 3 dBA more than predicted, and sometimes 3 dBA less. The critical point is that there will be times when it is 3 dB more than the predicted output, and those times will lead to exceedances of the DSEIS criterion for significant impact. If the accuracy of the CADNA/A modeling had been accounted for by adding 3 dBA to the output,the results would be as shown in Figure 17. 26 Configuation 7AB Configuration AC Configuration BC ID Residence Total ID Residence Total ID Residence Total Status Level Status Level Status Level (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) R8 Non-Participating 49.2 R8 Non-Participating 49.2 R8 Non-Participating 49.2 R45 Participating 48.7 R45 Participating 48.7 R45 Participating 48.8 R107 Non-Participating 48.1 R107 Non-Participating 48.1 RSO Non-Participating 48.3 R42 Non-Participating 48.1 R42 Non-Participating 48.1 R100 Non-Participating 48.1 R44 Participating 48.1 R44 Participating 48.1 R42 Non-Participating 48.1 R50 Non-Participating 48.1 R50 Non-Participating 48.1 R44 Participating 48.1 R68 Non-Participating 48 R68 Non-Participating 48 R96 Participating 48.1 R40 Non-Participating 47.9 R40 Non-Participating 47.9 R101 Non-Participating 48 R105 Participating 47.8 R105 Participating 47.8 R40 Non-Participating 47.9 R39 Non-Participating 473 R39 Non-Participating 47.7 R97 Participating 47.9 R43 Participating 47.5 R100 Non-Participating 47.6 R105 Participating 47.8 R35 Participating 47.3 R101 Non-Participating 47.6 R39 Non-Participating 47.8 R47 Participating 47.3 R35 Participating 47.5 R35 Participating 47.7 R97 Participating 47.2 R43 Participating 47.4 R43 Participating 47.6 R48 Participating 47.1 R47 Participating 47.3 R68 Non-Participating 47.6 R78 Non-Participating 47.1 R20 Participating 47.1 R95 Non-Participating 47.6 R20 Participating 47 R21 Non-Participating 47.1 R47 Participating 47.5 R21 Non-Participating 47 R48 Participating 47.1 R7 Non-Participating 47.3 R70 Non-Participating 46.7 R78 Non-Participating 47.1 R48 Participating 47.2 R7 Non-Participating 46.6 R7 Non-Participating 47 R20 Participating 47.1 R10 Non-Participating 46.5 R96 Participating 47 R21 Non-Participating 47.1 R46 Participating 46.5 R70 Non-Participating 46.7 R99 Non-Participating 47.1 R69 Non-Participating 46.4 R10 Non-Participating 46.6 R103 Non-Participating 47 R22 Non-Participating 46.1 R103 Non-Participating 46.6 R102 Participating 46.8 R5 Non-Participating 46 R46 Participating 46.6 R46 Participating 46.8 R72 Non-Participating 46 R95 Non-Participating 46.6 R78 Non-Participating 46.8 R9 Non-Participating 46 R99 Non-Participating 46.6 R10 Non-Participating 46.4 R1 Participating 45.8 R102 Participating 46.4 R22 Non-Participating 46.2 R11 Non-Participating 45.8 R69 Non-Participating 46.4 RS Non-Participating 46.1 R71 Non-Participating 45.7 R22 Non-Participating 46.2 R70' Non-Participating 45.9 R38 Non-Participating 45.6 R5 Non-Participating 46 R9 Non-Participating 45.9 R76 Non-Participating 45.6 R72 Non-Participating 46 R1 Participating 45.7 R18 Participating 45.5 R9 Non-Participating 46 R11 Non-Participating 45.7 R49 Non-Participating 45.5 R1 Participating 45.8 R18 Participating 45.7 R77 Non-Participating 45.4 1311 Non-Participating 45.8 R13 Participating 45.6 R13 Participating 45.2 R71 Non-Participating 45.7 R49 Non-Participating 45.6 R74 Non-Participating 45.1 R18 Participating 45.6 R38 Non-Participating 45.5 R79 Participating 45 R38 Non-Participating 45.6 R69 Non-Participating 45.5 R76 Non-Participating 45:6 R76 Non-Participating 45.2 R49 Non-Participating 45.5 R94 Non-Participating 45.2 R13 Participating 45.4 R19 Non-Participating 45.1 R77 Non-Participating 45.4 R14 Participating 45 R74 Non-Participating 45.1 R16 Non-Participating 45 R19 Non-Participating 45 R79 Participating 45 Total Participating 14 Total Participating 15 Total Participating 16 Total Non-Participating 27 Total Non-Participating 30 Total Non-Participating 27 Total 38 Total 45 Total 43 Figure 17. DSEIS Modeling Results When the Accuracy of the Model Considered. 