Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
FINAL-PUBLIC-WRITTEN-COMMENTS-5-11-16-2.pdf
Town of Enfield BLACK OAK WIND FARM Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement Written Public Comments May 11, 2016 BLACK OAK WIND FARM PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS OF COMMENTS 5/11/2016 COMMENT #DATE OF COMMENT LAST NAME AFFILIATION (if any)Page # 1 3/14/202016 L Hoffman 1 2 3/20/202016 E Tavares 2 3 3/21/202016 J Wilson 3 4 3/28/202016 E Salon 4 5 3‐28‐202016 M&L Braren 5 6 3/28/202016 R Stiefel 6 7 3/28/202016 R Willsey 7 8 3/30/2016 F Zgola 8 9 4/1/2016 J Sharp 9 10 4/2/2016 B Stewart 10 11 4/4/2016 K Pasetty 11 12 4/4/2016 M Carpenter 12 13 4/5/2016 C Bartosch 13 14 4/11/2016 J&E Harrod 14 15 4/11/2016 S&J Sweetnam 15 16 4/12/202016 A Rockey 16 17 4/12/2016 L Bloomberg 17 18 4/12/2016 W Bassett 18 19 4/13/2016 Enfield Wind Farm Advisory Committee 19 20 4/13/2016 M Gingrich 53 21 4/13/2016 S Thompson Deputy Town Clerk & Town Historian 54 22 4/14/2016 E Cotman 59 23 4/14/2016 J Lemke 61 24 4/16/2016 J McConkey 99 25 4/17/2016 B Mahony 100 26 4/17/2016 H&L Leonard 101 27 4/18/2016 H&L Leonard 102 28 4/18/2016 J Huddle 103 29 4/18/2016 E Grover 104 30 4/18/2016 R Tesori 107 31 4/20/2016 J Lemke 116 32 4/20/2016 S Robinson 250 33 4/20/2016 P Wright 252 34 4/20/2016 R&J Lychalk 253 35 4/20/2016 J Carlile 254 36 4/20/2016 B&L Fisher 255 37 4/21/2016 B Sadovnic 256 38 4/21/2016 E Givotosky 258 39 4/21/2016 Enfield Residents 259 40 4/21/2016 J Carlisle 262 41 4/21/2016 M Carpenter Town Board Member 264 42 4/21/2016 M Miles Town Board Member 265 43 4/21/2016 R Riddle 267 44 4/21/2016 W Conners 282 45 4/21/2016 B Allen 283 46 4/21/2016 R Tesori 284 47 4/22/2016 T Peck 286 48 4/22/2016 B Gingerich 311 49 4/22/2016 B Gingerich 312 BLACK OAK WIND FARM PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS OF COMMENTS 5/11/2016 COMMENT #DATE OF COMMENT LAST NAME AFFILIATION (if any)Page # 50 4/22/2016 B Gingerich 317 51 4/22/2016 B Gingerich 318 52 4/22/2016 B Gingerich 320 53 4/22/2016 B Gingerich 322 54 4/22/2016 B Gingerich 326 55 4/22/2016 B Gingerich 328 56 4/22/2016 B Gingerich 330 57 4/22/2016 B Gingerich 332 58 4/22/2016 B Gingerich 324 59 4/22/2016 B Gingerich 335 60 4/22/2016 E Gasteiger 337 61 4/22/2016 G Mol 353 62 4/22/2016 H Hansteen 354 63 4/22/2016 J Stevens 355 64 4/22/2016 M Gingerich 393 65 4/22/2016 N Spero 448 66 4/22/2016 E Tighe 450 67 4/22/2016 M Mehaffey 452 68 4/22/2016 R Entlich 458 69 4/27/2016 B Hehenstein NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 460 BLACK OAK WIND FARM PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS OF COMMENTS 5/11/2016 BY LAST NAME COMMENT #DATE OF COMMENT LAST NAME AFFILIATION (if any)Page # 45 4/21/2016 B Allen 283 13 4/5/2016 C Bartosch 13 18 4/12/2016 W Bassett 18 17 4/12/2016 L Bloomberg 17 5 3‐28‐202016 M&L Braren 5 35 4/20/2016 J Carlile 254 40 4/21/2016 J Carlisle 262 12 4/4/2016 M Carpenter 12 41 4/21/2016 M Carpenter Town Board Member 264 44 4/21/2016 W Conners 282 22 4/14/2016 E Cotman 59 39 4/21/2016 Enfield Residents 259 19 4/13/2016 Enfield Wind Farm Advisory Committee 19 68 4/22/2016 R Entlich 458 36 4/20/2016 B&L Fisher 255 60 4/22/2016 E Gasteiger 337 48 4/22/2016 B Gingerich 311 49 4/22/2016 B Gingerich 312 50 4/22/2016 B Gingerich 317 51 4/22/2016 B Gingerich 318 52 4/22/2016 B Gingerich 320 53 4/22/2016 B Gingerich 322 54 4/22/2016 B Gingerich 326 55 4/22/2016 B Gingerich 328 56 4/22/2016 B Gingerich 330 57 4/22/2016 B Gingerich 332 58 4/22/2016 B Gingerich 324 59 4/22/2016 B Gingerich 335 64 4/22/2016 M Gingerich 393 20 4/13/2016 M Gingrich 53 38 4/21/2016 E Givotosky 258 29 4/18/2016 E Grover 104 62 4/22/2016 H Hansteen 354 14 4/11/2016 J&E Harrod 14 69 4/27/2016 B Hehenstein NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 460 1 3/14/202016 L Hoffman 1 28 4/18/2016 J Huddle 103 23 4/14/2016 J Lemke 61 31 4/20/2016 J Lemke 116 26 4/17/2016 H&L Leonard 101 27 4/18/2016 H&L Leonard 102 34 4/20/2016 R&J Lychalk 253 25 4/17/2016 B Mahony 100 24 4/16/2016 J McConkey 99 67 4/22/2016 M Mehaffey 452 42 4/21/2016 M Miles Town Board Member 265 61 4/22/2016 G Mol 353 11 4/4/2016 K Pasetty 11 BLACK OAK WIND FARM PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS OF COMMENTS 5/11/2016 BY LAST NAME COMMENT #DATE OF COMMENT LAST NAME AFFILIATION (if any)Page # 47 4/22/2016 T Peck 286 43 4/21/2016 R Riddle 267 32 4/20/2016 S Robinson 250 16 4/12/202016 A Rockey 16 37 4/21/2016 B Sadovnic 256 4 3/28/202016 E Salon 4 9 4/1/2016 J Sharp 9 65 4/22/2016 N Spero 448 63 4/22/2016 J Stevens 355 10 4/2/2016 B Stewart 10 6 3/28/202016 R Stiefel 6 15 4/11/2016 S&J Sweetnam 15 2 3/20/202016 E Tavares 2 30 4/18/2016 R Tesori 107 46 4/21/2016 R Tesori 284 21 4/13/2016 S Thompson Deputy Town Clerk & Town Historian 54 66 4/22/2016 E Tighe 450 7 3/28/202016 R Willsey 7 3 3/21/202016 J Wilson 3 33 4/20/2016 P Wright 252 8 3/30/2016 F Zgola 8 1 2 3 1 Spencer, Kathy From:townclerk@townofenfield.org Sent:Monday, March 28, 2016 4:42 PM To:jpippin@haleyaldrich.com; Spencer, Kathy; Frank Pavia Subject:Fwd: BOWF FYI ‐ another comment. Alice ‐‐‐ Alice Linton Enfield Town Clerk 168 Enfield Main Road Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 273‐8256 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Subject: BOWF Date: 03/28/2016 9:11 am From: Elizabeth Salon <elizasalon.np@gmail.com> To: townclerk@townofenfield.org Cc: lettersforbowf@gmail.com To whom it may concern: I am enthusiastically IN FAVOR of establishing a wind farm at Black Oak farm. I strongly urge the town board to approve this project. I am a 30 year resident and landowner on nearby West Hill, and a local health care provider. I believe this project is beneficial for our community, and the world at large. Sincerely yours, Elizabeth Salon ‐‐ Elizabeth G. Salon, R.N.C., M.S., F.N.P. Family Nurse Practitioner Integrative Health 226 S. Fulton Street Plaza _Ithaca, NY 14850_ _607‐277‐2201_ 4 5 6 7 1 Spencer, Kathy From:townclerk@townofenfield.org Sent:Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:41 PM To:jpippin@haleyaldrich.com; Spencer, Kathy; fpavia@harrisbeach.com Subject:Fwd: Black Oak Wind Farm Another comment... ‐‐‐ Alice Linton Enfield Town Clerk 168 Enfield Main Road Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 273‐8256 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Subject: Black Oak Wind Farm Date: 03/30/2016 1:28 pm From: Frank Zgola <frank.zgola@gmail.com> To: townclerk@townofenfield.org As supporters of the wind farm my wife and I are believers in alternative energy. For all of the oft‐repeated reasons we were quick to “put our money where our mouths are” and became investors in Black Oak Wind Farm four years ago. We thought we were doing our bit then and are still proud to contribute to this local and global cause. BOWF will create local construction jobs as well as part time/on‐going technician employment, plus provide income to the Town of Enfield, income to the landowners and income to the neighbors who own adjoining property. The managers and board of directors of BOWF have been accommodating to the concerns raised by some Enfield residents; the number of turbines has been decreased, the locations have been changed and newer, quieter models have been chosen. BOWF will be a good neighbor and good for the community. It is time to approve the plan, begin construction and generate clean electricity! Truly yours, Frank Zgola Ithaca, NY 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 1 Spencer, Kathy From:townclerk@townofenfield.org Sent:Thursday, April 14, 2016 5:14 PM To:Jim Pippin; Spencer, Kathy; Frank Pavia; Marguerite Wells; Ann Rider; Virginia Bryant; Michael Carpenter; Michael Miles; Henry Hansteen Subject:Fwd: Letter in support of Black Oak Wind Farm ‐‐‐ Alice Linton Enfield Town Clerk 168 Enfield Main Road Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 273‐8256 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Subject: Letter in support of Black Oak Wind Farm Date: 04/14/2016 10:57 am From: Emily Cotman <ecotman1@gmail.com> To: townclerk@townofenfield.org Hello, I am writing to you as a potential resident of the Town of Enfield. My husband and I have been living in Ithaca, renting, for 2 years. We moved here for my job in 2014, and are currently looking to buy a home and put down deeper roots in Tompkins County. I am writing because we have been looking at homes in Enfield, with some hesitation. IF THE BLACK OAK WIND FARM PROJECT DOES NOT MOVE FORWARD, WE WILL NOT WANT TO LIVE THERE. The town sorely needs revitalization ‐ job growth, high‐speed internet access, funding for Enfield Elementary. We need to see that there is a plan for this, and the Black Oak Wind Farm is a plan that makes sense to us. I worry for the future of our family if nothing changes in Enfield. I visit Enfield Elementary often, to run an after‐school program, and while the staff at the school are excellent, it is painfully obvious that Enfield Elementary lacks the financial resources that the other ICSD schools enjoy. As we plan to have our first child within the next two years, this issue is front‐of‐mind for us. The Black Oak Wind Farm is not only a financial opportunity, but an opportunity for the Town of Enfield to engage in a meaningful way with the rest of the Ithaca community. When I visit Enfield, it feels like an island. It isnʹt farther from the center of Ithaca than Caroline, for example, but it feels much less a part of the whole. As two young professionals working in the non‐profit industry, this 59 2 isolation is worrisome to us. The Wind Farm is a chance for Enfield to maintain its strong identity, while gaining valuable connections to the rest of the city. For us, it comes down to this: We could live anywhere in the Ithaca City School District, and we will choose to live in a town committed to growth and improvement. We hope that Enfield will emerge as that town, but until the matter of the Black Oak Wind Farm is settled, weʹre not convinced that it is. Sincerely, Emily Cotman 60 {33667/30473/TJF/01194513.DOCX} 1 An Open Letter to the Citizens and Town Board of Enfield about the Black Oak Wind Project Jude Lemke 215 Connecticut Hill Road Enfield, New York To the Enfield Town Board and the Citizens of Enfield: This letter serves two purposes. It presents my comments on the Black Oak Wind Farm (“BOWF”) draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (“SEIS”) to the Town Board as lead agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQR”). It also describes an expanding list of irregularities regarding the Town’s review of this modified wind farm application (the “Project”). It is apparent that BOWF’s owners are anxious to begin construction immediately because Congress is phasing out financial incentives (tax credits) for wind generators over the next five years, beginning in December 2016. The owner of the Project must begin construction this year to receive the full credits. Black Oak, however, not the Town, has been the sole cause of its delays. In fact, our Town Government has gone to ridiculous lengths to accommodate BOWF, by rescinding a much more protective Wind Law and then enacting a completely toothless version (as described further below) based on BOWF’s complaints that the more protective law would halt the Project. The Board then approved the Project and also approved its expansion with taller towers and greater electrical capacity without any further meaningful assessment of the environmental consequences of doing so. Certain Town Board members and their hired consultants and attorneys have showed an eagerness to accommodate Black Oak that is beyond belief. What is worse, the Town’s handling of this Project has been cloaked in secrecy, which calls into question the ability of our Town Government and its paid contractors to protect their citizens. Many aspects of this Project are still unclear. It is not yet known exactly where all the turbine towers and other infrastructure will be located, and it certainly is not clear that this proposal is the final expansion of the Project’s footprint. Many hard questions need to be asked by the Town Board as lead agency under SEQR. I raise some of them in this letter. 61 {33667/30473/TJF/01194513.DOCX} 2 I Background I am a lawyer by occupation. I became a resident of the Town of Enfield in July 2015, having moved to the Ithaca area from California. The Town of Enfield is beautiful and my neighbors are great. I was thrilled about my new home, a former Bed and Breakfast known as “Noble House.” It is a beautiful “Queen Anne” style structure built in 1883 that is eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. I purchased my home without knowledge that a large wind farm was planned in the immediate vicinity of my property. Four wind towers are proposed in close proximity to my home and it appears that all or most of the seven towers will be visible from my home. From a safety standpoint, a large portion of my yard will be within the area that even the wind industry considers a possible safety threat, as described further below. Having lived in California which is known for various forms of alternative energy, I am well acquainted with large scale wind development. I know that wind power sounds good in theory, but in practice it has many drawbacks. I know that because of those drawbacks, wind farms must be closely scrutinized and carefully regulated. After the initial shock of hearing about the Black Oak Project, I started researching the Project. It was originally approved in January 2015 when the Town Board issued its SEQR “Findings.” SEQR is an important law in New York which requires government agencies to assess the anticipated adverse environmental impacts from a proposed action, before they may fund, approve or undertake that action. SEQR establishes strict procedural requirements and also the substantive obligation to identify and avoid or mitigate impacts. I believe that the Town of Enfield has failed to make Black Oak comply with the substantive and procedural requirements of SEQR. Additionally, I believe it is clear that a majority of the Town Board has placed the economic interests of Black Oak ahead of the safety of its citizens. Further review of this Project is needed before any approval of the modification is granted. II The Project and the SEQR Review Is Shrouded in Secrecy in Violation of Law The Town’s files and its communications with BOWF concerning this Project should be open and readily available for examination. New York’s Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) requires broad access to the inner workings of government to 62 {33667/30473/TJF/01194513.DOCX} 3 ensure transparency and to hold leaders accountable for their actions. The legislative declaration when FOIL was enacted says it all: The legislature hereby finds that a free society is maintained when government is responsive and responsible to the public, and when the public is aware of governmental actions. The more open a government is with its citizenry, the greater the understanding and participation of the public in government. NYS Public Officer’s Law, § 84. FOIL’s expansive scope has been confirmed repeatedly by judicial decisions and the opinions of New York’s Committee on Open Government. They instruct that FOIL is intended to ensure maximum access to government records and any exception which acts to limit access must be very narrowly construed. The burden is on government agencies that seek to limit disclosure of public records to justify denial of access to public records. SEQR also requires public disclosure of information arising during the environmental review of an action. According to the SEQR regulations enacted by NYSDEC: [a]ll SEQR documents and notices, including but not limited to [Environmental Assessment Forms], negative declarations, positive declarations, scopes, notices of completion of an [Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)], EISs, notices of hearing and findings must be maintained in files that are readily accessible to the public and made available on request. 6 NYCRR § 617.12(b)(3). After learning of the existence of the wind farm and of Black Oak’s intention to modify the proposal, I attempted to review the paper trail to learn what had happened previously and what is proposed now. I found out that was no easy task. Black Oak’s dealings with the Town of Enfield and its lawyers and contractors were not documented in any formal record that I was able to review. In fact, based on their public comments, it is clear that some Board Members have also been kept in the dark about many aspects of this Project. First, it is clear that the Town of Enfield, the lead agency, maintains no document depository or website to provide immediate access to SEQR documents and correspondence. Instead, the public must visit BOWF’s very incomplete website, or make specific requests to the Town Clerk. In other words, you must know what to look for and ask for it specifically. Black Oak’s website contains only the most basic SEQR documents: Draft Supplemental EIS; Supplemental SEQR Findings dated July 2015; Final Findings Statement dated January 2015; Final Environmental Impact Statement dated November 2014; Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated 2013; and Final SEQRA Scope dated 2010. No other SEQR documents are available on that website; there are no notices of hearing, notices of completion of DEIS and SEIS, nor any 63 {33667/30473/TJF/01194513.DOCX} 4 correspondence or drafts of documents which have been exchanged between Black Oak and the Town. Throughout the fall and winter of 2015/2016, I had heard rumors and comments by Board Members that Black Oak intended to modify its Project further and relocate certain components including towers and the electrical substation. Later, a BOWF representative admitted at a Wind Advisory Committee meeting that the Town’s consultant had already received a draft of the SEIS (although a copy was not available to the public). I requested a copy of that document from the Town Clerk under FOIL. In response, I was told that BOWF claimed that it was a “draft” so it was not available to the public until the Town Board determined that it was “complete.” I was also told that Town Attorney, Guy Krogh, agreed with this opinion, so the Town Clerk could not release it to me. I spoke with my attorney, who indicated that this was not a “grey” area of law with various interpretations. The issue had been repeatedly addressed by legal authorities and the answer was so clear that he was surprised that the Town was actually taking this position. On March 2, my attorney emailed Mr. Krogh with respect to this denial of access: Guy, this rationale has been expressly rejected by the Department of State’s Committee on Open Government on several different occasions. Even though the Town has not yet determined that the EIS is complete, once an EIS has been received by a municipal agency from an applicant, it is a public document which is subject to FOIL. Attached is an advisory opinion from the Committee that is right on point. In fact, there are numerous Opinions by the Committee based upon similar facts. Completeness for purposes of SEQRA is separate and distinct from access for purposes of the New York State Freedom of Information Law. Please contact me to discuss this at your earliest convenience. This is a highly unusual response by the Town which violates FOIL. There is no legitimate reason not to give the public access to these documents while the Town Board considers whether to require additional information from the applicant under SEQRA (emphasis as in original email). Mr. Krogh responded that he “neither fully agree[d] nor fully disagree[d] with” the position (never explaining his reason), but he said the issue was moot because a decision had been made to release the draft. I received the SEIS (and only the SEIS) on March 7, 2016. Unfortunately, the damage was already done. On March 9, the Town Board voted to accept the draft SEIS as “complete and adequate for public review.” The Board was delivered copies of the SEIS that very same night by Marguerite Wells of BOWF. 64 {33667/30473/TJF/01194513.DOCX} 5 The importance of this point might not be obvious, but the public should have a right to review draft SEQR documents that were received from third parties, so they may express an opinion as to whether they are “complete .” After the Town Board declares the SEIS to be “complete,” there is a right to submit further public comments, but the decision as to completeness will have already been made. Further revisions or additions resulting from the public comments are extremely unlikely even if the Town Board were to agree with the comments that the document is missing important information. My concern for this violation of FOIL is heightened because of the apparent relationship between Mr. Krogh and the original principal of the Project, John Rancich. According to a May 4, 2007 on-line article in National Wind Watch which was attributed to a reporter from ithacajournal.com, Guy Krogh was originally introduced to the Town Board by John Rancich, to “help answer questions” posed by residents. Finally, on April 9 (just 13 days before the close of the public comment period), I received copies of emails and comments exchanged between and among the Town’s consultant, LaBella, its SEQR attorney Frank Pavia, and representatives of BOWF and its consultant (Haley & Aldrich), about various drafts of the SEIS that were not available to the public. The emails establish that the draft SEIS was first submitted to the Town’s representatives as early as January 16, 2016, and there had been no opportunity for the public to review that document. LaBella submitted comments back to BOWF on February 1, and again on February 8, 2016, concerning the January SEIS draft. Many of LaBella’s comments were not adequately addressed by BOWF, which is discussed further below. Recently, we had a further dispute with the Town about its failure to adhere to FOIL with respect to information concerning the Project. I have retained a noise expert to review noise modeling and monitoring that had been done by Black Oak’s consultant as part of the DEIS and SEIS. My consultant needed the Town’s data so he could run it through his own software and verify the results. I asked the Town to provide me with such data in a usable electronic format and I was informed that the Town’s SEQRA attorney, Frank Pavia, had denied that request and was only willing to provide the data in paper form (a stack of over 100 pages that was useless to my consultant). Again, I was forced to have my own lawyer (at my expense) point out to Mr. Pavia that the express language of FOIL applies to the request: “Per Public Officers Law §87(5)(a), `An agency shall provide records on the medium requested by a person, if the agency can reasonably make such copy or have such copy made by engaging an outside professional service. Records provided in a computer format shall not be encrypted’ 65 {33667/30473/TJF/01194513.DOCX} 6 (emphasis added). Moreover, Public Officers Law §89(3)(a) provides, in relevant part: `When an agency has the ability to retrieve or extract a record or data maintained in a computer storage system with reasonable effort, it shall be required to do so. When doing so requires less employee time than engaging in manual retrieval or redactions from non-electronic records, the agency shall be required to retrieve or extract such record or data electronically. Any programming necessary to retrieve a record maintained in a computer storage system and to transfer that record to the medium requested by a person or to allow the transferred record to be read or printed shall not be deemed to be the preparation or creation of a new record.’” The email to the Town also pointed out that the Committee on Open Government has already determined and stated on its website in response to “Frequently Asked Questions”, that a government agency is required to produce records in the form requested, if it has the reasonable means to do so. In response, we were advised that Frank Pavia had determined that the Town “has [already] responded to the FOIL request and that [we] will be receiving a more complete response” directly from him. Once again, the Town’s position to withhold such basic and important information from its own citizens is inexplicable. Instead of generally making all SEQR correspondence and documentation “readily available”, I have had to submit numerous separate FOIL requests to the Town, many of which have not yet been finally responded to. The comment period for the SEIS will most likely be long over with by the time I receive requested documents or worse, a denial of access. Among the important information that I have been trying to obtain from the Town and only recently received, is information exchanged between the Town’s consultant, LaBella, and Black Oak or its consultant, as well as correspondence exchanged between LaBella and the Town. The reason I requested this information is because three members of the Town Board voted to declare the SEIS “complete” and ready for public review, purportedly based upon the recommendation of LaBella, even though Board Member Mike Carpenter stated on the record that the SEIS had just been received by the Town that very same day, and th at Board Members had not even had a chance to review it yet. That means that 3 Board members (Ann Rider, Henry Hansteen and Virginia Bryant) voted to accept the SEIS as complete, WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING AT IT. The only other explanation is that they reviewed the materials outside of the public process, and without the knowledge of the other Board members. 