27 There are at a minimum, 38 residences exceeding the DSEIS criterion of significance of 45 dBA. The DSEIS missed these instances of significant impact because it did not take a hard look in doing its noise assessment. XII.As Many as 53 Non-Participating Residences Meet the DSEIS Criterion for Significant Noise Impact at Night As discussed above in Part VI,the DSEIS used a spatially and temporally averaged ambient level of 39.8 dBA. It was noted that the average is highly weighted to the loudest times and places. At night,when the ambient is lower,the impact of the noise is greatest. Had the DSEIS used a nighttime average to assess significant impact, it would have found that 51 non-participating residences experience a significant noise impact. Appendix T of the DEIS states that "[a]t night (11:30 pm-5:30am) Leq sound levels generally ranged from about 25 to 30 dBA." Had the DSEIS used the higher 30 dBA value, a 6 dBA increase would be 36 dBA. Figure 18 shows the residences that meet or exceed a 36 dBA nighttime criterion of significant impact. The red shading indicates when the noise level is more than 10 dBA over ambient, or twice as loud as ambient. (Note that the decibel levels have not been adjusted to account for the modeling accuracy as in Part XI above.) Configuation 7AB Configuration ration ACC Configuration BC ID Residence Total ID Residence Total ID Residence Total Status Level Status Level Status Level (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) R8 Non-Participating 46.2 R8 Non-Participating 46.2 R8 Non-Participating 46.2 R45 Participating 45.7 R45 Participating 45.7 R45 Participating 45.8 R107 Non-Participating 45.1 R107 Non-Participating 45.1 R50 Non-Participating 45.3 R42 Non-Participating 45.1 R42 Non-Participating 45.1 R100 Non-Participating 45.1 R44 Participating 45.1 R44 Participating 45.1 R42 Non-Participating 45.1 R50 Non-Participating 45.1 R50 Non-Participating 45.1 R44 Participating 45.1 R68 Non-Participating 45 R68 Non-Participating 45 R96 Participating 45.1 R40 Non-Participating 44.9 R40 Non-Participating 44.9 R101 Non-Participating 45 R105 Participating 44.8 R105 Participating 44.8 R40 Non-Participating 44.9 R39 Non-Participating 44.7 R39 Non-Participating 44.7 R97 Participating 44.9 R43 Participating 44.5 R100 Non-Participating 44.6 R105 Participating 44.8 R35 Participating 44.3 R101 Non-Participating 44.6 R39 Non-Participating 44.8 R47 Participating 44.3 R35 Participating 44.5 R35 Participating 44.7 R97 Participating 44.2 R43 Participating 44.4 R43 Participating 44.6 R48 Participating 44.1 R47 Participating 44.3 R68 Non-Participating 44.6 R78 Non-Participating 44.1 R20 Participating 44.1 R95 Non-Participating 44.6 R20 Participating 44 R21 Non-Participating 44.1 R47 Participating 44.5 R21 Non-Participating 44 R48 Participating 44.1 R7 Non-Participating 44.3 R70 Non-Participating 43.7 R78 Non-Participating 44.1 R48 Participating 44.2 R7 Non-Participating 43.6 R7 Non-Participating 44 R20 Participating 44.1 R10 Non-Participating 43.5 R96 Participating 44 R21 Non-Participating 44.1 R46 Participating 43.5 R70 Non-Participating 43.7 R99 Non-Participating 44.1 R69 Non-Participating 43.4 R10 Non-Participating 43.6 R103 Non-Participating 44 R22 Non-Participating 43.1 R103 Non-Participating 43.6 R102 Participating 43.8 R5 Non-Participating 43 R46 Participating 43.6 R46 Participating 43.8 28 R72 Non-Participating 43 R95 Non-Participating 43.6 R78 Non-Participating 43.8 R9 Non-Participating 43 R99 Non-Participating 43.6 R10 Non-Participating 43.4 R1 Participating 42.8 R102 Participating 43.4 R22 Non-Participating 43.2 R11 Non-Participating 42.8 R69 Non-Participating 43.4 R5 Non-Participating 43.1 R71 Non-Participating 42.7 R22 Non-Participating 43.2 R70 Non-Participating 42.9 R38 Non-Participating 42.6 R5 Non-Participating 43 R9 Non-Participating 42.9 R76 Non-Participating 42.6 R72 Non-Participating 43 R1 Participating 42.7 R18 Participating 42.5 R9 Non-Participating 43 R11 Non-Participating 42.7 R49 Non-Participating 42.5 R1 Participating 42.8 R18 Participating 42.7 R77 Non-Participating 42.4 R11 Non-Participating 42.8 R13 Participating 42.6 R13 Participating 42.2 R71 Non-Participating 42.7 R49 Non-Participating 42.6 R74 Non-Participating 42.1 R18 Participating 42.6 R38 Non-Participating 42.5 R79 Participating 42 R38 Non-Participating 42.6 R69 Non-Participating 42.5 R19 Non-Participating 41.9 R76 Non-Participating 42.6 R76 Non-Participating 42.2 R73 Non-Participating 41.8 R49 Non-Participating 42.5 R94 Non-Participating 42.2 R103 Non-Participating 41.7 R13 Participating 42.4 R19 Non-Participating 42.1 R16 Non-Participating 41.7 R77 Non-Participating 42.4 R14 Participating 42 R14 Participating 41.6 R74 Non-Participating 42.1 R16 Non-Participating 42 R41 Non-Participating 41.5 R19 Non-Participating 42 R72 Non-Participating 41.9 R101 Non-Participating 41.3 R79 Participating 42 R77 Non-Participating 41.8 R81 Non-Participating 41.3 R14 Participating 41.8 R62 Participating 41.7 R12 Non-Participating 41.2 R16 Non-Participating 41.8 R74 Non-Participating 41.7 R2 Non-Participating 41.2 R73 Non-Participating 41.8 R73 Non-Participating 41.4 R75 Non-Participating 41.2 R41 Non-Participating 41.5 R41 Non-Participating 41.3 R104 Participating 40.8 R94 Non-Participating 41.5 R71 Non-Participating 41.3 R80 Non-Participating 40.7 R62 Participating 41.3 R79 Participating 41.2 R96 Participating 40.6 R81 Non-Participating 41.3 R93 Non-Participating 41.2 R102 Participating 40.5 R12 Non-Participating 41.2 R12 Non-Participating 41.1 R100 Non-Participating 40.4 R2 Non-Participating 41.2 R2 Non-Participating 41.1 R6 Participating 40.3 R75 Non-Participating 41.2 R104 Participating 41 R62 Participating 40.3 R104 Participating 40.9 R81 Non-Participating 40.7 R95 Non-Participating 40 R80 Non-Participating 40.7 R92 Non-Participating 40.6 R99 Non-Participating 39.7 R6 Participating 40.3 R75 Non-Participating 40.5 R98 Non-Participating 39.4 R93 Non-Participating 40.3 R98 Non-Participating 40.3 R24 Non-Participating 39.2 R92 Non-Participating 39.9 R80 Non-Participating 40.2 R3 Non-Participating 39.1 R24 Non-Participating 39.2 R6 Participating 39.9 R108 Non-Participating 38.7 R3 Non-Participating 39.1 R24 Non-Participating 38.5 R30 Non-Participating 38.6 R97 Participating 39 R3 Non-Participating 38.2 R94 Non-Participating 38.4 R108 Non-Participating 38.7 R61 Non-Participating 37.8 R31 Non-Participating 37.7 R30 Non-Participating 38.6 R53 Non-Participating 37.3 R93 Non-Participating 37.3 R31 Non-Participating 37.7 R91 Non-Participating 37.1 R106 Non-Participating 37.1 R61 Non-Participating 37.6 R15 Non-Participating 36.5 R92 Non-Participating 37.1 R106 Non-Participating 37.1 R17 Non-Participating 36.5 R15 Non-Participating 36.9 R15 Non-Participating 36.9 R90 Non-Participating 36.5 R17 Non-Participating 36.9 R17 Non-Participating 36.9 R89 Non-Participating 36.4 R61 Non-Participating 36.6 R53 Non-Participating 36.9 R52 Non-Participating 36 R53 Non-Participating 36.2 R91 Non-Participating 36.3 R98 Non-Participating 36 Total Participating 20 Total Participating 20 Total Participating 20 Total Non-Participating 52 Total Non-Participating 53 Total Non-Participating 51 Total 72 Total 73 Total 71 Figure 18. DSEIS Modeling Results With Significant Nighttime Impact. 29 XIII. The DSEIS Understated the Scope of the Project and Shielded Noise Impacts from Scrutiny The fact that the location of all of the turbines have moved between the FEIS and the DSEIS,and not just Turbines 5,A, B,and C as BOWF claims,greatly expands of the needed scope of the DSEIS investigation, particularly with respect to noise. The changes in turbine location change the noise off the BOWF site. When turbines that are moved nearer to each other they have cumulative effects on noise that also need to be assessed. All the changes need to be analyzed by a complete DSEIS, not just a limited number of changes. The DSEIS cannot possibly be considered complete given this new revelation. Conclusion The DSEIS failed to identify and assess specific noise effects for significant noise impact(Part IV). This omission alone should disqualify