66 {33667/30473/TJF/01194513.DOCX} 7 There has been no transparency with regard to the processing of this application. It has been handled in secrecy, between Black Oak and one or two members of the Town Board, including the Supervisor and its consultant and attorney. III Who Controlled this SEQR Review? As previously stated, I recently learned that representatives of BOWF and the Town’s paid consultants have been in constant communication about the draft SEIS since as early as January 21, 2016 when BOWF first forwarded the SEIS to LaBella. It is now clear that from that time forward, BOWF pressured LaBella to expedite its review, and both sets of consultants acted to ensure that the public was not aware of this process. For example, by email dated January 21, 2016, James Pippin (“Pippin”), project manager for BOWF’s consultant Haley & Aldrich, forwarded the Draft SEIS (without attachments). His email directed: [p]lease begin your review. If you are available either tomorrow or Monday, I would like to have a call to go over the schedule for your review. We anticipate that this should not take more than 1 week to complete (emphasis added). In other words, BOWF’s consultant told LaBella how long the Town’s review should take. On February 1, 2016, Kathy Spencer of Haley & Aldrich advised Pippen by email, with a copy to the Town’s SEQR lawyer Frank Pavia (“Pavia”), that LaBella had already submitted “preliminary comments to Haley & Aldrich about the SEIS, and that such comments should not be leaked to the public: Jim, as we discussed, here is preliminary comments from LaBella on the SEIS dated January 2016 for the Black Oak Wind Project. These comments are an informal communication between our offices and should not be made public (emphasis added). On February 3, Pippen posted the following email, again pushing LaBella to complete its SEQR review quickly: Attached is the Visual section and supplemental visual report for your review. I will send the supplemental shadow flicker report separately. If possible, please complete your review by Friday afternoon (emphasis added). 67 {33667/30473/TJF/01194513.DOCX} 8 On February 8, 2016, Kathy Spencer (“Spencer”) of LaBella forwarded “preliminary” comments to Pippen and again confirmed that such comments should not be made available to the public: Jim, here are our preliminary comments on the Black Oak Wind Farm Visual Section and reports that you sent last week. These comments are an informal communication between our offices and should not be made public. Let me know if you have any questions (emphasis added). On February 29, 2016, Pippen sent Spencer an email acknowledging that LaBella had concerns about the draft SEIS: I understand you had some concerns or comments on the SEIS prior to the scheduled Town Board meeting. Can you join us on a call this afternoon to discuss? I am available until 5PM today. Let me know a convenient time and I will send you a call in number. Thanks. On March 1 Pippen emailed Spencer asking whether they could meet the following day. Enfield Supervisor Ann Rider and Pavia were copied on the email. Spencer scheduled the meeting for March 1 at LaBella’s office in Rochester. No public information has been made available with respect to the specific matters discussed during the meeting. On March 7, Pippen sent Spencer a revised Draft SEIS along with a “memo outlining the changes” made in response to LaBella’s previous comments. I have still not received that memo from the Town, despite my FOIL request for copies of all communications between BOWF and LaBella. The email asked Labella to “[p]lease review and let me know ASAP if there is anything substantive that needs revision or clarification in the SEIS prior to Wednesday evening’s meeting” (during which the SEIS was accepted by the Town Board) (emphasis added). On March 8, 2016, LaBella emailed Pippen advising him that LaBella would recommend acceptance of the draft SEIS as “complete.” despite continuing reservations about the document: Jim, I have reviewed the Draft SEIS dated 3-7-16, and am in agreement that the most critical changes to the Draft SEIS have been made in the latest set of revisions. I have indicated in a memo to Frank Pavia that the document can be accepted as adequate for public review. Although I am prepared to conclude that the document is complete for the purpose of commencing public review, some of the issues identified during the review process remain a concern, and I would expect that the project sponsor will address such issues as part of the Final SEIS before that later document is accepted (emphasis added). 68 {33667/30473/TJF/01194513.DOCX} 9 In fact, notwithstanding this confidential and expedited review by the Town’s consultant, many of LaBella’s comments and concerns that were communicated to BOW F as early as February 1 and February 8, 2016, were still ignored by BOWF in the “final” version of the Draft SEIS provided to the Town Board on March 9. Exhibit 1 (attached to this letter) describes specific comments by LaBella that were ignored or inadequately addressed by BOWF. It is clear that the Town of Enfield and its consultants bent over backwards to accommodate BOWF. It is equally clear that the Draft SEIS document was determined to be “complete” by the Town Board despite LaBella’s unequivocal opinion that certain issues it had identified remained unresolved by BOWF. Although this list of issues was forwarded to Pavia by LaBella (as indicated in an email), there is no indication that the presence of unresolved issues was ever communicated to the Town Board by the attorney. The discussion among the Town Board members in open session during the March 9 meeting only indicated that LaBella had informed them that the Draft SEIS was complete. The Draft SEIS remains deficient. Those deficiencies cannot be addressed on faith, as part of a Final SEIS, which involves no further opportunity for public input. Once an FEIS is accepted as complete, the lead agency need only await the requisite time period before issuing Findings. Deficiencies in an SEIS, should be resolved at the EIS stage of review. The Town Board should direct BOWF to revise the Draft SEIS now to address the deficiencies described in the memo from LaBella to Pavia, and the additional concerns described in this letter. IV Enactment of the Wind Law and the Need to Change the Law Again Inadequate Setbacks There can be little dispute that setbacks provide a basic and proven form of mitigation of many of the adverse impacts caused by wind turbines including noise, ice- throw, and mechanical failure. The Town of Enfield initially adopted its Wind Law in December 2007 which at that time required setbacks of 1,250 feet or 1.5 times the height of the turbine whichever is greater, from property lines, communication and electrical lines, transmission facilities such as substations, inhabitable structures, public roads, the Robert Tremain State Park and neighboring municipal boundaries. 69 {33667/30473/TJF/01194513.DOCX} 10 Although that law took many months to adopt, the Ithaca Journal reported that BOWF contended that the law was hastily enacted and it threatened to take legal action to nullify the law. Less than a month later, a new majority of the Town Board began their terms and voted to repeal the Wind Law. In November 2008, they enacted a new, vastly diluted version of the Wind Law, a version which was obviously much more suitable to Black Oak. It reduced the setbacks considerably to structures and property lines of non-participating landowners. In California according to a study prepared for the California Energy Commission in 2006, setbacks are commonly established at a distance of three times the total height of a wind turbine, measured to the nearest property line. Although that study did not recommend uniform setback distances, it confirmed that turbine tower failures occur often enough that larger more protective set-backs are necessary. According to the report, the dispersal of fragments caused by blade failures presents a potential hazard to the public a significant distance away from each turbine, based upon disparate factors such as blade tip speed upon failure and weather conditions. In fact, as recently as February 2016 in the Madison County Town of Fenner, it was reported that a 113 foot long turbine blade detached from its hub and fell over 200 feet to the ground. I spoke with a man who lives across the street from that turbine. He told me he personally measured how far the blade was thrown as a result of that incident. He said it landed 323 feet from the turbine and then bounced another 148 feet for a total distance of 471 feet. This is a recent example of why Enfield’s setbacks are not adequate to protect its citizens. “Ice throw” is also a significant safety concern for wind farms in the northeast. Attached is a portion of a document found on the Internet, authored by GE Energy, the manufacturer of the turbines proposed by Black Oak. The GE document discusses important setback safety considerations relating to “ice throw.” It expressly states: “[i]ce shedding/ice throw, and other hazards can create risk in the vicinity of the wind turbine park.” To mitigate these hazards, even GE recommends safety guidelines that are more protective than those contained in the Town of Enfield’s Wind Law. GE’s policy recommends the following setbacks [i]f icing is likely at the wind turbine site: . . . 1.5 times (Hub Height + rotor diameter)”, to residences and public use areas. GE also recommends a setback of 1.1 times the total height of the turbine to remote property boundaries not owned or controlled by the project sponsor. The setback in the Town’s Wind Law is only 1.1 times the total height of the tower to occupied structures, and only 100 feet or 1.1 times the blade radius, whichever is larger, to any property line not controlled by the project sponsor. The law provides greater protection to other turbines (450’) than it does to the property lines of nearby owners. The paltry set-backs in the Town of Enfield’s Wind Law were adopted despite the recommendation of the Tompkins County Department of Planning that set-backs should be “tied to property lines and public road right-of-ways at a distance of no less than 1.5 70 {33667/30473/TJF/01194513.DOCX} 11 times total height including the rotor blade height, unless easements are obtained from property owners.” The County Planning Department’s recommendation indicated that it was based on the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority’s (“NYSERDA”) document entitled “W ind Energy – Model Ordinance Options (the “Model Wind Ordinance”). Monumentally Inadequate Noise Limits In addition to setbacks, enforceable noise limits are necessary to address unforeseen noise impacts that arise during the operation of any wind farm. The Town’s Local Law establishes a noise limit of “60 decibels above ambient sound levels measured at the nearest Off-Site Residence.” This provision was enacted despite Tompkins County Planning Department’s recommendation to adopt much more protective limits of 55 dBA, measured at the boundary of the closest parcel not controlled by the project sponsor, and 50 dBA, measured at any residence. Again, the County Planning Department’s recommendation was based upon NYSERDA’s Model Wind Ordinance. NYSDEC’s policy document entitled “Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts ,” dated October 6, 2000, addresses consideration of noise impacts under SEQR. It provides generally that “[sound pressure level] increases approaching 10 dB result in a perceived doubling of [sound pressure level]” (pg. 14). “An increase of 10 dB(A) deserves consideration of avoidance and mitigation measures in most cases” (pg. 14). “In non-industrial settings the [sound pressure level] should probably not exceed ambient noise by more than 6 dB(A) at the receptor . . . [and a]n increase of 6 dB(A) may cause complaints” (pg. 14). Increases of 5-10 dB are described by DEC’s policy to be “intrusive” and increases of 10-15 are “very noticeable.” Increases of 15-20 are termed “objectionable” and over 20, “very objectionable to intolerable” (pg. 15). Most likely, the ambient noise level in the very rural area of the project is under 40 dB. Even if you use 30 dB as “ambient”, Enfield’s limit would be 90 dB (30 ambient plus 60). According to DEC’s policy, a subway station or heavy truck at 50 feet away would exhibit noise levels of 90 dB(A). In contrast, the following limits in wind laws in other communities in New York were found on the Internet: Town of Hammond (St. Lawrence County) - background (ambient) plus 5 dBA; Town of Eden (Erie County) - background plus 3 dBA; Town of Jefferson (Schoharie County) - 50 dBA at the nearest residence (5 less in the event of a pure tone such as a whine or screech); Cherry Valley (Otsego County) - ambient plus 6 dBA; ambient plus 5 dBA in the event of a steady or pure tone; 71 {33667/30473/TJF/01194513.DOCX} 12 Cohocton (Steuben County) - 45 dBA at any existing residence and 50 dBA at a non-project property line (45 at property line and 40 at residence in the event of a pure tone); and Homer (Cortland County) - daytime limit of 45 dBA and 63 (C weighted); nighttime limit of 40 (A weighted) and 58 (C weighted). 5 less in the event of a steady pure tone. Clearly Enfield’s noise limits are completely out of touch with accepted standards and should be changed. The Need for a Moratorium While the Wind Law is Modified My noise expert has indicated that he has never heard of a noise limit that is even close to as high as Enfield’s limit, anywhere in the Country. While I have heard Enfield’s limit referred to as a mistake by some, the Town Board has never made any attempt to modify the Wind Law to provide a noise limit that is even reasonably protective of its citizens. I have already asked individual members of the Town Board to enact a moratorium in order to prevent Black Oak from starting construction while the Board modifies the Wind Law and imposes reasonable and protective noise limits and set- backs. Consistently, certain Board members have responded that they are afraid to be sued by Black Oak, or more curiously, that it would be “unfair” to enact new limits that apply retroactively to Black Oak, because the facility was already approved. My attorney provided the Town with strong legal precedent demonstrating that a municipality has every right to enact legislation related to health and safety (police powers), and make such legislation apply retroactively, as long as the owner has not already acquired “vested rights.” In New York, a landowner acquires “vested rights” when it has already undertaken “substantial construction and made substantial expenditures prior to the effective date of the amendment.” Even if BOWF has already begun ordering turbine infrastructure (there is absolutely no evidence indicating that it has), that would not be considered a “substantial expenditure” if it can recoup its cost by reselling the equipment in the market. Additionally, the concept of “substantial expenditures” is not even relevant unless the landowner has also already undertaken “substantial construction.” Obviously BOWF has not. The only construction that has taken place on the Project is an excavation for an apparent foundation that was begun several years ago, apparently to allow BOWF to claim tax credits which were about to expire (they have since been extended). That excavation, however, was undertaken in violation of the SEQR regulations which state: “[a] project sponsor may not commence any physical alteration related to an action until the provisions of SEQR have been complied with” (6 NYCRR § 617.3(a)). 72 {33667/30473/TJF/01194513.DOCX} 13 BOWF has no “vested rights.” In fact, it has asked the Tompkins County IDA to extend certain deadlines in its agreements precisely because BOWF has been unable to begin the Project. The Town should modify its Wind Law before any approval of the modification is granted. Unfortunately, Town Board members, including Henry Hansteen, continue to bow to BOWF’s threats to bring litigation and to accept its weak claims that it has vested rights. Apparently, the Town Board is more concerned about fairness to Black Oak than to the health and well-being of its citizens. V Procedural Violations of SEQR and the Town of Enfield Wind Law Inadequate Public Notice The Town of Enfield Wind Law requires a “complaint resolution process to address complaints from Persons who live in nearby Residences. . . [and t]he process may use an independent mediator or arbitrator and shall include a time limit for acting upon any complaint” (Wind Law Article III Section 1.A.11). Article III, Section 2.F. of the Town’s Wind Law requires that at least one public hearing be scheduled for each application under the Wind Law. The pending modification is an application requiring approval under the Wind Law. That same provision requires the notice of the public hearing be given by first class mail to all property owners within 500’ of the boundary of each proposed Wind Turbine Generator (each tower), at least 7 days in advance of the public hearing. If such notice is sent by first class mail it must be mailed at least 10 days before the public hearing. The SEQR regulations provide a very low threshold for requiring a hearing. In determining whether to schedule a hearing, the lead agency should consider the degree of interest shown in the project by the public and involved agencies (it is high), whether substantive and significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified (they have), the adequacy of the mitigation measures and alternatives proposed (they are inadequate) and the extent to which a public hearing can aid the lead agency’s decision-making process (obviously it can as the Town scheduled two hearings for the SEIS). SEQR hearings should be combined with any other hearing required. The SEQR regulations further provide that if such a hearing is held, notice of hearing must be published at least 14 calendar days in advance of a public hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of the potential impacts of the action (6 NYCRR § 617.9(a)(4)(i)). No proper notice under either the Wind Law or SEQR was provided before the March 28, 2016 public hearing for the Draft SEIS. When I brought that to the Town’s attention, I was told no such notice was necessary. Nonetheless, an additional hearing was quickly scheduled by the Town Board for April 12, obviously to remedy the notice 73 {33667/30473/TJF/01194513.DOCX} 14 defect. I have not seen any indication whether that hearing was properly published in a newspaper of general circulation, as required by SEQR. Violation of SEQR Procedures Involving the Turbine Located in Newfield Although BOWF has not yet committed to any actual location for placement of the two turbines that will be relocated (it has merely identified possible combinations of locations), one of the potential sites is located in the Town of Newfield. This has important ramifications under SEQR. First, there is no indication in the SEIS that BOWF has applied for any approval to construct any turbine in the Town of Newfield. Further, there is no indication in the SEIS or in any resolution of the Town of Enfield as to which agency will conduct the SEQR review for the turbine in the Town of Newfield or whether review will be coordinated. Because the Newfield turbine is identified in the SEIS, it appears that BOWF intends to assess its impacts along with those caused by the Enfield turbines, as part of Enfield’s pending SEQR review of the Project. If true, BOWF and Enfield have violated several of SEQR’s procedural requirements. The SEQR regulations provide that “[n]o agency may undertake, fund or approve the action until it has complied wit h the provisions of SEQR” (6 NYCRR § 617.3(a)). The BOWF project is clearly a Type I action for purposes of SEQR (it is “deemed” a Type I action under the Enfield Wind Law). Presumably, Newfield has discretionary approval authority over construction of the turbine, either under its own wind law, or under a typical site plan review law. That “discretionary approval” authority makes Newfield an “involved agency” for purposes of SEQR (defined as “an agency [state or local] that has jurisdiction by law to fund, approve or directly undertake an action” (6 NYCRR § 617.2(s)). That same definition also provides: “[i]f an agency will ultimately make a discretionary decision to fund, approve or undertake an action then it is an `involved agency’ notwithstanding that it has not received an application for funding or approval at the time the SEQR process is commence d.” Any agency that does not have a “discretionary” approval authority over an action is merely an “interested agency” under SEQR (6 NYCRR § 617.2(t)). In this case, Newfield was an “interested agency” rather than an “involved agency” because until th is Project expanded into Newfield, that Town had no jurisdiction over the Project. The first mention of any part of the Project in Newfield was the Draft SEIS which was received by the Town Board on March 9. For all Type I actions, SEQR requires the lead agency to “coordinate review” with any other involved agency (6 NYCRR § 617.6(b)(2)). The lead agency must do so by transmitting a copy of the Environmental Assessment Form or an EIS if no EAF was received, to other involved agencies, along with a copy of the application for the proposed action (6 NYCRR § 617.6(3). Lead agency status must be agreed to among the involved agencies and if such agencies are unable to agree, a procedure exists for enabling the Commissioner of DEC to resolve the dispute. 