the DSEIS noise assessment from being accepted as complete. It also has the effect of shifting the burden of demonstrating no significant noise impact on to the assessment of the local law and the NYSDEC 6 dBA increase criteria. Unfortunately,the DSEIS fabricated a local law,which disqualifies the fabricated standard as a test for significance(Part V). This problem has been known for years, but has not been corrected. It must be corrected, however, before the DSEIS can proceed. Consequently,the only remaining criterion of significant impacts is the NYSDEC 6 dBA increase criterion. The DSEIS analysis with respect to the NYSDEC 6 dBA increase criterion is also flawed. It is flawed because it failed to assess the impact at property lines. Had a property line analyses been undertaken, significant impact would have been shown at many locations. In addition,the DSEIS fabricated a spatially and temporally averaged background level that hid significant noise impacts at residences, understating nighttime noise impacts by 10-15 dBA(Part VI). In spite of these problems,the DSEIS data and DSEIS criterion of significant impact still show significant noise impacts at five non-participating residences. The DSEIS ignored its own data and criterion of significant impact(Part X). Had the DSEIS taken a hard look at its own data it would have recognized this and found a significant noise impacts. The DSEIS cannot distance itself from the NYSDEC 6 dBA increase criterion of significant impact because this is the only remaining test of significance in the DSEIS—the DSEIS failed to analyze noise effects and botched the noise regulation assessment. By ignoring the NYSDEC 6 dBA test for significant impacts as the DSEIS has done,the DSEIS is left without any test for significant noise impacts. If there is no remaining test for significant impact,the entire noise analysis is little more than hand waving. The refusal to provide the monitoring and modeling data as requested (Parts VII and Vill) is all of a piece with the discrepancies about the actual site plan and turbine locations and other failings of the DSEIS noise assessment. The DSEIS is replete with undocumented and unverifiable claims that renderthe DSEIS conclusions unreliable. The DSEIS also has a number of omissions,that when corrected,show significant noise impacts(Parts XI an XII). 30 The DSEIS noise analysis must be rejected as incomplete. The local noise law must be fixed by the Town. Then an analysis of noise effects, an analysis with respect to the new local law,and robust analysis with respect to the NYSDEC 6 dBA increase criterion, including night time and property line impacts,should be conducted. The modeling and monitoring data supporting the DSEIS should be provided to all parties so that the accuracy can be assessed, and the discrepancies concerning wind turbine locations and the scope of the DSEIS resolved. Since the DSEIS already clearly shows a significant noise impact, mitigation measures to avoid the impacts should be developed so as to minimize and avoid the impacts. After the DSEIS is truly complete,the revised DSEIS should be submitted for public comment,and the process of the public actually being able to identify and understand the environmental and noise impacts of BOWF may begin.. Note: The methods and data used in this report are not secret or proprietary. We would hope that the Town Board/BOWF would share with us the modeling and monitoring data we requested,and provide us additional time to analyze the data and comment on the DSEIS.We would be happy exchange data with the Board/BOWF as well as address further questions the Board might have. 31 Ambient Sound Levels Near BOWF 1:5 Y.'E*Fe d Certte.Rd 3T'lauyF Ad m:rownonnaPI Ca:Te 3:1 d5A Da,- w 35 9 c5A t,;one 2'1 cGA '.6 c Te :5Z cfiA • 1 ,3-t.=—5 ac'O:. t om- 2.5 Cor ectcu:H Da,tine 319CM O Z _ _ F 5_ewrc oc Ca Te 3C:c5- ` - N -n Te ►A a April 22,2016 Prepared by Les Blomberg, Noise Pollution Clearinghouse, PO Box 1137, Montpelier VT 05601 I. Introduction On April 171h and 18", 2016, ambient sound measurements were made in the vicinity of the proposed Black Oak Wind Farm (BOWF). Three of the five sites were chosen for their proximity to the newly proposed Turbines A, B, and C. The other sites are on property lines near Turbines 5 and 6, which have new locations since the FEIS was accepted. In addition,the character of the soundscape was observed. II.Ambient Sound levels Near BOWF Short term daytime and nighttime ambient sound measurements were made at five locations on April 171h and 181h, 2016. The test used the same 20 minute time frame used by HMMH and reported in the DEIS Appendix T. Measurements were made with a 3M Sound Pro sound level meter,serial number BLM060007. This meter meets ANSI Type 1 specifications. The sound level meter calibration was checked before, during, and after the measurements, using a Quest QC-10 Calibrator.The accuracy of both the sound level meter and the calibrator were checked by the manufacturer in April of 2016. A wind screen was used during measurements. The measurements used the "A-weighted"frequency weighting, and the fast time response. The 20 minute Leq was recorded, as well as the maximum value, the L1, L10, L50, L90 and minimum values. The measurement locations include: • 637/641 Black Oak Rd. • 115 Enfield Center Rd. • 215 Connecticut Hill Rd. • 185 Leonard Rd. ® 377 Harvey Hill Rd. Figure 1 shows the locations of the noise measurements. The locations and noise Leq ambient levels are shown superimposed on Figure 5 of the DSEIS. 2 115 W. Enfield Center Rd. 377 Harvey Hill Rd. (not shown on map) Daytime:34.1 dBA Daytime:35.9 dBA Nighttime: 27.1 dBA Nighttime:25.2 dBA 637/641 Black Oak Daytime:34.0 dBA .... > Nighttime: 37.3 dBA -•- ' I •- 215 Connecticut Hill Daytime:31.9 dBA Nighttime: 27.2 dBA i 185 Leonard Rd ' + - l Daytime:30.1 dBA -- — Nighttime: NA Sr I r{AC K, .,. . • `,`.•:,.' ..:..:`•'.,,.::, SETBACK DISTANCES Figure 1:Approximate Measurement Locations 3 Figure 2 shows the measurement results. Daytime Location Date and Time Leq Lmax L1 L10 L50 L90 Lmin 637/641 Black Oak Rd. 4/17/1616:00 34.0 54.6 45.7 35.4 28.5 24.2 21.4 115 W. Enfield Center Rd. 4/18/1611:45 35.9 58.0 47.4 38.4 29.3 25.0 21.5 215 Connecticut Hill Rd. 4/18/1611:00 31.9 58.1 43.7 33.1 27.4 23.3 19.4 185 Leonard Rd. 4/18/16 9:55 30.1 41.3 35.4 32.6 29.3 24.3 21.7 377 Harvey Hill Rd. 4/17/1617:10 34.1 53.3 42.0 36.9 31.4 29.1 27.2 Nighttime 637/641 Black Oak Rd. 4/17/16 22:45 37.3 43.5 39.6 38.4 37.1 35.7 NA 115 W. Enfield Center Rd. 4/17/1623:45 25.2 46.2 37.1 26.9 20.7 18.8 15.6 215 Connecticut Hill Rd. 4/17/16 21:15 27.2 48.1 36.5 27.5 25.2 23.6 21.6 185 Leonard Rd. NA 377 Harvey Hill Rd. 4/17/1622:10 27.1 49.4 33.4 29.6 25.5 19.9 14.2 Figure 2.Ambient Sound Levels The Leq is the "level equivalent" or average level for the period. The Lmax is the maximum value recorded. The L1 is the level exceeded 1% of the time. The L10 is the level exceeded 10%of the time. The L50 is the level exceeded 50% of the time; it is the median value. The L90 is the level exceed 90% of the time. The Lmin is the minimum value recorded. The L90 is often used as the background level because it excludes transient noises. It is more representative of the ambient because it excludes short term events such as a bird chirping nearby, which are more dependent on the nearness of the bird to the meter than the actual ambient in the area. III. Character of the Area and Soundscape The measured ambient sound levels were representative of a rural soundscape remote from large roads. The dominant ambient sounds were natural sounds such as wind in the trees, birds, and frogs. Intermittent sounds included vehicles on roads,jets overhead, and barking dogs. For the most part, however,the ambient level depended on how close the microphone was to a natural noise source. For example,the 58.0 dBA Lmax at the 115 Enfield Center location was due to a bird in a nearby tree. The elevated nighttime levels at the Black Oak location were due to frogs nearby. The one-third