74 {33667/30473/TJF/01194513.DOCX} 15 Here, Newfield was not an involved agency for the original review, but it is clearly an involved agency for the review of the SEIS relating to the Project modification. It was provided no “application” for any modification under the Wind Law, and it was given no opportunity to act as lead agency for the modified Project. Newfield has not agreed to allow Enfield to act as lead agency for the portion of the Project that is located in Newfield and it has never been given the opportunity by Enfield to do so. Having not properly coordinated review by giving Newfield proper notice and the opportunity to act as lead agency, Enfield (and BOWF) cannot assert the benefits of coordinating review (involved agencies may not later require the preparation of an EIS or issue a determination of significance - a finding that the project may have a significant adverse environmental impact as per § 617.6(3)(iii)). Moreover, allowing Newfield to conduct its own review is may also not be a proper remedy. As previously stated, “uncoordinated review” of Type I actions is not authorized by the SEQR regulations, and allowing a separate SEQR review by Newfield would result in an improperly “segmented” review (dividing the environmental review of an action into various segments as though they were independent activities) which is also prohibited by SEQR (“[c]onsidering only a part or segment of an action is contrary to the intent of SEQR”), unless the lead agency states in its determination of significance and any subsequent EIS, the supporting reasons, and demonstrates “that such review is no less protective of the environment” (6 NYCRR § 617.3(g)(1)). There is no indication in the SEIS that a segmented review is warranted or how it will be no less protective of the environment. The Town of Enfield, as lead agency, should properly coordinate with Newfield concerning the SEIS, and ensure that all adverse environmental impacts relating to the proposed turbine in Newfield are properly addressed before any approval is issued in Enfield. VI What Exactly does the Project Entail and Who are its Owners? At this point in the process, more than a year after the initial SEQR Findings approving the Project were issued, it is still impossible to know exactly what the Project entails, where the components will be located, and who the applicant even is. The Project has already changed several times and there was no adequate assessment of the environmental impacts from the most recent changes. We are now told that further changes are forthcoming. The FEIS related to a Project with seven 1.7 MW turbines, with a total generating capacity of 11.9 MW. In July, the Project was modified and the height of each turbine was increased by eight feet and the capacity of each was increased to 2.3 MW for a total of 16.1 MW. In addition, the location of the electrical substation was moved from the location that was the subject of the SEQRA review. The Town Board resolved in June that further SEQRA review of that change 75 {33667/30473/TJF/01194513.DOCX} 16 was not necessary because the changes would not cause new, significant potential adverse environmental impacts from those that were already adequately addressed in the Findings Statement. Apart from the expansion in the capacity of the facility that was previously proposed, it is believed that the changes to the configuration and location of the electrical substation will result in significantly more “cut and fill” of land. The owner of the parcel’s continued participation in the Project may also be unclear which might cause further design changes. There is still uncertainty concerning the very basic issue of the height of the towers which is relevant to several different anticipated environmental impacts. For example, according to LaBella’s February 1, 2016 comments on the January 2016 draft SEIS (a version that was never made public): In the Acoustic Study Update (Appendix E) it is indicated that hub height of the proposed turbines is 94 meters – is this correct? (Based on our records, the hub height of the former turbine model in the FEIS/Findings statement was 96 meters or 315 feet. In June 2015, the use of the currently proposed model turbines was approved, which involved an increase in hub height of 8 feet, resulting in a total hub height of 323 ft or 98 meters.) Is the Acoustic Study accurate given this anomaly in hub height (sic). Similarly, in its February 8 comments, LaBella continued to question BOWF as to the height of its towers in a comment on the issue of shadow flicker: There remains confusion with regard to the heights of the turbine which has been indicated to be 94 m . . . . More explanation is needed of the heights in the following statement in 2.8.2.1.3: `These changes are due to shifting the Project layout, changes in turbine specifications including a net increase in overall structure height of 5 m (from 196 m to 201 m) and increase in rotor diameter (from 100 m to 107 m), which affects the intersection of the sun, turbine and receptor.’ BOWF’s current draft at page 32 creates yet a third conflicting description of the height of the turbines: These changes are due to shifting the layout, changes in turbine specifications including a net increase in overall structure height of 1.5 meters (from 146 meters to 147.5 meters) and increase in rotor diameter (from 100 meters to 107 meters), which affects the intersection of the sun, turbine and receptor. 76 {33667/30473/TJF/01194513.DOCX} 17 With respect to the ownership of the Project, by letter dated September 17, 2015, Black Oak Wind Farm, LLC requested a transfer of Black Oak’s Payment-In-Lieu of Taxes (“PILOT”) and tax abatement to a “new owner” called Onyx Black Oak Wind, LLC, of 126 E.56th St., New York, NY. Nothing in the SEIS indicates a change in ownership. According to a September 17, 2015 email from Marguerite Wells of Black Oak Wind Farm, LLC to Heather McDaniel of Tompkins County Area Development concerning the status of local investors: The investors will still be members of the Black Oak LLC, which doesn’t go away. only (sic) the assets of the company are being sold. They’ll get their eventual payments as distributions according to their shares. The matter was scheduled to be considered by the Tompkins County IDA at its September 2015 meeting. On September 19, Black Oak requested that the “revision” be put off until the Board’s October meeting: After conferring a bit further with my board and Onyx, I think it would be better to put our PILOT revision off until the October meeting if possible, as we have been holding off making the info public (even to our investors) until after the deal closes on the 29 th. I had forgotten how public the IDA meeting agenda would be. It’s no matter that we’re listed on the a genda on the website, if it stays that’s ok, we can still forego actual public discussion of the details until after deal closure. Is that workable? The matter was not heard at the October 2015 meeting. It was put off until November and then December and apparently it has still not been returned to the agenda. VII Substantive Deficiencies and Violations of SEQR Exhibit 1 contains a list of comments from LaBella to BOWF about deficiencies in the Draft SEIS, which BOWF has failed to address. At a minimum, BOWF’s failure to address those comments indicates that the Draft SEIS is not complete, and it should be sent back to BOWF for further modification. Waiting for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) is not an adequate solution because it provides the public with no further opportunity to respond to the adequacy of any response by BOWF. In addition, the following additional substantive deficiencies are noted. 77 {33667/30473/TJF/01194513.DOCX} 18 Noise Impacts I will submit a separate suite of comments that address noise impacts as will my noise expert, Les Blomberg. In short, it is clear that BOWF’s SEIS does not adequately assess, avoid and/or mitigate the anticipated noise impacts from the modification of the Project. It contains no discussion of the impacts from low frequency noise and/or infrasound. Similarly, there is no adequate discussion as to mitigation of noise related impacts. Finally, there is no enforceable mechanism including realistic decibel limits to address actual noise impacts that arise during the operation of the wind farm. Shadow Flicker LaBella’s February 8 comments to BOWF direct it to “[i]nclude text and a table summarizing the information in Section 5 of the Shadow Flicker Analysis regarding the general timing (time of year, time of day) of the shadow flicker effects for each alternative combination.” The comments provide an example for BOWF to use but no such language is contained in the March 2016 draft SEIS. With respect to proposed “mitigation” of shadow flicker, LaBella states “[g]iven that some new residences will now experience shadow flicker hours approaching the 30 hour threshold (26 and 27 hours), it is recommended that the Mitigation Section refer to the Complaint Resolution Procedure should unanticipated shadow flicker effects arise” (LaBella February 8, 2016 comments, No. 72). The source of this arbitrary 30 hour threshold is not stated except BOWF claims it is “a common standard for assessing significance of impacts” (SEIS, pg. 32). With respect to LaBella’s half-hearted attempt to mitigate shadow flicker impacts by referring to a vague “Complaint Resolution Procedure ,” BOWF’s latest version of the draft SEIS states it “will implement a Community Outreach and Communications Plan (see DEIS Appendix U)” which will purportedly establish a “Complaint Resolution Procedure that could be used if complaints regarding shadow flicker arise” (draft SEIS, pg. 33, emphasis added). A review of Appendix U demonstrates that the procedure is palpably deficient as mitigation. The one-page Community Outreach and Communication Plan” requires BOWF to do no more than “set up a toll-free number for use by the local residents . . . [and u]pon receipt of a question or a concern, the Project Manager will contact the individual and work with them in good faith to resolve the issue” (DEIS, Exhibit U). The Plan contains no mandatory or enforceable process other than BOWF’s own questionable notion of acting in “good faith.” Furthermore, it is clear that Appendix U is only intended to apply during the construction phase of the wind farm – not after the wind farm becomes operational. Therefore, it fails to mitigate impacts from shadow flicker. The SEIS acknowledges that “mitigation measures such as plantings to provide screenings or installation of window treatments are often considered” to mitigate shadow flicker, but because “shadow flicker from the Modified Project will not exceed 78 {33667/30473/TJF/01194513.DOCX} 19 the 30 hour/year threshold at any residential structures . . . no mitigation for shadow flicker effects is warranted and none is proposed” (Draft SEIS, pg. 33-34 (emphasis added)). In light of the foregoing, the draft SEIS does not sufficiently mitigate the adverse impacts from shadow flicker either for the modified turbines or for any others. Substantially more analysis of the anticipated impacts are warranted in the SEIS to confirm that the arbitrary threshold of 30 hours per year is warranted, as compared to 26 or 27 hours per year (or any lesser number) experienced by residences in the area of the Project who will be impacted by the effect. At the very least, the SEIS must require mandatory mitigation if, after operation begins, shadow flicker becomes a problem for receptors near the Project. Visual Impacts The modification of the Project involves new locations for two towers and the substation, and construction of an intrusive MET tower, as well as a significant amount of clearing and grubbing of mature trees and land for the installation of electrical lines. Although not indicated anywhere in the SEIS narrative, it also appears clear that BOWF is moving the location of turbine 6 (that is evident from reviewing the very last page of Exhibit E of the SEIS, entitled “Project Layout Comparison” which shows that the footprint of turbine 6 has slightly changed). The movement of turbine 6 is not even mentioned in the Draft SEIS; the impact of such movement has clearly not been assessed. Even as it relates to turbine locations A, B and C, the Draft SEIS provides no credible analysis of visual impacts from the Project. It relies primarily on very small scale Figures which divide the surrounding community into a patchwork of colors and shapes which supposedly identify the number of turbines which can be seen from each location. Such Figures are completely unusable, however, because of their small scale. Although I know where my home is located, I cannot tell from the Figure how many turbines I will actually be able to see from my home. Nowhere in the report is there a narrative I can refer to in order to determine how many turbines I will see. In addition, there is no discussion as to the relationship between the number of turbines that can be seen and the significance of the visual impacts I will suffer. LaBella agrees. In its February 8, 2016 comments, LaBella tells BOWF’s consultant that the Draft SEIS “needs to include more information than just the percentages of the area with views of the turbines” (LaBella Comments, No. 61, pg. 1). Finally, there are very few photosimulations generally concerning the new proposed facilities and there are none depicting the view from my home or property, even though my home is eligible for inclusion on the Register of Historic Places and therefore is a resource of significant local importance. 79 {33667/30473/TJF/01194513.DOCX} 20 The SEIS should be significantly supplemented. Impacts to the Future Use of My Property and Valuation I own a large (41.067 acre), flag-shaped parcel which begins at the intersection of Griffin Hill Road and Connecticut Hill Road in Enfield. The tax map number is 18-2- 4.3. Although my parcel and my home are outside of the Town of Enfield’s very meager setbacks for residences and property lines, it is important to note that GE Energy, the manufacturer of the proposed turbines, recommends a setback distance of 1.5 x (hub height + rotor diameter), “if icing is likely at the wind turbine site. The distance of that setback based upon the Project turbines is 994 feet. Much of my property is located within that GE recommended setback. Figure 5 in the SEIS plots purported setbacks, including the GE recommended setback. It has been erroneously stated by BOWF that the 994 foot GE setback only applies to residential structures, and a much smaller GE recommended setback of 1.1 x blade length applies to the rest of my property. That is wrong. The GE recommendation for the full 994 feet applies “if icing is likely at the wind turbine site.” Objects of concern include “residences” and other public areas, but it does not state “residential structures,” it says “residences.” My residence is located on that same property. This is not isolated land. By comparison, the smaller setback applies to “[r]emote boundaries to property not owned by wind farm participants”. GE provides additional guidance as to what it considers “remote” with the following language: “Property boundaries to vacant areas where there is a remote chance of any future development or inhabitance during the life of the wind farm” (emphasis added). My property is not vacant, it is inhabited. Moreover, I use my property and I certainly want to maintain my right to further develop it with structures. But most likely, I will never be able to develop over half of my land which is located within the 994 foot recommended setback. It is like a restrictive covenant or easement which I will never be compensated for. I have been told that once the wind farm is approved, I will most likely never be given approval to build any structure on the portion of my land which is located within that recommended protective zone. BOWF should be required to compensate me for what is essentially a “taking” of my land without compensation. It should also compensate me for my proximity to this proposed facility, and the impact it will surely have on my property values. Currently, there is no required mitigation in the SEIS for the devaluation of my property. Other communities, such as the Town of Hammond, New York, require mandatory guarantees of property values as part of any wind farm approval. I have seen a copy of the guarantee agreement in Hammond which is a condition of any wind permit issued by the Town. 80 {33667/30473/TJF/01194513.DOCX} 21 Section 2.6.1.2 of the Draft SEIS acknowledges that future development on certain properties such as mine will be curtailed due to the proximity of turbines from the Project to the property lines. That impact must be mitigated in the SEIS. Impacts on Area Roads Roads in the area of the Project area are already crumbling, reportedly because the Town has delayed maintenance for over nine years in anticipation of the Project. Those delays were apparently suggested or requested by John Rancich, the Project’s initial sponsor, who indicated at the January 3, 2007 Town Planning meeting that the Project would degrade the condition of the road so it was better to wait. The Town’s Highway Supervisor has repeatedly expressed concerns that heavy truck traffic during construction of the Project will permanently damage the road bed. No “Road Use Agreement” has been made public yet, and the Highway Supervisor has indicated that he has yet to see any draft. The Draft SEIS should identify impacts on roads during construction and provide clear, specific and enforceable standards for mitigating impacts to such roads, not just a general and unenforceable promise that standards will be developed and adhered to. The SEIS needs to describe how BOWF will shore up the roads before construction, ensure safety during construction, and repair damage following construction. The Highway Supervisor has acknowledged that he has not been consulted by the Town Board in over a year concerning this important issue. Conclusion For the reasons stated in this letter, the SEQR review of the proposed modification of the Black Oak Wind Farm has been deeply flawed. The public has been improperly excluded from participation in the process, as has certain Town Board members. The Town and its consultants and attorneys have wrongly attempted to expedite the handling of this modification at BOWF’s direction, and they have failed to follow through and require BOWF to provide the most basic responses to the obvious deficiencies in the SEIS document. The SEIS does not adequately assess the anticipated environmental impacts of the modification. In fact, there is no way to determine what BOWF intends to build and exactly where it intends to build it. The document is wholly conclusory as to impacts, and it requires no meaningful avoidance or mitigation of the impacts as required by SEQR. Instead, it relies on vague promises of mitigation later, or baseless conclusions that impacts are not significant. 81 {33667/30473/TJF/01194513.DOCX} 22 The “acceptance” of the document by the Town Board should be annulled and the SEIS must be sent back to BOWF for further modification, to address the deficiencies described by LaBella and members of the public. Sincerely, Jude Lemke 215 Connecticut Hill Road Enfield, New York 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 Ambient Sound Levels Near BOWF April 22, 2016 Prepared by Les Blomberg, Noise Pollution Clearinghouse, PO Box 1137, Montpelier VT 05601 209 2 I. Introduction On April 17th and 18th, 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 17th and 18th, 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. 210 3 Figure 1: Approximate Measurement Locations 377 Harvey Hill Rd. Daytime: 34.1 dBA Nighttime: 27.1 dBA 115 W. Enfield Center Rd. (not shown on map) Daytime: 35.9 dBA Nighttime: 25.2 dBA 637/641 Black Oak Daytime: 34.0 dBA Nighttime: 37.3 dBA 215 Connecticut Hill Daytime: 31.9 dBA Nighttime: 27.2 dBA 185 Leonard Rd Daytime: 30.1 dBA Nighttime: NA 211 4 Figure 2 shows the measurement results. 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.) Daytime Location Date and Time Leq Lmax L1 L10 L50 L90 Lmin 637/641 Black Oak Rd. 4/17/16 16:00 34.0 54.6 45.7 35.4 28.5 24.2 21.4 115 W. Enfield Center Rd. 4/18/16 11:45 35.9 58.0 47.4 38.4 29.3 25.0 21.5 215 Connecticut Hill Rd. 4/18/16 11:00 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. 4/17/16 17:10 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. 4/17/16 23:45 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. 4/17/16 22:10 27.1 49.4 33.4 29.6 25.5 19.9 14.2 212 5 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. 213 6 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. 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. 