octave measures from the Black Oak location clearly show very large spikes in the 2.5 KHz and 3.15 KHz ranges. The measurements are similar to the 20 minute measurements taken by HMMH for the DEIS. With the exception of the frogs at the Black Oak Rd. location, the nighttime measurements are very similar, between 25 and 30 dBA Leq. The daytime measurement range was about 5 dBA higher in the HMMH study. (It should be noted that the HMMH study subtracted the contribution of the frogs from the data, but the NPC study did not.) 4 Table 1—Noise Monitoring Results at Short-term Measurement Sites She Ild�e Slam Tine Ot�alion L�aeot Lwit A -Ile>,r) w ) EdE" Nighttime ST 1 655 Black Oak Rd. 3:10 20 29.9 21.3 1 26.3 Sl T2 283 Comectcut Hill Rd. 3.40 20 44.3 22.7 3D.D ST 3 122 Giffin Rd_ 4:40 20 1 33.4 27.5 29.1 ST-4 Black Oak Rd.at CaWtaville Rd. 5.10 36.5 23.6 26.1 Daytime ST-1 655 Black Oak Rd_ 12:00 1 20 1 50.7 1 M.8 36.5 ST 2 283 Connecticut Hill Rd. 12:40 20 63.1) 29.0 40.6 ST 3 122 Giffin Rd_ 13720 20 52.7 36.7 1 37A ST-4 Black Oak Rd.at Cayutawlle Rd. 14:DD 20 60.9 342 1 39A Figure 3.Short Term Ambient Measurements from the DSEIS Appendix T. IV. Implications for the DSEIS The ambient sound level data has a number of implications for the DSEIS. These include: • Natural sounds dominate the existing soundscape. This has important implications for the DSEIS assessment of the character of the area and the impact of turbine noise on the character of the area and soundscape. • This data provides the only ambient sound levels submitted for the DSEIS concerning the ambient sound levels near property lines affected by the new or moved turbines. • This data provides the only ambient sound level submitted for the DSEIS concerning the ambient sound levels near the newly proposed Turbines A, B,and C. • The ambient sound levels do not support the use of 39.8 dBA as the ambient noise level from which to judge increases in noise over ambient in the DSEIS. • The wind turbines increase the noise at the 4 locations for which modeling data is available by more than 6 dBA. The increase in noise at the measurement locations due to the wind turbines is shown in Figure 4. In Figure 4,the ambient sound levels are subtracted from projected noise levels shown on Figures 1,2,and 3 of Appendix H of the DSEIS. The increase at the specific locations ranges from approximately 15 to 28 dBA. 5 Daytime DSEIS Increase Modeled Above Location Date and Time Leq Level Ambient 637/641 Black Oak Rd. 4/17/16 16:00 34.0 52 18.0 115 W. Enfield Center Rd. 4/18/1611:45 35.9 NA 215 Connecticut Hi I I Rd. 4/18/1611:00 31.9 55 23.1 185 Leonard Rd. 4/18/16 9:55 30.1 45 14.9 377 Harvey Hill Rd. 4/17/1617:10 34.1 53 18.9 Nighttime 637/641 Black Oak Rd. 4/17/16 22:45 37.3 52 14.7 115 W. Enfield Center Rd. 4/17/16 23:45 25.2 NA 215 Connecticut Hill Rd. 4/17/16 21:15 27.2 55 27.8 185 Leonard Rd. NA 45 377 Harvey Hill Rd. 4/17/16 22:10 27.1 53 25.9 Figure 4. Increase Above Ambient Due to BOWF Conclusion The ambient sound levels measured by the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse are similar to those measured by HMMH, particularly in the nighttime. They are consistent with a quiet rural soundscape remote from large roads. Note: The methods and data used in this report are not secret or proprietary. We would hope that the Town Board/BOWF would share with us the modeling and monitoring data we requested, and provide us additional time to analyze the data and comment on the DSEIS. We would be happy exchange data with the Town Board/BOWF as well as address further questions the Town Board might have. 6 LES BLOMBERG Box 1137, Montpelier, Vermont 05601 802-229-1659 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Noise Pollution Clearinghouse, Montpelier, VT, 1996-present • Founded a national non-profit clearinghouse dealing with noise pollution and hearing loss issues. • Created and maintained an extensive noise pollution library. • Conducted research into noise and its effects. • Wrote articles and fact sheets for magazines,journals, and web sites. • Advised consultants, communities, and individuals about noise pollution issues. MEMBERSHIPS AND AFFILIATIONS Member, American National Standards Accredited Standards Committee S 12,Noise. • Evaluated, revised, and approved national standards for noise measurement as a voting member of the S 12 committee and as members of specific working groups • Member,ANSI S 12 Working Group 15, Measurement and Evaluation of Outdoor Community Noise • Member ANSI S12 Working Group 38,Noise Labeling In Products • Member ANSI S 12 Working Group 41, Model Community Noise Ordinances • Member ANSI S12 Working Group 50,Information Technology(IT)Equipment in Classrooms Past Memberships • Former Member, Acoustical Society of America(ASA) • Former Member, Acoustical Society of America Technical Committee on Noise Former Member,National Hearing Conservation Association (NHCA) • Former Member, Institute of Noise Control Engineering(INCE) PAPERS AND PUBLICATIONS (partial list) • "Update on Regulations Adding Noise to Electric and Hybrid Vehicles," invited paper, Acoustical Society of America, 2014. • "Noise in the 21 st Century,"Acoustical Society of America Lay Language Paper,201.4. • "Noise in the 21 st Century," invited paper, Acoustical Society of America, 2014. • "Regulatory Inertia and Community Noise," invited paper, Acoustical Society of America,2014. • "Natural Quiet: Where to Find It, How to Increase It," invited paper,Noise in Communities and Natural Areas Workshop, Institute of Noise Control Engineering, 2013. • "Optimizing Detection of Masked Vehicles," invited paper,Acoustical Society of America, 2013. • "Validity of a Temporary Threshold Shift(TTS)Detector for Use in iPods and Other Portable Audio Devices,"National Hearing Conservation Association, 2010. • "Five Ways to Quiet Your Neighborhood," published in One Square Inch of Silence, 2009. • "Noise Masking of Vehicles, A Comparison of Gasoline/Electric Hybrids and Conventional Vehicles,"Noise Pollution Clearinghouse,2008. • "Wind,Noise, and Energy,"Noise Pollution Clearinghouse for American Wind Energy Association,2008. • "What's the Ear For?" Chapter 47 of Handbook for Sound Engineers, 2008. • "Hearing Damage Related to In-Ear Music Devices and other Consumer Products, "International Consumer Product Health and Safety Organization Symposium, 2007. • "10 Ways to Quiet Our National Parks,"Acoustical Society of America, 2007. • "Criteria Levels for Non-Occupational Noise Exposure,"Acoustical Society of America, 2006. • "Consumers, Products,.and.Noise: The Economic, Social, and Political Barriers to Reducing Noise in Consumer Products Sold in North America,"Acoustical Society of America, 2006. • "Opportunities and Progress in Consumer Product Noise Testing and Labeling," Institute of Noise Control Engineering, 2006. • "Noise (is) Pollution," Quiet Zone,2006. • "The Nature of Noise," Quiet Zone, 2006. "The State of State Noise Regulations in New England,"Institute of Noise Control Engineering, 2005. • "Consumer Oriented Measurement of Product Noise," Institute of Noise Control Engineering, 2005. "Acoustical Advocacy,"National Hearing Conservation Association, 2005. • "Barriers to Community Input to Noise Policy Decisions,"Institute of Noise Control. Engineering, 2004. • "The Nature of Noise in Society,"Acoustical Society of America, 2004. • "24 Hours of Noise in a Large City;Problems and Solutions.,"Acoustical Society of America, 2004. ® "Why Diesel Trucks Are Quieter than Boats,"Lakeline, 2004. • "The Future of Peace and Quiet," Quiet Zone, 2003. • "The Interest of the Public in Noise Control,"Institute of Noise Control Engineering, 2002. ® "A Punch from Michael Tyson Averaged over an Hour is a Very Long Love Pat: The Problems of Averaging in Noise Measurement,"MIT Seminar, 2001. • "Noise Ordinances: the Good,the Bad, and the Ugly; An overview of more than 200 existing noise ordinances,"Acoustical Society of America, 2001. "Soundscapes, Quiet Zoning, and a Noise Sabbath,"Wisconsin Lakes Partnerships Conference, 2001. • "Amphitheater Noise,A Community Perspective,"Acoustical Society of America,2000. • "Educating the Public about the Effects of Noise Pollution,"Acoustical Society of America, 2000. • "Noise in the News: What the Media Is and Is Not Covering,"Acoustical Society of America, 2000. • "Sound Decisions,"New Rules, 1999. 