4/18/16 11:45 35.9 NA 215 C onnecticut Hill Rd. 4/18/16 11:00 31.9 55 23.1 185 Leonard Rd.4/18/16 9:55 30.1 45 14.9 377 Harvey Hill Rd. 4/17/16 17:10 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 C onnecticut 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 25.9 214 Critique of the Noise Analysis of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Black Oak Wind Farm April 20, 2016 Prepared by Les Blomberg, Noise Pollution Clearinghouse, PO Box 1137, Montpelier VT 05601 215 2 Contents Critique of the Noise Analysis of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Black Oak Wind Farm Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 3 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 II. Quiet Is the Expectation in Rural Areas ................................................................................................ 5 III. 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 FEIS 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 at Night ................................................................................................................................................... 28 XIII. The DSEIS Understated the Scope of the Project and Shielded Noise Impacts from Scrutiny ........ 30 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 30 216 Introduction This report is a critique of noise analysis in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Black Oak Wind Farm (DSEIS), submitted on February 22, 2016, and the noise appendix, Appendix H of the DSEIS. To the extent that the DSEIS relied upon the prior Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Appendix K, and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Appendix T, those are also critiqued. The report is divided into 12 parts (I-XII) and it describes how the DSEIS failed to take a hard look at the noise impacts of the Black Oak Wind Farm (BOWF). The DSEIS failed to thoroughly analyze turbine noise for significant adverse impacts and failed to support its determination of no significant impact. Specific problems include: 1. The DSEIS failed to actually assess noise impacts of the project. Part IV. 2. The DSEIS failed to assess noise with respect to local laws. Part V. 3. The DSEIS incorrectly compared its noise data to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) SEQRA Criterion of Significance. Part VI. 4. The noise modeling the DSEIS used is unreliable. Part VII 5. The noise monitoring the DSEIS used is unreliable. Part VIII The DSEIS failed to analyze BOWF with respect to its own proposed tests of significant noise impacts (Parts V-VI). Had it correctly done that analysis, it would have concluded that the project has significant noise impacts (Parts IX-XII). Before examining the specific ways in which the DSEIS failed to take a hard look at the noise impacts of BOWF, it is important to understand noise pollution (Part I), the rural context of the existing acoustic environment (Part II) and the unique character of wind turbine noise (Part III). I. Understanding Noise and Noise Pollution Noise: a sound that interferes with a task, function, process, health or wellbeing; a sound that is inharmonious or out of place The term noise has multiple definitions because it has multiple uses. We use noise to describe a large range of sounds, including very loud sounds that cause hearing loss (a threat to well-being), sounds that are too loud (out of place or inappropriate), and quiet sounds that are distracting, such as a dripping faucet in a quiet home or a distracting buzz. Even these quieter noises might also interfere with well-being because they might interfere with falling asleep or concentration. The word "noise" is derived from the Latin word "nausea,” meaning “seasickness.” As its derivation suggests, noise has many unpleasant and harmful effects. It can cause hearing loss, stress, high blood pressure, sleep loss, lost productivity, and a general reduction in the quality of life and opportunity for personal and collective tranquility. It can interfere with communication and activities. Noise triggers the fight or flight response, resulting in stress related changes to our body. 217 4 Noise is an objective pollutant. It can be quantified and has known and quantifiable effects. People discussing noise often refer to a phenomenon called habituation, and mistakenly assume people get used to noise. This is not the case. Some people do habituate to some noises, just as some people can get used to living with a yard full of litter. Habituation, however, is by no means universal. Also, habituation always comes at a cost. The underlying physiological changes in one’s body, including stress related hormones, blood chemistry, etc, occur in the presence of noise, whether or not the listener is aware of them or habituated to them. Noise sensitivity can also develop with repeated exposure to noise, resulting in a heightened awareness of the degradation of the soundscape and its effects on people. Noise Pollution: A Noise Emitted into the Environment In general, noise and its effects are imposed more directly on one’s neighbors than the effects of acid emissions or CO2, which are imposed at a greater distance (both temporally and spatially) and in a more generalized, societal manner. Since the impact of noise tends to be more localized than many other pollutants, noise pollution tends to have more in common with second-hand smoke and litter than, for example, acid rain or global warming. It helps to think of noise pollution as both second-hand sound and audible trash. Noise is second-hand sound. Like second-hand smoke, second-hand sound, is a waste product of the activities of others, emitted into the environment—into the air. It negatively effects well-being, yet is emitted without the consent of the recipient. Noise is audible trash or aural litter. Noise is to the soundscape as litter is to the landscape. It is the aural equivalent of McDonalds wrappers strewn around the environment. If one pays attention, one will realize there is much more audible litter than there are cans, bottles, paper, etc, littering our landscape. If we could see our soundscape, particularly the urban soundscape, it would look like a landfill. When Is Noise Pollution a Problem? There are a number of acoustical factors influencing people’s response to noise and their ability to tolerate it. The most important of these includes the loudness of the noise, the character of both the noise and the neighborhood, whether it is heard in the home, and whether it interferes with activities, communication or sleep. Noise does not occur in a vacuum, both literally and figuratively. There are always political, social, economic and psychological aspects of noise problems. Consequently, several non-acoustical factors associated with noise also shape how well people tolerate noise. The most important of these is the reciprocity of the noise—whether the neighbors impose the same types and amount of noise on each other. Also very important are people’s ability to control the noise and their attitude toward the noise source. Finally, people have varying sensitivity to noise, and people who are more noise sensitive will more likely react negatively to noise. 218 5 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,1 so the noise would dominate the soundscape, being 8 times louder than the background. 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. 1 EPA, 1981, Noise Effects Handbook, 7-2. 219 6 Schomer, 2001, Assessment of Noise Annoyance, 27 Figure 2. Expectation of 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 to be 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 soundscape into 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 to 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. 220 7 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). 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). 221 8 CORRECTIONS TO BE ADDED TO THE MEASURED DAY-NIGHT SOUND LEVEL (Ldn) OF INTRUDING NOISE TO OBTAIN NORMALIZED Ldn Type of Correction Description Amount of Correction to be Added to Measured Ldn in dB Seasonal Correction Summer (or year-round operation) Winter only (or windows always closed) 0 -5 Correction for Outdoor Noise Level Measured in Absence of Intruding Noise Quiet suburban or rural community (remote from large cities and from industrial activity and trucking) +10 Normal suburban community (not located near industrial activity) +5 Urban residential community (not immediately adjacent to heavily traveled roads and industrial areas) 0 Noisy urban residential community (near relatively busy roads or industrial areas) -5 Very noisy urban residential community -10 Correction for Previous Exposure & Community Attitudes No prior experience with the intruding noise +5 Community has had some previous exposure to intruding noise but little effort is being made to control the noise. This correction may also be applied in a situation where the community has not been exposed to the noise previously, but the people are aware that bona fide efforts are being made to control the noise. 0 Community has had considerable previous exposure to the intruding noise and the noise maker's relations with the community are good -5 Community is aware that operation causing noise is very necessary and it will not continue indefinitely. This correction can be applied for an operation of limited duration and under emergency circumstances. -10 Pure Tone or Impulse No pure tone or impulsive character Pure tone or impulsive character present 0 +5 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). 222 9 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 Other Noise Sources 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. 223 10 That wind turbine noise is different from other noise sources can be seen from studies of individual reactions to noise. Annoyance2 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. Figure 6. Wind Turbine Noise Elicits a Greater Response at Lower Noise Levels than Other Noise Sources It is clear from 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 protect 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. 224 11 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. 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. 225 12 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 226 13 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,5 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. 227 14 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.7 Moreover, neither the FEIS (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. 7 “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. 228 15 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. 229 16 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 FEIS (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. 230 17 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 FEIS (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. 231 18 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 Near BOWF, ambient levels at these locations were measured, and they are shown Figure 11. 232 19 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 BOWF from 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 233 20 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 really just 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. 234 21 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. 235 22 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 FEIS modeling. Figure 13. Predicted Noise Levels from the DSEIS and FEIS. 236 23 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 FEIS 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 lines 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. 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 FEIS 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. Contour Line FEIS Figure 2: Area SqFt DSEIS Figure 3: Area SqFt % Increase Red (Lands > 55 dBA)552,000 1,622,000 194% Orange (Lands > 50 dBA)5,930,000 10,739,000 81% Yellow (Lands > 45 dBA)21,697,000 29,446,000 36% 237 24 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 “[t]he 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. Figure 15. Exceedances of the Criterion of Significance in the FEIS and DSEIS. FEIS 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 8 238 25 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. XI. 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: 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. 239 26 ISO 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. 240 27 Figure 17. DSEIS Modeling Results When the Accuracy of the Model Considered. 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 R50 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 47.7 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 R5 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 R11 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 43 241 28 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 AC 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 43.8 242 29 Figure 18. DSEIS Modeling Results With Significant Nighttime Impact. 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 71 243 30 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 VIII) 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 render the DSEIS conclusions unreliable. The DSEIS also has a number of omissions, that when corrected, show significant noise impacts (Parts XI an XII). 244 31 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. 245 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 S12, Noise. Evaluated, revised, and approved national standards for noise measurement as a voting member of the S12 committee and as members of specific working groups Member, ANSI S12 Working Group 15, Measurement and Evaluation of Outdoor Community Noise Member ANSI S12 Working Group 38, Noise Labeling In Products Member ANSI S12 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 21st Century,” Acoustical Society of America Lay Language Paper, 2014. “Noise in the 21st 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. 246 “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. “Noise, Civility, and Sovereignty,” Noise Pollution Clearinghouse, 1999. 247 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 Waitsfield 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 2012, District 7 Environmental Commission, Application #7C1321 248 2012, Vermont 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. 156-7-06 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 #3W0929 2004, Norwich, Vermont Zoning Permit, Verizon Wireless Tower 2004, Moretown, Vermont Zoning Permit, Quarry 2003, District 5 Environmental Commission, Barre Town Police Firing Range 2001, District Number 5 Environmental Commission, Bull's Eye Sporting Center and Case Number 5W0743-3 2001, Dummerston, Vermont Zoning Permit, Quarry 1999, Vermont State Environmental Board, OMYA, Inc. and Foster Brothers Farm, Inc., Land Use Permit #9A0107-2-EB. 1999, Vermont State Environmental Board, Barre Granite Quarries, LLC, Application #7C1079-EB EDUCATION SEMINAR CADNA A EXPERT (Noise Model) 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 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Wind Turbines and Health A Critical Review of the Scientific Literature Robert J. McCunney, MD, MPH, Kenneth A. Mundt, PhD, W. David Colby, MD, Robert Dobie, MD, Kenneth Kaliski, BE, PE, and Mark Blais, PsyD Objective:This review examines the literature related to health effects of wind turbines.Methods:We reviewed literature related to sound measure- ments near turbines, epidemiological and experimental studies, and factors associated with annoyance.Results:(1) Infrasound sound near wind tur- bines does not exceed audibility thresholds. (2) Epidemiological studies have shown associations between living near wind turbines and annoyance. (3) Infrasound and low-frequency sound do not present unique health risks. (4) Annoyance seems more strongly related to individual characteristics than noise from turbines.Discussion:Further areas of inquiry include enhanced noise characterization, analysis of predicted noise values contrasted with measured levels postinstallation, longitudinal assessments of health pre- and postinstallation, experimental studies in which subjects are “blinded” to the presence or absence of infrasound, and enhanced measurement techniques to evaluate annoyance. T he development of renewable energy, including wind, solar, and biomass, has been accompanied by attention to potential envi- ronmental health risks. Some people who live in proximity of wind turbines have raised health-related concerns about noise from their operations. The issue of wind turbines and human health has also now been explored and considered in a number of policy, regulatory, and legal proceedings. This review is intended to assess the peer-reviewed literature regardingevaluationsofpotentialhealtheffectsamongpeopleliving in the vicinity of wind turbines. It will include analysis and com- mentary of the scientific evidence regarding potential links to health effects, suchasstress,annoyance, and sleepdisturbance, among oth- ers, that have been raised in association with living in proximity to wind turbines. Efforts will also be directed to specific compo- From the Department of Biological Engineering (Dr McCunney), Massachusetts InstituteofTechnology,Cambridge;DepartmentofEpidemiology(DrMundt), Environ International, Amherst, Mass; Travel Immunization Clinic (Dr Colby), Middlesex-London Health Unit, London, Ontario, Canada; Dobie Associates (Dr Dobie), San Antonio, Tex; Environment, Energy and Acous- tics (Mr Kaliski), Resource Systems Group, White River Junction, Vt; and Psychological Evaluation and Research Laboratory (Dr Blais), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) funded this project through a grant to the Department of Biological Engineering of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). In accordance with MIT guidelines, members of the CanWEA did not take part in editorial decisions or reviews of the manuscript. Drs McCunney, Mundt, Colby, and Dobie and Mr Kaliski have providedtestimonyinenvironmentaltribunalhearingsinCanadaandtheUSA. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology conducted an independent review of the final manuscript to ensure academic independence of the commentary andtoeliminateanybiasintheinterpretationoftheliterature.Allsixcoauthors also reviewed the entire manuscript and provided commentary to the lead author for inclusion in the final version. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Supplemental digital contents are available for this article. Direct URL citation appears in the printed text and is provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s Web site (www.joem.org). Address correspondence to: Robert J. McCunney, MD, MPH, Department of Bio- logical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Ave, 16-771, Cambridge, MA 02139 (mccunney@mit.edu). Copyright C 2014 by American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine DOI: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000000313 nents of noise associated with wind turbines such as infrasound and low-frequency sound and their potential health effects. We will attempt to address the following questions regarding wind turbines and health: 1. Is there sufficient scientific evidence to conclude that wind tur- bines adversely affect human health? If so, what are the circum- stances associated with such effects and how might they be pre- vented? 2. Is there sufficient scientific evidence to conclude that psycho- logical stress, annoyance, and sleep disturbance can occur as a result of living in proximity to wind turbines? Do these effects lead to adverse health effects? If so, what are the circumstances associated with such effects and how might they be prevented? 3. Is there evidence to suggest that specific aspects of wind turbine sound such as infrasound and low-frequency sound have unique potential health effects not associated with other sources of envi- ronmental noise? The coauthors represent professional experience and training in occupational and environmental medicine, acoustics, epidemiol- ogy, otolaryngology, psychology, and public health. Earlier reviews of wind turbines and potential health implica- tions have been published in the peer-reviewed literature 1–6 by state and provincial governments (Massachusetts, 2012, and Australia, 2014, among others) and trade associations. 7 This review is divided into the following five sections: 1. Noise:Thetypeassociatedwithwindturbineoperations,howitis measured,andnoisemeasurementsassociatedwithwindturbines. 2. Epidemiological studies of populations living in the vicinity of wind turbines. 3. Potentialotolaryngologyimplicationsofexposuretowindturbine sound. 4. Potential psychological issues associated with responses to wind turbine operations and a discussion of the health implications of continuous annoyance. 5. Governmental and nongovernmental reports that have addressed wind turbine operations. METHODS To identify published research related to wind turbines and health, the following activities were undertaken: 1. We attempted to identify and assess peer-reviewed literature re- lated to wind turbines and health by conducting a review of PubMed, the National Library of Medicines’ database that in- dexesmorethan5500peer-reviewedhealthandscientificjournals with more than 21 million citations. Search terms were wind tur- bines,windturbinesandhealtheffects,infrasound,infrasoundand healtheffects,low-frequencysound,windturbinesyndrome,wind turbinesandannoyance,andwindturbinesandsleepdisturbances. 2. We conducted a Google search for nongovernmental organiza- tion and government agency reports related to wind turbines and environmental noise exposure (see Supplemental Digital Content Appendix 1, available at:http://links.lww.com/JOM/A179). Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. e108 JOEM Volume 56, Number 11, November 2014 288 JOEM Volume 56, Number 11, November 2014 Wind Turbines and Health 3. After identifying articles obtained via these searches, they were categorized into five main areas that are noted below (section D) and referred to the respective authors of each section for their review and analysis. Each author then conducted their own addi- tional review, including a survey of pertinent references cited in the identified articles. Articles were selected for review and com- mentary if they addressed exposure and a health effect—whether epidemiological or experimental—or were primary exposure as- sessments. 4. Identified studies were categorized into the following areas: I. Sound, its components, and field measurements conducted in the vicinity of wind turbines; II. Epidemiology; III. Effects of sound components such as infrasound and low-frequency sound on health; IV. Psychological factors associated with responses to wind turbines; V. Governmental and nongovernmental reports. 