0 "Noise, Civility, and.Sovereignty,"Noise Pollution Clearinghouse, 1999.. PATENTS • Number 7,780,609, Temporary Threshold Shift Detector, Issued August 24, 2010, allows users of personal listening devices to determine if they have listened at levels that could damage their hearing. CLIENTS AND CONSULTING Assisted hundreds of communities, mayors, council members, zoning boards; and police chiefs to understand, interpret, rewrite, and enforce their noise regulations. • Drafted modifications to noise ordinances. • Drafted new or complete overhauls of noise regulations. • Advised communities on appropriate monitoring equipment. Assisted Vermont towns with understanding, enforcing, and revising noise regulations. • St. Albans • Montpelier • Waitsfeld Developed noise measurement procedures, evaluated testing facilities, and tested consumer product noise levels. • Consumer Reports • Quiet Zone(Noise Pollution Clearinghouse publication) Modeled noise levels from various noise sources. • Transportation • Resource extraction Created online libraries of important noise-related documents and answered questions about noise from the general public. • US EPA • Noise Pollution Clearinghouse Partial List of clients: • US EPA • Consumer Reports • American Wind Energy Association • East Hampton,NY Airport • Boston, MA • Sierra Club • Natural.Resources Defense Council Partial list of proceedings in Vermont in which participated or testified: • 2014,Vermont State Environmental Court, Docket No. 99-7-13 Vtec • 2014, Vermont State Environmental Court, Docket No. 182-12-13 Vtec • 2013, District 3 Environmental Commission,Act 250, Application #3W1049 • 2013, Vermont State Environmental Court, Docket No. 159-10-11 Vtec 0 2012, District 7 Environmental Commission,Application#7C1321 ® 2012, Vennont Environmental Court, Docket Nos. 122-7-04, 210-9-08 and 136-8-10 Vtec • 2011, Vermont Public Service Board Docket#7628 ® 2010,Vermont Public Service Board Docket#7156 • 2009, Greensboro, Vermont Zoning Permit,Lakeview Inn ® 2008, Vermont Environmental Court,..O'Neil Sand &.Gravel, LLC Docket No.. 48-2-07 Vtec, Act 250 Application #2S0214-6A ® 2008, Bristol Vermont Zoning Permit, Lathrop Gravel Pit • 2007, Vermont Environmental Court, Wright Quarry Docket Nos. 1.56=7-06 Vtec and 190-8-06 Vtec ® 2007,East Calais, Vermont Zoning.Permit, Gravel Pit • 2007, District 5 Environmental Commission,Route 100 Bypass • 2006, District 5 Environmental Commission, Application#5W1455 • 2005, State Environmental Court, Docket No. 203-11-03 Vtec ® 2005,. District 3 Environmental Commission, Act 250 Application.43WO929 ® 2004,Norwich,.Vermont Zoning.Permit, Verizon Wireless Tower • 2004,Moretown, Vermont Zoning Permit, Quarry • 2003,District 5 EnvironmentalCommission, Barre Town Police Firing Range + 2001, District Number 5 Environmental Commission, Bull's Eye Sporting Center and Case Number 5WO743-3 • 2001,Dummerston, Vermont Zoning Permit, Quarry • 1999, Vermont State Environmental Board, OMYA, Inc. and Foster Brothers Farm, Inc., Land Use Permit#9A0107-2-EB. 6 1999, Vermont State Environmental Board,.Barre Granite Quarries, LLC, Application #7C 1079-EB EDUCATION SEMINAR CADNA A EXPERT (Noise Mode SEMINAR CADNA A ADVANCED SEMINAR CADNA A BASIC Datakustic, 2013 INTEGRATED NOISE MODEL TRAINING COURSE (FAA Noise Model Harris,Miller, Miller,and Hanson, 2010 COMMUNITY NOISE ENFORCEMENT CERTIFICATION COURSE Rutgers Noise Technical Assistance Center, 1997 MASTER OF ARTS in Environmental Philosophy, 1993 Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado BACHELOR OF SCIENCE in Applied Mathematics, minor in Physics, 1989 BACHELOR OF ARTS in Philosophy, with honors, 1989 University of Minnesota, Duluth,Minnesota