5. The authors are aware of reports and commentaries that are not in the scientific or medical peer-reviewed literature that have raised concern about potential health implications for people who live near wind turbines. These reports describe relatively common symptoms with numerous causes, including headache, tinnitus, and sleep disturbance. Because of the difficulties in comprehen- sively identifying non–peer-reviewed reports such as these, and the inherent uncertainty in the quality of non–peer-reviewed re- ports, they were not included in our analysis, aside from some books and government reports that are readily identified. A simi- lar approach of excluding non–peer-reviewed literature in scien- tific reviews is used by the World Health Organization (WHO)’s International Agency forResearch on Cancer (IARC)in itsdelib- erations regarding identification of human carcinogens. 8 Interna- tional Agency for Research on Cancer, however, critically eval- uates exposure assessments not published in the peer-reviewed literature, if conducted with appropriate quality and in accor- dance with international standards and guidelines. International Agency for Research on Cancer uses this policy for exposure assessments because many of these efforts, although containing valuable data in evaluating health risks associated with an expo- sure to a hazard, are not routinely published. The USA National Toxicology Program also limits its critical analysis of potential carcinogens to the peer-reviewed literature. In our view, because of the critical effect of scientific studies on public policy, it is im- perative that peer-reviewed literature be used as the basis. Thus, in this review, only peer review studies are considered, aside from exposure-related assessments. RESULTS Characteristics of Wind Turbine Sound In this portion of the review, we evaluate studies in which soundnearwindturbineshasbeenmeasured,discusstheuseofmod- eled sound levels in dose–response studies, and review literature on measurements of low-frequency sound and infrasound from operat- ingwindturbines.Weevaluatesoundlevelsmeasuredinareas,where symptomshavebeenreportedinthecontextofproximitytowindtur- bines.Weaddressmethodologiesusedtomeasurewindturbinenoise and low-frequency sound. We also address characteristics of wind turbine sound, sound levels measured near existing wind turbines, and the response of humans to different levels and characteristics of wind turbine sound. Special attention is given to challenges and methods of measuring wind turbine noise, as well as low-frequency sound (20 to 200 Hz) and Infrasound (less than 20 Hz). Wind turbines sound is made up from both moving com- ponents and interactions with nonmoving components of the wind turbine (Fig. 1). For example, mechanical components in the nacelle can generate noise and vibration, which can be radiated from the structure, including the tower. The blade has several components that create aerodynamic noise, such as the blade leading edge, which contacts the wind first in its rotation, the trailing edge, and the blade tip. Blade/tower interactions, especially where the blades are down- wind of the tower, can create infrasound and low-frequency sound. This tower orientation is no longer used in large wind turbines. 9 Sound Level and Frequency Sound is primarily characterized by its pitch or frequency as measured in Hertz (Hz) and its level as measured in decibels (dB). The frequency of a sound is the number of times in a second that the medium through which the sound energy is traveling (ie, air, in the case of wind turbine sound) goes through a compression cycle. Normal human hearing is generally in the range of 20 to 20,000 Hz. As an example, an 88-key piano ranges from about 27.5 to 4186 Hz with middle C at 261.6 Hz. As in music, ranges of frequencies can be described in “octaves,” where the center of each octave band has a frequency of twice that of the previous octave band (this is also written as a “1/1 octave band”). Smaller subdivisions can be used such as 1/3 and 1/12 octaves. The level of sound pressure for each frequency band is reported in decibel units. Torepresenttheoverallsoundlevelinasinglevalue,thelevels fromeachfrequencybandarelogarithmicallyadded.Becausehuman hearing is relatively insensitive to very low- and high-frequency sounds, frequency-specific adjustments or weightings are added to the unweighted sound levels before summing to the overall level. The most common of these is the A-weighting, which simulates the human response to various frequencies at relatively low levels (40 phon or about 50 dB). Examples of A-weighted sound levels are shown in Fig. 2. Other weightings are cited in the literature, such as the C-weighting, which is relatively flat at the audible spectrum; G- weighting, which simulates human perception and annoyance of sound that lie wholly or partly in the range from 1 to 20 Hz; and Z-weighting, which does not apply any weighting. The weighting of thesoundisindicatedafterthedBlabel.Forexample,anA-weighted sound level of 45 dB would be written as 45 dBA or 45 dB(A). If no label is shown, the weighting is either implied or unweighted. FIGURE 1 . Schematic of a modern day wind turbine. Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine e109289 McCunney et al JOEM Volume 56, Number 11, November 2014 FIGURE 2.Sample A-weighted sound pressure levels. Beyondtheoveralllevel,windturbinenoisemaybeamplitude modulated or have tonal components. Amplitude modulation is a regular cycling in the level of pure tone or broadband sound. A typical three-bladed wind turbine operating at 15 RPM would have a modulation period or cycle length of about 1.3 seconds. Tones are frequencies or narrow frequency bands that are much louder than the adjacent frequencies in sound spectra. Prominent tones can be identified through several standards, including ANSI S12.9 Part 4 and IEC 61400-11. Relative high-, mid-, and low-frequency content can also define how the sound is perceived, as well as many qualitative factors unique to the listener. Consequently, more than just the overall levels can be quantified, and studies have measured theexistenceofamplitudemodulation,prominenttones,andspectral content in addition to the overall levels. Wind Turbine Sound Power and Pressure Levels The sound power level is the intrinsic sound energy radiated by a source. It is not dependent on the particular environment of the sound source and the location of the receiver relative to the source. The sound pressure level (SPL), which is measured by a sound-level meter at a location, is a function of the sound power emitted by neighboring sources and is highly dependent on the environment and the location of the receiver relative to the sound source(s). Wind turbine sound is typically broadband in character with most of the sound energy at lower frequencies (less than 1000 Hz). Although wind turbines produce sound at frequencies less than the 25 Hz 1/3 octave band, sound power data are rarely published below that frequency. Most larger, utility-scale wind turbines have sound power levels between 104 and 107 dBA. Measured sound levels be- cause of wind turbines depend on several factors, including weather conditions, the number of turbines, turbine layout, local topogra- phy, the particular turbine used, distance between the turbines and the receiver, and local flora. Meteorological conditions alone can cause 7 to 14 dB variations in sound levels. 10 Examples of the SPLs because of a single wind turbine with three different sound pow- ers, and at various distances, are shown in Fig. 3 as calculated with ISO 9613-2. 11 Measurement results of A-weighted, C-weighted, and G-weighted sound levels have confirmed that wind turbine sound attenuates logarithmically with respect to distance. 12 With respect to noise standards, Hessler and Hessler 13 found an arithmetic average of 45 dBA daytime and 40 dBA nighttime for governments outside the United States, and a nighttime average of 47.7 dBA for US state noise regulation and siting standards. The metrics for those levels can vary. Common metrics are the day- evening-nightlevel(Lden),day-nightlevel(Ldn),equivalentaverage level(Leq),levelexceeded90%ofthetime(L90),andmedian(L50). The application of how these are measured and the time period over which they are measured varies, meaning that, from a practical FIGURE 3.Sound levels at varying setbacks and turbine sound power levels—RSG Modeling, Using ISO 9613-2. standpoint, sound-level limits are even more varied than the explicit numerical level. The Leq is one of the more commonly used metric. It is the logarithmic average of the squared relative pressure over a period of time. This results in a higher weighting of louder sounds. Owing to large number of variables that contribute to SPLs because of wind turbines at receivers, measured levels can vary dramatically. At a wind farm in Texas, O’Neal et al 14 measured sound levels with the nearest turbine at 305 m (1000 feet) and with four turbines within 610 m (2000 feet) at 50 to 51 dBA and 63 dBC (10-minute Leq), with the turbines producing sufficient power to emit the maximum sound power. During the same test, sound levels were 27 dBA and 47 dBC (10-minute Leq) inside a home that was located 290 m (950 feet) from the nearest turbine and within 610 m (2000 feet) of four turbines 15 (see Fig. 4). Bullmore et al 16 measured wind turbine sound at distances from 100 to 754 m (330 to 2470 feet), where they found sound levels ranging from 40 to 55 dBA over various wind conditions. At typical receiver distances (greater than 300 m or 1000 feet), sound was attenuated to below the threshold of hearing at frequencies above the 1.25 kHz 1/3 octave band. In studies mentioned here, measurements were made with the microphone between 1 and 1.6 m (3 and 5 feet) above ground. Wind Turbine Emission Characteristics Low-Frequency Sound and Infrasound Low-frequency sound is typically defined as sound from 20 to 200 Hz, and infrasound is sound less than 20 Hz. Low-frequency soundandinfrasoundmeasurementresultsatdistancesclosetowind turbines (<500 meters) typically show infrasound because of wind farms, but not above audibility thresholds (such as ISO 226 or as published by the authors 12,15,17–21,149 ). One study found sound levels 360mand200mfromawindfarmtobe61dBGand63dBG,respec- tively. The threshold of audibility for G-weighted sound levels is 85 dBG. The same paper found infrasound levels of 69 dBG 250 m from a coastal cliff face and 76 dBG in downtown Adelaide, Australia.18 One study found that, even at distances less than 450 feet (136 m), infrasound levels were 80 dBG or less. At more typical receiver distances (greater than 300 m or 1000 feet), infrasound lev- els were 72 dBG or less. This corresponded to A-weighted sound Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. e110 C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 290 JOEM Volume 56, Number 11, November 2014 Wind Turbines and Health FIGURE 4.Sound power of the Siemens SWT 2.3-93 (TX) wind turbine. 15 levels of 56 and 49 dBA, respectively, higher than most existing regulatory noise limits. 12 Fartherawayfromwindfarms(1.5km)infrasoundisnohigher than what would be caused by localized wind conditions, reinforc- ing the necessity for adequate wind-caused pseudosound reduction measures for wind turbine sound-level measurements. 22 Low-frequency sound near wind farms is typically audible, with levels crossing the threshold of audibility between 25 and 125 Hz depending on the distance between the turbines and mea- surementlocation.12,15,19,20,23 Figure5showsthefrequencyspectrum ofawindfarmmeasuredatabout3500feetcomparedwithatruckat 50 feet, a field of insects and birds, wind moving through vegetation, and the threshold of audibility according to ISO 387-7. Amplitude Modulation Wind turbine sound emissions vary with blade velocity and are characterized in part by amplitude modulation, a broadband os- cillation in sound level, with a cycle time generally corresponding to the blade passage frequency. The modulation is typically located in the 1/1 octave bands from 125 Hz to 2 kHz. Fluctuation magnitudes are typically not uniform throughout the frequency range. These fluctuations are typically small (2 to 4 dB) but under more unusual circumstances can be as great as 10 dB for A-weighted levels and as much as 15 dB in individual 1/3 octave bands. 19,24 Stigwood et al 24 found that, in groups of several turbines, the individual modulations can often synchronize causing periodic increases in the modulation magnitude for periods of 6 to 20 seconds with occasional periods where the individual turbine modulations average each other out, minimizing the modulation magnitude. This was not always the case though, with periods of turbine synchronization occasionally lasting for hours under consistent high wind shear, wind strength, and wind direction. Amplitude modulation is caused by many factors, including blade passage in front of the tower (shadowing), sound emission directivity of the moving blade tips, yaw error of the turbine blades (where the turbine blades are not perpendicular to the wind), inflow turbulence, and high levels of wind shear. 19,24,25 Amplitude modu- lation level is not correlated with wind speed. Most occurrences of “enhanced” amplitude modulation (a higher magnitude of modula- tion) are caused by anomalous meteorological conditions. 19 Ampli- tude modulation varies by site. Some sites rarely exhibit amplitude modulation, whereas at others amplitude modulation has been mea- sured up to 30% of the time. 10 It has been suggested by some that amplitude modulation may be the cause of “infrasound” complaints because of confusing of amplitude modulation, the modulation of a broadband sound, with actual infrasound. 19 Tonality Tones are specific frequencies or narrow bands of frequencies that are significantly louder than adjacent frequencies. Tonal sound is not typically generated by wind turbines but can be found in some cases.20,26 In most cases, the tonal sound occurs at lower frequen- cies (less than 200 Hz) and is due to mechanical noise originating from the nacelle, but has also been found to be due to structural vibrations originating from the tower, and anomalous aerodynamic characteristics of the blades 27 (see Fig. 5). Sound Levels at Residences where Symptoms Have Been Reported One recent research focus has been the sound levels at (and in) the residences of people who have complained about sound lev- els emitted by turbines as some have suggested that wind turbine noise may be a different type of environmental noise. 28 Few studies have actually measured sound levels inside or outside the homes of people. Several hypotheses have been proposed about the charac- teristics of wind turbine noise complaints, including infrasound, 28 low-frequency tones, 20 amplitude modulation, 19,29 and overall noise levels. Overall Noise Levels Because of the large variability of noise sensitivity among people, sound levels associated with self-reported annoyance can vary considerably. (Noise sensitivity and annoyance are discussed in more detail later in this review.) People exposed to measured external sound levels from 38 to 53 dBA (10-minute or 1-hour Leq). Department of Trade and Industry, 19 Walker et al, 28 Gabriel et al, 29 and van den Berg et al 30,149 have reported annoyance. Sound levels have also been measured inside complainant residences at between 22 and 37 dBA (10-minute Leq). 19 Low Frequency and Infrasonic Levels Concernshavebeenraisedinsomesettingsthatlow-frequency sound and infrasound may be special features of wind turbine noise that lead to adverse health effects. 31 As a result, noise measure- ments in areas of operating wind turbines have focused specifically Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine e111291 McCunney et al JOEM Volume 56, Number 11, November 2014 FIGURE 5.Comparison of frequency spectrum of a truck passby at 50 feet, wind turbines at 3500 feet, insects, birds, wind, and the threshold of au- dibility according to ISO 387-7. on sound levels in the low-frequency range and occasionally the infrasonic range. Infrasonic sound levels at residences are typically well below publishedaudibilitythresholds,eventhresholdsforthoseparticularly sensitiveto infrasound.Nevertheless, low-frequency soundtypically exceeds audibility thresholds in a range starting between 25 and 125 Hz.19,20,23 In some cases, harmonics of the blade passage frequency (about 1 Hz, ie infrasound) have been measured at homes of people who have raised concerns about health implications of living near wind turbine with sound levels reaching 76 dB; however, these are well below published audibility thresholds. 28 Amplitude Modulation Amplitude modulation has been suggested as a major cause of complaints surrounding wind turbines, although little data have been collected to confirm this hypothesis. A recent study of resi- dents surrounding a wind farm that had received several complaints showed predicted sound levels at receiver distances to be 33 dBA or less. Residents were instructed to describe the turbine sound, when they found it annoying. Amplitude modulation was present in 68 of 95complaints.Soundrecordersdistributedtotheresidentsexhibited a high incidence of amplitude modulation. 29 Limited studies have addressed the percentage of complaints surrounding utility-scale wind farms, with only one comparing the occurrence of complaints with sound levels at the homes. The com- plaint rate among residents within 2000 feet (610 m) of the perime- ter of five mid-western United States wind farms was approximately 4%.Allexceptoneofthecomplaintsweremadeatresidences,where wind farm sound levels exceeded 40 dBA. 13 The authors used the LA90 metric to assess wind farm sound emissions. LA90 is the A- weighted sound level that is exceeded 90% of the time. This metric is used to eliminate wind-caused spikes and other short-term sound events that are not caused by the wind farm. In Northern New England, 5% of households within 1000 m of turbines complained to regulatory agencies about wind turbine noise.32 Allcomplaintswereincluded,eventhosethatwererelatedto temporary issues that were resolved. Up to 48% of the complainants wereatwindfarms,whereatleastonenoiseviolationwasfoundora variance from the noise standard. A third of the all complaints were due to a single wind farm. Sound Measurement Methodology Collection of accurate, comparable, and useful noise data de- pends on careful and consistent methodology. The general method- ology for environmental sound level monitoring is found in ANSI 12.9 Part 2. This standard covers basic requirements that include the type of measurement equipment necessary, calibration proce- dures, windscreen specifications, microphone placement guidance, and suitable meteorological conditions. Nevertheless, there are no recommendations for mitigating the effects of high winds (greater than 5 m/s) or measuring in the infrasonic frequency range (less than 20 Hz). 33 Another applicable standard is IEC 61400-11, which provides a method for determining the sound power of individual wind turbines. The standard gives specifications for measurement positions, the type of data needed, data analysis methods, report content requirements, determination of tonality, determination of di- rectivity, and the definitions and descriptors of different acoustical parameters.34 Thestandardspecifiesamicrophonemountingmethod to minimize wind-caused pseudosound, but some have found the setup to be insufficient under gusty wind conditions, and no recom- mendations are given for infrasound measurement. 35 Because the microphone is ground mounted, it is not suitable for long-term mea- surements. Low-Frequency Sound and Infrasound Measurement There are no standards currently in place for the measure- ment of wind turbine noise that includes the infrasonic range (ie, frequencies less than 20 Hz), although one is under develop- ment (ANSI/ASA S12.9 Part 7). Consequently, all current attempts to measure low-frequency sound and infrasound have either used an existingmethodology,anadaptedexistingmethodology,orproposed a new methodology. The main problem with measuring low-frequency sound and infrasoundinenvironmentalconditionsiswind-causedpseudosound duetoairpressurefluctuation,becauseairflowsoverthemicrophone. With conventional sound-level monitoring, this effect is minimized withawindscreenand/oreliminationofdatameasuredduringwindy periods (less than 5 m/s [11 mph] at a 2-m [6.5 feet] height). 36 In the case of wind turbines, where maximum sound levels may be coinci- dentwithgroundwindspeedsgreaterthan5m/s(11mph),thisisnot the best solution. With infrasound in particular, wind-caused pseu- dosound can influence measurements, even at wind speeds down to 1 m/s. 12 In fact, many sound-level meters do not measure infrasonic frequencies. A common method of dealing with infrasound is using an additional wind screen to further insulate the microphone from air flow.18,35 In some cases, this is simply a larger windscreen that fur- ther insulates the microphone from air flow. 35 One author used a Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. e112 C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 292 JOEM Volume 56, Number 11, November 2014 Wind Turbines and Health windscreenwithasubterraneanpittoshelterthemicrophone,andan- other used wind resistant cloth. 35 A compromise to an underground microphone mounting is mounting the microphone close (20-cm height)totheground,minimizingwindinfluence,orusingastandard ground mounted microphone with mounting plate, as found in IEC 61400-11.35 Low-frequency sound and infrasound differences be- tween measurements made with dedicated specialized windscreens and/or measurement setup and standard wind screens/measurements setups can be quite large. 12,37 Nevertheless, increased measurement accuracycancomeatthecostofreducedaccuracyathigherfrequen- cies using some methods. 38 To further filter out wind-caused pseudosound, some authors have advocated a combination of microphone arrays and signal pro- cessing techniques. The purpose of the signal processing techniques is to detect elements of similarity in the sound field measured at the different microphones in the array. Levels of infrasound from other environmental sources can be as high as infrasound from wind turbines. A study of infrasound measured at wind turbines and at other locations away from wind turbines in South Australia found that the infrasound level at houses near the wind turbines is no greater than that found in other urban and rural environments. The contribution of wind turbines to the infrasound levels is insignificant in comparison with the background level of infrasound in the environment. 22 Conclusions Wind turbine noise measurement can be challenging because of the necessity of measuring sound levels during high winds, and down to low frequencies. No widely accepted measurement method- ologies address all of these issues, meaning that methods used in published measurements can differ substantially, affecting the com- parability of results. Measurements of low-frequency sound, infrasound, tonal sound emission, and amplitude-modulated sound show that infra- sound is emitted by wind turbines, but the levels at customary dis- tances to homes are typically well below audibility thresholds, even at residences where complaints have been raised. Low-frequency sound, often audible in wind turbine sound, typically crosses the au- dibility threshold between 25 and 125 Hz depending on the location and meteorological conditions. 12,15,19,20,23 Amplitude modulation, or the rapid (once per second) and repetitive increase and decrease of broadbandsoundlevel,hasbeenmeasuredatwindfarms.Amplitude modulation is typically 2 to 4 dB but can vary more than 6 dB in some cases (A-weighted sound levels). 19,24 A Canadian report investigated the total number of noise- related complaints because of operating wind farms in Alberta, Canada, over its entire history of wind power. Wind power capacity exceeds 1100 MW; some of the turbines have been in operation for 20 years. Five noise-oriented complaints at utility-scale wind farms were reported over this period, none of which were repeated after the complaints were addressed. Complaints were more common during construction of the wind farms; other power generation methods (gas, oil, etc) received more complaints than wind power. Farmers and ranchers did not raise complaints because of effects on crops and cattle. 41 An Australian study found a complaint rate of less than 1% for residents living within 5 km of turbines greater than 1 MW. Complaints were concentrated among a few wind farms; many wind farms never received complaints. 15 Reviewing complaints in the vicinity of wind farms can be effective in determining the level and extent of annoyance because of wind turbine noise, but there are limitations to this approach. A complaint may be because of higher levels of annoyance (rather annoyedorveryannoyed),andtheamountofannoyancerequiredfor anindividualtocomplainmaybedependentonthepersonalityofthe person and the corresponding attitude toward the visual effect of the turbines, their respective attitudes toward wind energy, and whether they derive economic benefit from the turbines. (All of these factors are discussed in more detail later in this report.) Few studies have addressed sound levels at the residents of peoplewhohavedescribedsymptomstheyconsiderbecauseofwind turbines. Limited available data show a wide range of levels (38 to 53 dBA [10-minute or 1-hour Leq] outside the residence and from 23 to 37 dBA [10-minute Leq] inside the residence). 19,26,28,28 The rate of complaints surrounding wind farms is relatively low; 3% for residents within 1 mile of wind farms and 4% to 5% within 1 km. 13,32,41 Epidemiological Studies of Wind Turbines Key to understanding potential effects of wind turbine noise on human health is to consider relevant evidence from well- conducted epidemiological studies, which has the advantage of re- flecting risks of real-world exposures. Nevertheless, environmental epidemiology is an observational (vs experimental) science that de- pends on design and implementation characteristics that are subject to numerous inherent and methodological limitations. Nevertheless, evidence from epidemiological studies of reasonable quality may provide the best available indication of whether certain exposures— such as industrial wind turbine noise—may be harming human health. Critical review and synthesis of the epidemiological evi- dence, combined with consideration of evidence from other lines of inquiry (ie, animal studies and exposure assessments), provide a scientific basis for identifying causal relationships, managing risks, and protecting public health. Methods Studies of greatest value for validly identifying risk fac- tors for disease include well-designed and conducted cohort studies and case–control studies—provided that specific diseases could be identified—followed by cross-sectional studies (or surveys). Case reports and case series do not constitute epidemiological studies and were not considered because they lack an appropriate comparison group, which can obscure a relationship or even suggest one where noneexists.39,40,42 Suchstudiesmaybeusefulingeneratinghypothe- ses that might be tested using epidemiological methods but are not considered capable of demonstrating causality, a position also taken by international agencies such as the WHO. 8 Epidemiological studies selected for this review were identi- fied through searches of PubMed and Google Scholar using the fol- lowing key words individually and in various combinations: “wind,” “wind turbine,” “wind farm,” “windmill,” “noise,” “sleep,” “cardio- vascular,” “health,” “symptom,” “condition,” “disease,” “cohort,” “case–control,” “cross-sectional,” and “epidemiology.” In addition, general Web searches were performed, and references cited in all identified publications were reviewed. Approximately 65 documents were identified and obtained, and screened to determine whether (1) the paper described a primary epidemiological study (including ex- perimental or laboratory-based study) published in a peer-reviewed health, medical or relevant scientific journal; (2) the study focused on or at least included wind turbine noise as a risk factor; (3) the studymeasuredatleastoneoutcomeofpotentialrelevancetohealth; and (4) the study attempted to relate the wind turbine noise with the outcome. Results Of the approximately 80 articles initially identified in the search, only 20 met the screening criteria (14 observational and six controlled human exposure studies), and these were re- viewed in detail to determine the relative quality and valid- ity of reported findings. Other documents included several re- views and commentaries 4,5,7,43–51 ; case reports, case studies, and surveys23,52–54 ; and documents published in media other than peer- reviewed journals. One study published as part of a conference Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine e113293 McCunney et al JOEM Volume 56, Number 11, November 2014 proceedings did not meet the peer-reviewed journal eligibility crite- rion but was included because it seemed to be the first epidemiolog- ical study on this topic and an impetus for subsequent studies. 55 The 14 observational epidemiological studies were critically reviewed to assess their relative strengths and weaknesses on the basisofthestudydesignandthegeneralabilitytoavoidselectionbias (eg,theselectivevolunteeringofindividualswithhealthcomplaints), information bias (eg, under- or overreporting of health complaints, possibly because of reliance on self-reporting), and confounding bias (the mixing of possible effects of other strong risk factors for the same disease because of correlation with the exposure). Figure 6 depicts the 14 observational epidemiological studies published in peer-reviewed health or medical journals, all of which were determined to be cross-sectional studies or surveys. As can be seen from the figure, the 14 publications were based on analyses of data from only eight different study populations, that is, six publi- cations were based on analyses of a previously published study (eg, Pedersen et al 56 and Bakker et al 57 were based on the data from Ped- ersen et al 58 ) or on combined data from previously published studies (eg, Pedersen and Larsman 59 and Pedersen and Waye 60 were based on the combined data from Pedersen and Waye 61,62 ; and Pedersen 63 and Janssen et al 64 were based on the combined data from Pedersen et al, 58 Pedersen and Waye, 61 and Pedersen and Waye 62 ). Therefore, in the short summaries of individual studies below, publications based on the same study population(s) are grouped. Summary of Observational Epidemiological Studies Possibly the first epidemiological study evaluating wind tur- bine sound and noise annoyance was published in the proceedings of the 1993 European Community Wind Energy Conference. 55 In- vestigators surveyed 574 individuals (159 fromthe Netherlands, 216 from Germany, and 199 from Denmark). Up to 70% of the people FIGURE 6.The 14 observational epidemiological studies published in peer-reviewed health or medical journals, all of which were determined to be cross-sectional studies or surveys. residednearwindturbinesforatleast5years.Noresponserateswere reported, so the potential for selection or participation bias cannot be evaluated. Wind turbine sound levels were calculated in 5 dBA intervals for each respondent, on the basis of site measurements and residential distance from turbines. The authors claimed that noise- relatedannoyancewasweaklycorrelatedwithobjectivesoundlevels butmorestronglycorrelatedwithindicatorsofrespondents’attitudes and personality. 55 Inacross-sectionalstudyof351participantsresidinginprox- imity to wind turbines (power range 150 to 650 kW), Pederson (a coauthor of the Wolsink 55 study) and Persson and Waye 61 described a statistically significant association between modeled wind turbine audible noise estimates and self-reported annoyance. In this section, “statistically significant” means that the likelihood that the results were because of chance is less than 5%. No respondents among the 12 exposed to wind turbine noise less than 30 dBA reported annoyance with the sound; however, the percentage reporting annoyance increased with noise exceeding 30 dBA. No differences in health or well-being outcomes (eg, tinnitus, cardiovascular disease, headaches, and irritability) were observed. With noise exposures greater than 35 dBA, 16% of respondents reported sleep disturbance,whereasnosleepdisturbancewasreportedamongthose exposed to less than 35 dBA. Although the authors observed that the risk of annoyance from wind turbine noise exposure increased statistically significantly with each increase of 2.5 dBA, they also reported a statistically significant risk of reporting noise annoyance among those self-reporting a negative attitude toward the visual effect of the wind turbines on the landscape scenery (measured on a five-point scale ranging from “very positive” to “very negative” opinion). These results suggest that attitude toward visual effect is an important contributor to annoyance associated with wind turbine noise. In addition to its reliance on self-reported outcomes, this study is limited by selection or participation bias, suggested by the difference in response rate between the highest-exposed individuals (78%) versus lowest-exposed individuals (60%). Pederson62 examined the association between modeled wind turbine sound pressures and self-reported annoyance, health, and well-being among 754 respondents in seven areas in Sweden with wind turbines and varying landscapes. A total of 1309 surveys were distributed,resultinginaresponserateof57.6%.Annoyancewassig- nificantly associated with SPLs from wind turbines as well as having a negative attitude toward wind turbines, living in a rural area, wind turbine visibility, and living in an area with rocky or hilly terrain. Those annoyed by wind turbine noise reported a higher prevalence of lowered sleep quality and negative emotions than those not an- noyed by noise. Because of the cross-sectional design, it cannot be determinedwhetherwindturbinenoisecausedthesecomplaintsorif those who experienced disrupted sleep and negative emotions were more likely to notice and report annoyance from noise. Measured SPLs were not associated with any health effects studied. In the same year, Petersen et al reported on what they called a “grounded theory study” in which 15 informants were interviewed in depth regarding the reasons they were annoyed with wind turbines and as- sociated noise. Responses indicated that these individuals perceived the turbines to be an intrusion and associated with feelings of lack of control and influence. 65 Although not an epidemiological study, this exercise was intended to elucidate the reasons underlying the reported annoyance with wind turbines. Further analyses of the combined data from Pedersen and Waye 61,62 (described above) were published in two additional papers.59,60 The pooled data included 1095 participants exposed to wind turbine noise of at least 30 dBA. As seen in the two orig- inal studies, a significant association between noise annoyance and SPL was observed. A total of 84 participants (7.7%) reported being fairly or very annoyed by wind turbine noise. Respondents reporting wind turbines as having a negative effect on the scenery were also Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. e114 C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 294 JOEM Volume 56, Number 11, November 2014 Wind Turbines and Health statistically significantly more likely to report annoyance to wind turbine noise, regardless of SPLs. 59 Self-reported stress was higher among those who were fairly or very annoyed compared with those not annoyed; however, these associations could not be attributed specifically to wind turbine noise. No differences in self-reported health effects such as hearing impairment, diabetes, or cardiovascu- lar diseases were reported between the 84 (7.7%) respondents who were fairly or very annoyed by wind turbine noise compared with all otherrespondents.60 Theauthorsdidnotreportthepowerofthestudy. Pederson et al 56–58 evaluated the data from 725 residents in the Netherlands living within 2.5 km of a site containing at least two wind turbines of 500 kW or greater. Using geographic informa- tion systems methods, 3727 addresses were identified in the study target area, for which names and telephone numbers were found for 2056; after excluding businesses, 1948 were determined to be residences and contacted. Completed surveys were received from 725 for a response rate of 37%. Although the response rate was lower than in previous cross-sectional studies, nonresponse analy- ses indicated that similar proportions responded across all landscape typesandsoundpressurecategories.57 Calculatedsoundlevels,other sources of community noise, noise sensitivity, general attitude, and visual attitude toward wind turbines were evaluated. The authors reported an exposure–response relationship between calculated A- weightedSPLsandself-reportedannoyance.Windturbinenoisewas reported to be more annoying than transportation noise or industrial noiseatcomparablelevels.Annoyance,however,wasalsocorrelated with a negative attitude toward the visual effect of wind turbines on the landscape. In addition, a statistically significantly decreased level of annoyance from wind turbine noise was observed among those who benefited economically from wind turbines, despite equal perception of noise and exposure to generally higher (greater than 40 dBA) sound levels. 58 Annoyance was strongly correlated with self-reporting a negative attitude toward the visual effect of wind turbines on the landscape scenery (measured on a five-point scale ranging from “very positive” to “very negative” opinion). The low response rate and reliance on self-reporting of noise annoyance limit the interpretation of these findings. Results of further analyses of noise annoyance were reported in a separate report, 56 which indicated that road traffic noise had no effect on annoyance to wind turbine noise and vice versa. Visibility of, and attitude toward, wind turbines and road traffic were signifi- cantly related to annoyance from their respective noise source; stress was significantly associated with both types of noise. 56,157 Additional analyses of the same data were performed using a structural equation approach that indicated that, as with annoy- ance, sleep disturbance increased with increasing SPL because of wind turbines; however, this increase was statistically significant only at pressures of 45 dBA and higher. Results of analyses of the combined data from the two Swedish 61,62 and the Dutch 58 cross- sectional studies have been published in two additional papers. Us- ingthecombineddatafromthesethreepredecessorstudies,Pedersen et al 56,58 identified 1755 (ie, 95.9%) of the 1830 total participants for which complete data were available to explore the relationships between calculated A-weighted SPLs and a range of indicators of health and well-being. Specifically, they considered sleep interrup- tion; headache; undue tiredness; feeling tense, stressed, or irritable; diabetes; high blood pressure; cardiovascular disease; and tinnitus. 63 As in the precursor studies, noise annoyance indoors and outdoors was correlated with A-weighted SPLs. Sleep interruption seemed at higher sound levels and was also related to annoyance. No other health or well-being variables were consistently related to SPLs. Stress was not directly associated with SPLs but was associated with noise-related annoyance. Another report based on these data (in these analyses, 1820 of the 1830 total participants) modeled the relationship between wind turbine noise exposure and annoyance indoors and outdoors. 64 The authors excluded respondents who benefited economically from wind turbines, then compared their modeled results with other modeled relationships for industrial and transportation noise; they claimed that annoyance from wind turbine noise at or higher than 45 dBA is associated with more annoyance than other noise sources. Shepherd et al, 66 who had conducted an earlier evaluation of noise sensitivity and Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL), 158 compared survey results from 39 residents located within 2 km of a wind turbine in the South Makara Valley in New Zealand with 139geographicallyandsocioeconomicallymatchedindividualswho resided at least 8 km from any wind farm. The response rates for both the proximal and more distant study groups were poor, that is, 34% and 32%, respectively, although efforts were made to blind respondents to the study hypotheses. No indicator of exposure to wind turbine noise was considered beyond the selection of individu- als based on the proximity of their residences from the nearest wind turbine. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) scales were used to describe and compare the general well-being and well-being in the physical, psychological, and social domains of each group. The au- thorsreportedstatisticallysignificantdifferencesbetweenthegroups insomeHRQOLdomainscores,withresidentslivingwithin2kmof aturbineinstallationreportinglowermeanphysicalHRQOLdomain score (including lower component scores for sleep quality and self- reportedenergylevels)andlowermeanenvironmentalquality-of-life (QOL) scores (including lower component scores for considering one’s environment to be less healthy and being less satisfied with the conditions of their living space). No differences were reported for social or psychological HRQOL domain scores. The group residing closer to a wind turbine also reported lower amenity but not related to traffic or neighborhood noise annoyance. Lack of actual wind tur- bine and other noise source measurements, combined with the poor response rate (both noted by the authors as limitations), limits the inferential value of these results because they may pertain to wind turbine emissions. 66 Possibly the largest cross-sectional epidemiological study of wind turbine noise on QOL was conducted in an area of northern Poland with the most wind turbines. 67 Surveys were completed by a total of 1277 adults (703 women and 574 men), aged 18 to 94 years, representing a 10% two-stage random sample of the selected com- munities. Although the response rate was not reported, participants were sequentially enrolled until a 10% sample was achieved, and the proportion of individuals invited to participate but unable or refus- ing to participate was estimated at 30% (B. Mroczek, dr hab n. zdr., e-mailcommunication,January2,2014).Proximityofresidencewas the exposure variable, with 220 (17.2%) respondents within 700 m; 279 (21.9%) between 700 and 1000 m; 221 (17.3%) between 1000 and 1500 m; and 424 (33.2%) residing more than 1500 m from the nearest wind turbine. Indicators of QOL and health were measured using the Short Form–36 Questionnaire (SF-36). The SF-36 con- sists of 36 questions specifically addressing physical functioning, role-functioning physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, so- cial functioning, role-functioning emotional, and mental health. An additional question concerning health change was included, as well as the Visual Analogue Scale for health assessment. It is unclear whether age, sex, education, and occupation were controlled for in the statistical analyses. The authors report that, within all subscales, those living closest to wind farms reported the best QOL, and those living farther than 1500 m scored the worst. They concluded that liv- ingincloseproximityofwindfarmsdoesnotresultintheworsening of, and might improve, the QOL in this region. 67 A small survey of residents of two communities in Maine with multiple industrial wind turbines compared sleep and general health outcomes among 38 participants residing 375 to 1400 m from the nearest turbine with another group of 41 individuals re- siding 3.3 to 6.6 km from the nearest wind turbine. 68 Participants completed questionnaires and in-person interviews on a range of Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine e115295 McCunney et al JOEM Volume 56, Number 11, November 2014 health and attitudinal topics. Prevalence of self-reported health and other complaints was compared by distance from the wind turbines, statistically controlling for age, sex, site, and household cluster in some analyses. Participants living within 1.4 km of a wind turbines reported worse sleep, were sleepier during the day, and had worse SF-36MentalComponentScorescomparedwiththoselivingfarther than 3.3 km away. Statistically significant correlations were reported between Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, SF-36MentalComponentScore,andlog-distancetothenearestwind turbine. The authors attributed the observed differences to the wind turbines68 ; methodological problems such as selection and reporting biases were overlooked. This study has a number of methodological limitations, most notably that all of the “near” turbine groups were plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the wind turbine operators and had already been interviewed by the lead investigator prior to the study. None of the “far” group had been interviewed; they were “cold called” by an assistant. This differential treatment of the two groups introduces a bias in the integrity of the methods and corresponding results. Details of the far group, as well as participation rates, were not noted. 68 In another study, the role of negative personality traits (de- fined by the authors using separate scales for assessing neuroticism, negative affectivity, and frustration intolerance) on possible associa- tionsbetweenactualandperceivedwindturbinenoiseandmedically unexplained nonspecific symptoms was investigated via a mailed survey.69 Of the 1270 identified households within 500 m of eight 0.6kWmicro-turbinefarmsandwithin1kmoffour5kWsmallwind turbine farms in two cities in the United Kingdom, only 138 ques- tionnaires were returned, for a response rate of 10%. No association wasnotedbetweencalculatedandactualnoiselevelsandnonspecific symptoms. A correlation between perceived noise and nonspecific symptoms was seen among respondents with negative personality traits. Despite the participant group’s reported representativeness of the target population, the low survey response rate precludes firm conclusions on the basis of these data. 69 In a study of residents living near a “wind park” in Western New York State, surveys were administered to 62 individuals living in 52 homes. 70 The wind park included 84 turbines. No association wasnotedbetweenself-reportedannoyanceandshortdurationsound measurements. A correlation was noted between the measure of a person’s concern regarding health risks and reported measures of the prevalence of sleep disturbance and stress. While a cross-sectional study is based on self-reported annoyance and health indicators, and therefore limited in its interpretation, one of its strengths is that it is one of the few studies that performed actual sound measurements (indoors and outdoors). A small but detailed study on response to the wind turbine noise was carried out in Poland. 71 The study population consisted of 156 people, age 15–82 years, living in the vicinity of 3 wind farms located in the central and northwestern parts of Poland. No exclusion criteria were applied, and each individual agreeing to par- ticipate was sent a questionnaire patterned after the one used in the Pederson 2004 and Pederson 2007 studies and including ques- tionsonlivingconditions,self-reportedannoyanceduetonoisefrom wind turbines,and self-assessmentofphysical health andwell-being (such as headaches, dizziness, fatigue, insomnia, and tinnitus). The response rate was 71%. Distance from the nearest wind turbine and modeled A-weighted SPLs were considered as exposure indicators. One third (33.3%) of the respondents found wind turbine noise an- noying outdoors, and one fifth (20.5%) found the noise annoying while indoors. Wind turbine noise was reported as being more an- noyingthanotherenvironmentalnoises,andself-reportedannoyance increased with increasing A-weighted SPLs. Factors such as attitude toward wind turbines and “landscape littering” (visual impact) in- fluenced the perceived annoyance from the wind turbine noise. This study, as with most others, is limited by the cross-sectional design and reliance on self-reported health and well-being indicators; how- ever, analyses focused on predictors of self-reported annoyance, and found that wind turbine noise, attitude toward wind turbines, and attitude toward “landscape littering” explain most of the reported annoyance. Other Possibly Relevant Studies A publication based on the self-reporting of 109 individuals who “perceived adverse health effects occurring with the onset of an industrial wind turbine facility” indicated that 102 reported either “altered health or altered quality of life.” The authors appropriately noted that this was a survey of self-selected participants who chose to respond to a questionnaire specifically designed to attract those who had health complaints they attributed to wind turbines, with no comparison group. Nevertheless, the authors inappropriately draw the conclusion that “Results of this study suggest an underlying relationship between wind turbines and adverse health effects and support the need for additional studies.” 48(p.336)Such a report cannot provide valid evidence of any relationship for which there is no comparison and is of little if any inferential value. ResearchersattheSchoolofPublicHealth,UniversityofSyd- ney, in Australia conducted a study to explore psychogenic explana- tions for the increase around 2009 of wind farm noise and/or health complaints and the disproportionate corresponding geographic dis- tributionofthosecomplaints.52 Theyobtained recordsofcomplaints about noise or health from residents living near all 51 wind farms (1634 turbines) operating between 1993 and 2012 from wind farm companies and corroborated with documents such as government public enquiries, news media records, and court affidavits. Of the 51 wind farms, 33 (64.7%) had no record of noise or health com- plaints, including all wind farms in Western Australia and Tas- mania. The researchers identified 129 individuals who had filed complaints, 94 (73%) of whom lived near six wind farms tar- geted by anti-wind advocacy groups. They observed that 90% of complaints were registered after anti-wind farm groups included health concerns as part of their advocacy in 2009. The authors con- cluded that their findings were consistent with their psychogenic hypotheses. Discussion No cohort or case–control studies were located in this up- dated review of the peer-reviewed literature. The lack of pub- lished case–control studies is less surprising and less critical be- cause there has been no discrete disease or constellation of diseases identified that likely or might be explained by wind turbine noise. Anecdotal reports of symptoms associated with wind turbines in- clude a broad array of nonspecific symptoms, such as headache, stress, and sleep disturbance, that afflict large proportions of the general population and have many recognized risk factors. Retro- spectively associating such symptoms with wind turbines or even measured wind turbine noise—as would be necessary in case– control studies—does not prevent recall bias from influencing the results. Although cross-sectional studies and surveys have the advan- tage of being relatively simple and inexpensive to conduct, they are susceptible to a number of influential biases. Most importantly, however, is the fact that, because of the simultaneous ascertain- ment of both exposure (eg, wind turbine noise) and health outcomes or complaints, the temporal sequence of exposure–outcome rela- tionship cannot be demonstrated. If the exposure cannot be estab- lished to precede the incidence of the outcome—and not the reverse, that is, the health complaint leads to increased perception of or an- noyance with the exposure, as with insomnia headaches or feeling tense/stressed/irritable—the association cannot be evaluated for a possible causal nature. Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. e116 C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 296 JOEM Volume 56, Number 11, November 2014 Wind Turbines and Health Conclusions A critical review and synthesis of the evidence available from the eight study populations studied to date (and reported in 14 publi- cations) provides some insights into the hypothesis that wind turbine noise harms human health in those living in proximity to wind tur- bines. These include the following: No clear or consistent association is seen between noise from wind turbines and any reported disease or other indicator of harm to human health. Inmostsurveyedpopulations,someindividuals(generallyasmall proportion) report some degree of annoyance with wind turbines; however, further evaluation has demonstrated: •Certain characteristics of wind turbine sound such as its in- termittence or rhythmicity may enhance reported perceptibility and annoyance; •The context in which wind turbine noise is emitted also influ- encesperceptibilityandannoyance,includingurbanversusrural setting, topography, and landscape features, as well as visibility of the wind turbines; •Factors such as attitude toward visual effect of wind turbines on the scenery, attitude toward wind turbines in general, per- sonality characteristics, whether individuals benefit financially from the presence of wind turbines, and duration of time wind turbines have been in operation all have been correlated with self-reported annoyance; and •Annoyancedoesnotcorrelatewelloratallwithobjectivesound measurements or calculated sound pressures. Complaints such as sleep disturbance have been associated with A-weighted wind turbine sound pressures of higher than 40 to 45 dB but not any other measure of health or well-being. Stress was associated with annoyance but not with calculated sound pressures.63 Studies of QOL including physical and mental health scales and residential proximity to wind turbines report conflicting findings– one study (with only 38 participants living within 2.0 km of the nearest wind turbine) reported lower HRQOL among those living closer to wind turbines than respondents living farther away,66 whereas the largest of all studies (with 853 living within 1500mofthenearestwindturbine)67 foundthatthoselivingcloser to wind turbines reported higher QOL and health than thoseliving farther away. 67 Because these statistical correlations arise from cross- sectional studies and surveys in which the temporal sequence of the exposure and outcome cannot be evaluated, and where the effect of various forms of bias (especially selection/volunteer bias and re- callbias)maybeconsiderable,theextenttowhichtheyreflectcausal relationships cannot be determined. For example, the claims such as “Weconcludethatthenoiseemissionsofwindturbinesdisturbedthe sleep and caused daytime sleepiness and impaired mental health in residents living within 1.4 km of the two wind turbines installations studied” cannot be substantiated on the basis of the actual study design used and some of the likely biases present. 70 Notwithstanding the limitations inherent to cross-sectional studiesandsurveys—whichalonemayprovideadequateexplanation for some of the reported correlations—several possible explanations have been suggested for the wind turbines–associated annoyance reported in many of these studies, including attitudinal and even personality characteristics of the survey participants. 69 Pedersen and colleague,59 who have been involved in the majority of publica- tions on this topic, noted “The enhanced negative response [toward wind turbines] could be linked to aesthetical response, rather than to multi-modaleffectsofsimultaneousauditoryandvisualstimulation, and a risk of hindrance to psycho-physiological restoration could not be excluded.” (p.389)They also found that wind turbines might be more likely to elicit annoyance because some perceive them to be “intrusive” visually and with respect to their noise. 65 Alterna- tive explanations on the basis of evaluation of all health complaints filed between 1993 and 2012 with wind turbine operators across Australia include the influence of anti-wind power activism and the surrounding publicity on the likelihood of health complaints, calling the complaints “communicated diseases.” 52 As noted earlier, the 14 papers meeting the selection criteria for critical review and synthesis were based on only eight indepen- dent study groups—three publications were based on the same study group from the Netherlands 58 and four additional publications were based on the combined data from the two Swedish surveys 61,62 or from the combined data from all three. The findings across studies based on analyses of the same data are not independent observa- tions, and therefore the body of available evidence may seem to be larger and more consistent than it should. This observation does not necessarily mean that the relationships observed (or the lack of associations between calculated wind turbines sound pressures and disease or other indicators of health) are invalid, but that consistency across reports based on the same data should not be overinterpreted as independent confirmation of findings. Perhaps more important is that all eight were cross-sectional studies or surveys, and therefore inherently limited in their ability to demonstrate the presence or absence of true health effects. Recent controlled exposure laboratory evaluations lend sup- port to the notion that reports of annoyance and other complaints may reflect, at least in part, preconceptions about the ability of wind turbine noise to harm health 52,71,72 or even the color of the turbine 73 more than the actual noise emission. Sixty years ago, Sir Austin Bradford Hill delivered a lecture entitled “Observations and Experiment” to the Royal College of Occupational Medicine. In his lecture, Hill stated that “The observer may well have to be more patient than the experimenter—awaiting theoccurrenceofthenaturalsuccessionofeventshedesirestostudy; he may well have to be more imaginative—sensing the correlations that lie below the surface of his observations; and he may well have to be more logical and less dogmatic—avoiding as the evil eye the fallacy of ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc,’ the mistaking of correlation for causation.” 74(p.1000) Although it is typical and appropriate to point out the obvious need for additional research, it may be worth emphasizing that more research of a similar nature—that is, using cross-sectional or survey approaches—is unlikely to be informative, most notably for public policy decisions. Large, well-conducted prospective cohort studies that document baseline health status and can objectively measure the incidence of new disease or health conditions over time with the introduction would be the most informative. On the contrary, the phenomena that constitute wind turbine exposures—primarily noise and visual effect—are not dissimilar to many other environ- mental (eg, noise of waves along shorelines) and anthropogenic (eg, noise from indoor Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning or road traffic) stimuli, for which research and practical experience indicate no direct harm to human health. Sound Components and Health: Infrasound, Low-Frequency Sound, and Potential Health Effects Introduction This section addresses potential health implications of infra- sound and low-frequency sound because claims have been made that the frequency of wind turbine sound has special characteristics that may present unique health risks in comparison with other sources of environmental sound. Wind turbines produce two kinds of sound. Gears and gener- ators can make mechanical noise, but this is less prominent than the Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine e117297 McCunney et al JOEM Volume 56, Number 11, November 2014 TABLE 1.Human Thresholds for Different Frequencies Frequency (Hz)Threshold (dB SPL) 100 27 25 69 10 97 SPL, sound pressure level. aerodynamic noise of the blades, whose tips may have velocities in excess of 200 mph. Three-bladed turbines often rotate about once every 3 seconds; their “blade-pass” frequency is thus about 1 Hz (Hz: cycle per second). For this reason, the aerodynamic noise often rises and falls about once per second, and some have described the sounds as “whooshing” or “pulsing.” Several studies 44,75,76 have shown that at distances of 300 m or more, wind turbine sounds are below human detection thresholds for frequencies less than 50 Hz. The most audible frequencies (those whose acoustic energies exceed human thresholds the most) are in 500 to 2000 Hz range. At this distance from a single wind turbine, overall levels are typically 35 to 45 dBA. 77,78 These levels can be audible in a typical residence with ambient noise of 30 dBA and windows open (a room with an ambient level of 30 dBA would be considered by most people to be quiet or very quiet). In outdoor environments, sound levels drop about 6 dB for every doubling of the distance from the source, so one would predict levels of 23 to 33 dBA, that is, below typical ambient noise levels in homes, at a distance of 1200 m. For a wind farm of 12 large turbines, Møller and Pedersen79 predicted a level of 35 dBA at a distance of 453 m. As noted earlier in this report, sound intensity is usually mea- sured in decibels (dB), with 0 dB SPL corresponding to the softest soundsyounghumanscanhear.Nevertheless,humanshearwellonly within the frequency range that includes the frequencies most im- portant for speech understanding—about 500 to 5000 Hz. At lower frequencies, hearing thresholds are much higher. 75 Although fre- quencies lower than 20 Hz are conventionally referred to as “infra- sound,” sounds in this range can in fact be heard, but only when they are extremely intense (a sound of 97 dB SPL has 10 million times as much energy as a sound of 27 dB; see Table 1). Complexsoundslikethoseproducedbywindturbinescontain energy at multiple frequencies. The most complete descriptions of such sounds include dB levels for each of several frequency bands (eg,22to45Hz,45to90Hz,90to180Hz, .. .,11,200to22,400Hz). It is simpler, and appropriate in most circumstances, to specify over- all sound intensity using meters that give full weight to the frequen- cies people hear well, and less weight to frequencies less than 500 Hz and higher than 5000 Hz. The resulting metric is “A-weighted” decibels or dBA. Levels in dBA correlate well with audibility; in a very quiet place, healthy young people can usually detect sounds less than 20 dBA. Low-Frequency Sound and Infrasound Low-frequency noise (LFN) is generally considered frequen- cies from 20 to 250 Hz, as described earlier in more detail in subsec- tion “Low Frequency and Infrasonic Levels.” The potential health implications of low-frequency sound from wind turbines have been investigated in a study of four large turbines and 44 smaller turbines in the Netherlands. 17 In close proximity to the turbines, infrasound levels were below audibility. The authors suggested that LFN could be an important aspect of wind turbine noise; however, they did not link measured or modeled noise levels with any health outcome measure, such as annoyance. A literature review of infrasound and low-frequency sound concluded that low-frequency sound from wind turbines at resi- dencesdidnotexceedlevelsfromothercommonnoisesources,such as traffic. 44 The authors concluded that a “statistically significant as- sociation between noise levels and self-reported sleep disturbance was found in two of the three [epidemiology] studies.” (p.1).Ithas been suggested that LFN from wind turbines causes other and more serious health problems, but empirical support for these claims is lacking.44 Sounds with frequencies lower than 20 Hz (ie, infrasound) may be audible at very high levels. At even higher levels, subjects may experience symptoms from very low-frequency sounds—ear pressure (at levels as low as 127 dB SPL), ear pain (at levels higher than 145 dB), chest and abdominal movement, a choking sensa- tion, coughing, and nausea (at levels higher than 150 dB). 80,81 The National Aeronautics and Space Administration considered that in- frasound exposures lower than 140 dB SPL would be safe for astro- nauts; American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists recommends a threshold limit value of 145 dB SPL for third-octave bandlevelsbetween1and80Hz.81 Asnotedearlier,infrasoundfrom wind turbines has been measured at residential distances and noted to be many orders of magnitude below these levels. Whenever wind turbine sounds are audible, some people may findthesoundsannoying,asdiscussedelsewhereinthisreview.Some authors, however, have hypothesized that even inaudible sounds, especially at very low frequencies, could affect people by activating several types of receptors, including the following: 1. Outer hair cells of the cochlea 82 ; 2. Haircellsofthenormalvestibularsystem, 83 especially theotolith organs84 ; 3. Hair cells of the vestibular system after its fluid dynamics have been disrupted by infrasound 82 ; 4. Visceral graviceptors acting as vibration sensors. 83 To evaluate these hypotheses, it is useful to review selected aspects of the anatomy and physiology of the inner ear (focusing on the differences between the cochlea and the vestibular organs), vibrotactile sensitivity to airborne sound, and the types of evidence that, while absent at present, could in theory support one or more of these hypotheses. How the Inner Ear Works The inner ear contains the cochlea (the organ of hearing) and five vestibular organs (three semicircular canals and two otolith or- gans, transmitting information about head position and movement). The cochlea and the vestibular organs have one important feature in common—they both use hair cells to convert sound or head move- ment into nerve impulses that can then be transmitted to the brain. Hair cells are mechanoreceptors that can elicit nerve impulses only when their stereocilia (or sensory hairs) are bent. The anatomy of the cochlea ensures that its hair cells respond well to airborne sound and poorly to head movement, whereas the anatomyofthevestibularorgansoptimizeshaircellresponsetohead movement and minimizes response to airborne sound. Specifically, the cochlear hair cells are not attached to the bony otic capsule, and the round window permits the cochlear fluids to move more freely when air-conducted sound causes the stapes to move back and forth in the oval window. Conversely, the vestibular hair cells are attached to the bony otic capsule, and the fluids surrounding them are not positioned between the two windows and thus cannot move as freely in response to air-conducted sound. At the most basic level, this makes it unlikely that inaudible sound from wind turbines can affect the vestibular system. Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. e118 C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 298 JOEM Volume 56, Number 11, November 2014 Wind Turbines and Health Responding to Airborne Sound Airborne sound moves the eardrum and ossicles back and forth;theossicularmovementattheovalwindowthendisplacesinner ear fluid, causing a movement of membranes in the cochlea, with bendingofthehaircellstereocilia.Nevertheless,thisdisplacementof thecochlearhaircellsdependsonthefactthattherearetwowindows separating the inner ear from the middle ear, with the cochlear hair cellspositionedbetweenthem—whenevertheovalwindow(thebony footplate of the stapes, constrained by a thin annular ligament) is pushed inward, the round window (a collagenous membrane lined by mucous membrane) moves outward, and vice versa. When the round window is experimentally sealed, 85 the cochlea’s sensitivity to sound is reduced by 35 dB. The vestibular hair cells are not positioned between the two cochlear windows, and therefore airborne sound-induced inner ear fluid movement does not efficiently reach them. Instead, the vestibu- lar hair cells are attached to the bone of the skull so that they can respond faithfully to head movement (the cochlear hair cells are not directly attached to the skull). As one might expect, vestibular hair cells can respond to head vibration (bone-conducted sound), such as when a tuning fork is held to the mastoid. Very intense airborne soundcanalsomaketheheadvibrate;peoplewithsevereconductive hearing loss can hear airborne sound in this way, but only when the sounds are made 50 to 60 dB more intense than those audible to normal people. The cochlea contains two types of hair cells. It is often said that we hear with our inner hair cells (IHCs) because all the “type I” afferent neurons that carry sound-evoked impulses to the brain connect to the IHCs. The outer hair cells (OHCs) are important as “preamplifiers” that make it possible to hear very soft sounds; they are exquisitely tuned to specific frequencies, and when they move they create fluid currents that then displace the stereocilia of the IHCs. Although more numerous than the IHCs, the OHCs receive only very scanty afferent innervation, from “type II” neurons, the function of which is unknown. Salt and Hullar 82 have pointed out that OHCs generate measurable electrical responses called cochlear microphonics to very low frequencies (eg, 5 Hz) at levels that are presumably inaudible to the animals and have hypothesized that the type II afferent fibers from the OHCs might carry this information to the brain. Nevertheless, it seems that no one has ever recorded action potentials from type II cochlear neurons, nor have physio- logical responses other than cochlear microphonics been recorded in responsetoinaudiblesounds.86,87 Inotherwords,asSaltandHullar82 acknowledge, “The fact that some inner ear components (such as the OHC) may respond to [airborne] infrasound at the frequencies and levels generated by wind turbines does not necessarily mean that they will be perceived or disturb function in any way.” (p.19) Responses of the Vestibular Organs As previously noted, vestibular hair cells are efficiently cou- pled to the skull. The three semicircular canals in each ear are de- signed to respond to head rotations (roll, pitch, yaw, or any combi- nation). When the head rotates, as in shaking the head to say “no,” the fluid in the canals lags behind the skull and bends the hair cells. The otolith organs (utricle and saccule) contain calcium carbonate crystals(otoconia)thataredenserthantheinnerearfluid,andthisal- lows even static head position to be detected; when the head is tilted, gravitational pull on the otoconia bends the hair cells. The otolith organs also respond to linear acceleration of the head, as when a car accelerates. Many people complaining about wind turbines have reported dizziness, which can be a symptom of vestibular disorders; this has led to suggestions that wind turbine sound, especially inaudible infrasound, can stimulatethevestibularorgans. 83,84 Pierpont83 intro- duced a term “Wind Turbine Syndrome” based on a case series of 10 families who reported symptoms that they attributed to living near windturbines.Theauthorinvitedpeopletoparticipateiftheythought they had symptoms from living in the vicinity of wind turbines; this approach introduces substantial selection bias that can distort the results and their corresponding significance. Telephone inter- views were conducted; no medical examination, diagnostic studies or review, and documentation of medical records were conducted as part of the case series. Noise measurements were not provided. Nonetheless, the author described a collection of nonspecific symp- toms that were described as “Wind Turbine Syndrome.” The case series, at the time of preparation of this review, has not been pub- lished in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Although not med- ically recognized, advocates of this “disorder” suggest that wind turbines produce symptoms, such as headaches, memory loss, fa- tigue, dizziness, tachycardia, irritability, poor concentration, and anxiety.88 To support her hypotheses, Pierpont cited a report by Todd et al 89 that demonstrated human vestibular responses to bone- conducted sound at levels below those that can be heard. But as previously noted, this effect is not surprising because the vestibu- lar system is designed to respond to head movement (including head vibration induced by direct contact with a vibrating source). The relevant issue is how the vestibular system responds to air- borne sound, and here the evidence is clear. Vestibular responses to airborne sound require levels well above audible thresholds. 90,91 Indeed, clinical tests of vestibular function using airborne sound use levels in excess of 120 dB, which raise concerns of acoustic trauma.92 SaltandHullar82 acknowledgethatanormalvestibularsystem is unlikely to respond to inaudible airborne sound—“Although the hair cells in other sensory structures such as the saccule may be tuned to infrasonic frequencies, auditory stimulus coupling to these structures is inefficient so that they are unlikely to be influenced by airborne infrasound.” (p.12)They go on to hypothesize that infrasound may cause endolymphatic hydrops, a condition in which one of the inner ear fluid compartments is swollen and may disturb normal hair cellfunction.Buthere,too,theyacknowledgethelackofevidence— “. .. it has never been tested whether stimuli in the infrasound range cause endolymphatic hydrops.” (p.19)In previous research, Salt 93 was abletocreatetemporaryhydropsinanimalsusingairbornesound,but only at levels (115 dB at 200 Hz) that are many orders of magnitude higher than levels that could exist at residential distances from wind turbines. Human Vibrotactile Sensitivity to Airborne Sound Very loud sound can cause head and body vibration. As pre- viously noted, a person with absent middle ear function but an intact cochlea may hear sounds at 50 to 60 dB SPL. Completely deaf peo- ple can detect airborne sounds using the vibrotactile sense, but only at levels far above hearing threshold, for example, 128 dB SPL at 16 Hz. 94 Vibrotactile sensation depends on receptors in the skin and joints. Pierpont83 hypothesized that “visceral graviceptors,” 95,96 which contain somatosensory receptors, could detect airborne in- frasound transmitted from the lungs to the diaphragm and then to the abdominal viscera. These receptors would seem to be well suited to detect body tilt or perhaps whole-body vibration, but there is no evidencethatairbornesoundcouldstimulatesensoryreceptorsinthe abdomen. Airborne sound is almost entirely reflected away from the body; when Takahashi et al 97 used airborne sound to produce chest or abdominal vibration that exceeded ambient body levels, levels had to exceed 100 dB at 20 to 50 Hz. Further Studies of Note The influence of preconception on mood and physical symp- toms after exposure to LFN was examined by showing 54 university Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine e119299 McCunney et al JOEM Volume 56, Number 11, November 2014 studentsoneoftwoseriesofshortvideosthateitherpromotedordis- pelled the notion that sounds from wind turbines had health effects, then exposing subjects to 10 minutes of quiet period followed by infrasound (40 dB at 5 Hz) generated by computer software, and as- sessing mood and a series of physical symptoms. 71 In a double-blind protocol, participants first exposed to either a “high-expectancy” presentation included first-person accounts of symptoms attributed to wind turbines or a “low-expectancy” presentation showed ex- perts stating scientific positions indicating that infrasound does not cause symptoms. Participants were then exposed to 10 minutes of infrasound and 10 minutes of sham infrasound. Physical symptoms werereportedbeforeandduringeach10-minuteexposure.Thestudy showed that healthy volunteers, when given information designed to invoke either high or low expectations that exposure to infrasound causes symptom complaints, reported symptoms that were consis- tent with the level of expectation. These data demonstrate that the participants’ expectations of the wind turbine sounds determined their patterns of self-reported symptoms, regardless of whether the exposure was to a true or sham wind turbine sound. The concept known as a “nocebo” response, essentially the opposite of a placebo response, will be discussed in more detail later in this report. A no- cebo response refers to how a preconceived negative reaction can occur in anticipation of an event. 98 A further study assessed whether positive or negative health information about infrasound generated by wind turbines affected participants’ symptoms and health perceptions in response to wind farm sound. 72 Both physical symptoms and mood were evaluated afterexposuretoLFNamong60universitystudentsfirstshownhigh- expectancy or low-expectancy short videos intended to promote or dispel the notion that wind turbines sounds impacted health. One set of videos presented information indicating that exposure to wind turbine sound, particularly infrasound, poses a health risk, whereas theothersetpresentedinformationthatcomparedwindturbinesound to subaudible sound created by natural phenomena such as ocean waves and the wind, emphasizing their positive effects on health. Students were continuously exposed during two 7-minute listening sessions to both infrasound (50.4 dB, 9 Hz) and audible wind farm sound(43dB),whichhadbeenrecorded1kmfromawindfarm,and assessed for mood and a series of physical symptoms. Both high- expectancy and low-expectancy groups were made aware that they werelisteningtothesoundofawindfarmandwerebeingexposedto sound containing both audible and subaudible components and that the sound was at the same level during both sessions. Participants exposed to wind farm sound experienced a placebo response elicited by positive preexposure expectations, with those participants who were given expectations that infrasound produced health benefits reporting positive health effects. They concluded that reports of symptomsornegativeeffectscouldbenullifiedifexpectationscould be framed positively. University students exposed to recorded sounds from loca- tions 100 m from a series of Swedish wind turbines for 10 minutes were assessed for parameters of annoyance. 99 Sound was played at a level of 40 dBAeq (the “eq” refers to the average level over the 10- minute exposure). After the initial exposure, students were exposed to an additional 3 minutes of noise while filling out questionnaires. Authors reported that ratings of annoyance, relative annoyance, and awareness of noise were different among the different wind turbine recordings played at equivalent noise levels. Various psychoacous- tic parameters (sharpness, loudness, roughness, fluctuation strength, and modulation) were assessed and then grouped into profiles. At- tributes such as “lapping,” “swishing,” and “whistling’’ were more easily noticed and potentially annoying, whereas “low frequency” and “grinding” were associated with less intrusive and potentially less annoying sounds. Adults exposed to sounds recorded from a 1.5 MV Korean wind turbine were assessed for the degree of noise annoyance. 100 Over a 40-minute period, subjects were exposed to a series of 25 random 30-second bursts of wind turbine noise, separated by at least 10 seconds of quiet between bursts. Following a 3-minute quiet pe- riod, this pattern was repeated. Participants reported their annoyance on a scale of 1 to 11. Authors found that the amplitude modula- tion of wind turbine noise had a statistically significant effect on the subjects’ perception of noise annoyance. The effect of psychological parameters on the perception of noise from wind turbines was also assessed in Italian adults from bothurbanandruralareas.Recordedsoundsfromdifferentdistances (150 m, 250 m, and 500 m) away from wind turbines were played while pictures of wind turbines were shown and subjects described their reaction to the pictures. 73 Pictures differed in color, the number of wind turbines, and distance from wind turbines. Pictures had a weak effect on individual reactions to the number of wind turbines; the color of the wind turbines influenced both visual and auditory individual reactions, although in different ways. Epilepsy and Wind Turbines Rapidly changing visual stimuli, such as flashing lights or os- cillating pattern changes, can trigger seizures in susceptible persons, includingsomewhoneverdevelopspontaneousseizures;stimulithat change at rates of 12 to 30 Hz are most likely to trigger seizures. 101 Rotating blades (of a ceiling fan, helicopter, or wind turbine) that interrupt light can produce a flicker, leading to a concern that wind turbines might cause seizures. Nevertheless, large wind turbines (2 MW or more) typically rotate at rates less than 1 Hz; with three blades, the frequency of light interruption would be less than 3 Hz, a rate that would pose negligible risk to developing a photoepileptic seizure.102 Smedley et al 103 applied a complex simulation model of seizure risk to wind turbines, assuming worst-case conditions—a cloudless day, an observer looking directly toward the sun with wind turbine blades directly between the observer and the sun, but with eyesclosed(whichscattersthelightmorebroadlyontheretina);they concluded that there would be a risk of seizures at distances up to ninetimestheturbineheight,butonlywhenbladefrequencyexceeds 3 Hz, which would be rare for large wind turbines. Smaller turbines, typicallyprovidingpowerforasinglestructure,oftenrotateathigher frequencies and might pose more risk of provoking seizures. At the time of preparation of this report, there has been no published report of a photoepileptic seizure being triggered by looking at a rotating wind turbine. Sleep and Wind Turbines Sleep disturbance is relatively common in the general popula- tion and has numerous causes, including illness, depression, stress, and the use of medications, among others. Noise is well known to be potentially disruptive to sleep. The key issue with respect to wind turbines is whether the noise is sufficiently loud to disrupt sleep. Numerous environmental studies of noise from aviation, rail, and highwayshaveaddressedsleepimplications,manyofwhicharesum- marizedintheWHO’spositionpaperonNighttimeNoiseGuidelines (Fig.7).104 Thisconsensusdocumentisbasedonanexpertanalysisof environmental noise from sources other than wind turbines, includ- ing transportation, aviation, and railway noise. The WHO published the figure (Fig. 7) to indicate that significant sleep disturbance from environmental noise begins to occur at noise levels greater than 45 dBA. This figure is based on an analysis of pooled data from 24 dif- ferentenvironmentalnoisestudies,althoughnowindturbine–related noise studies were included in the analysis. Nonetheless, the studies providesubstantialdataonenvironmentalnoiseexposurethatcanbe contrasted with noise levels associated with wind turbine operations to enable one to draw reasonable inferences. In contrast to the WHO position, an author in an editorial claimed that routine wind turbine operations that result in noise Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. e120 C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 300 JOEM Volume 56, Number 11, November 2014 Wind Turbines and Health levels less than 45 dBA can have substantial effects on sleep, with corresponding adverse health effects. 105 Another author, however, challenged the basis of the assertion by pointing out that Hanning hadignored17reviewsonthetopicwithalternativeperspectivesand different results. 106 Sleep disturbance is a potential extra-auditory effect of noise, and research has shown a link between wind turbine noise and sleep disruption.4,57,63,66,107 As with of the other variables reviewed, quan- tifying sleep quality is typically done with coarse measures. In fact, this reviewer identified no studies that used a multi-item validated sleepmeasure.Researchstudiestypicallyrelyonasingleitem(some- times answered yes/no) to measure sleep quality. Such coarse mea- surement of sleep quality is unfortunate because impaired sleep is a plausiblepathwaybywhichwindturbinenoiseexposuremayimpact both psychological well-being and physical health. Disturbed sleep can be associated with adverse health effects.108 Awakening thresholds, however, depend on both physi- cal and psychological factors. Signification is a psychological factor that refers to the meaning or attitude attached to a sound. Sound with high signification will awaken a sleeper at lower intensity than sound lacking signification. 108 As reviewed above, individuals often attach attitudes to wind turbine sound; as such, wind turbine sleep disruption may be impacted by psychological factors related to the sound source. Shepherd et al 66 found a significant difference in perceived sleep quality between their wind farm and comparison groups, with the wind farm group reporting worse sleep quality. In the wind farm group, noise sensitivity was strongly correlated with sleep quality. In both the wind farm and comparison groups, sleep quality showed similar strong positive relationships with physical HRQL and psy- chological HRQL. Pedersen 63 found that sound-level exposure was associated with sleep interruption in two of three studies reviewed; however, the effect sizes associated with sound exposure were minimal. Bakker et al 57 found that noise exposure was related to sleep disturbance in quiet areas (d =0.40) but not for individuals in noisy areas(d =0.02).Nevertheless,whenextremesoundexposuregroups were composed, 57 data showed that individuals living in high sound areas(greaterthan45dBA)hadsignificantlygreatersleepdisruption than subjects in low sound areas (less than 30 dBA). Annoyance rat- FIGURE 7.Worst-case prediction of noise-induced behavioral awakenings. Adapted from WHO 104 (Chapter 3); Miedema et al. 163 ings were more strongly associated with sleep disruption. 57 Further- more, when 57 structural equation models (SEMs) were applied, the direct association between sound level and sleep disruption was lost and annoyance seemed to mediate the effect of wind turbine sound on sleep disturbance. Across the reviewed studies it seems that sleep disruption was associated with sound-level exposure; however, the associations were weak and annoyance ratings were more strongly and consistently associated with self-reported sleep disruption. Conclusions Infrasound and low-frequency sound can be generated by the operation of wind turbines; however, neither low-frequency sound nor infrasound in the context of wind turbines or in experimental studies has been associated with adverse health effects. Annoyance, Wind Turbines, and Potential Health Implications Thepotentialeffectofnoiseonhealthmayoccurthroughboth physiological (sleep disturbance) and psychological pathways. Psy- chological factors related to noise annoyance reported in association with wind turbine noise will be reviewed and analyzed. A critique of the methodological adequacy of the existing wind turbine research as it relates to psychological outcomes will be addressed. As noted earlier, “annoyance” has been used as an outcome measure in environmental noise studies for many decades. Annoy- ance is assessed via a questionnaire. Because annoyance has been associated under certain circumstances with living in the vicinity of wind turbines, this section examines the significance of annoyance, risk factors for reporting annoyance in the context of wind turbines, and potential health implications. For many years, it has been recognized that exposure to high noise levels can adversely affect health 109,110 and that environmen- tal noise can adversely affect psychological and physical health. 111 Key to evaluating the health effects of noise exposure—like any hazard—is a thorough consideration of noise intensity and duration. When outcomes are broadened to include more subjective qualities like annoyance and QOL, additional psychological factors must be studied. Noise-related annoyance is a subjective psychological condi- tion that may result in anger, disappointment, dissatisfaction, with- drawal, helplessness, depression, anxiety, distraction, agitation, or exhaustion.112 Annoyance is primarily identified using standardized self-report questionnaires. Well-established psychiatric conditions likemajordepressivedisorderarealsosubjectivestatesthataremost often identified by self-report questionnaires. Despite its subjective nature, noise annoyance was included as a negative health outcome by the WHO in their recent review of disease burden related to noise exposure.112 Theinclusionofannoyancewithconditionslikecardio- vascular disease reinforces its status as a legitimate primary health outcome for environmental noise research. This section reviews the literature on the effect of wind tur- bines, including noise-related annoyance and its corresponding ef- fect on health, QOL, and psychological well-being. “Quality of life” is a multidimensional concept that captures subjective aspects of an individual’s experience of functioning, well-being, and satisfac- tion across the physical, mental, and social domains of life. The WHO defines QOL as “an individual’s perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns. It is a broad ranging concept affected in complex ways by the person’s physical health, psychological status, personal be- liefs, social relationships and their relationship to salient features of their environment”. 113(p1404)Numerous well-validated QOL mea- sures are available, with the SF-12 and SF-36 114 and the WHO Quality of Life—Short Form (WHOQLO-BREF 115 ) being among the most commonly used. Quality of life measures have been widely Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine e121301 McCunney et al JOEM Volume 56, Number 11, November 2014 adoptedasprimaryoutcomesforclinicaltrialsandcost-effectiveness research. Meta-analysis is a quantitative method for summarizing the relative strength of an effect or relationship as observed across multiple independent studies. 116 The increased application of meta- analysis has had a considerable effect on how literature reviews are approached. Currently, more than 20 behavioral science journals re- quire that authors report measures of effect size along with tests of significance. 117 The use of effect size indicators enhances the comparability of findings across studies by changing the reported outcome statistics to a common metric. In behavioral health, the most frequently used effect size indicators are the Cohen d118 and r the zero-order (univariate) correlation coefficient. 117 An additional advantage of reporting outcomes as effect size units is that bench- marks exist for judging the magnitude of these (significant) differ- ences. Studies reviewed below report an array of statistical analyses (the t test, analysis of variances, odds ratios, and point-biserial and biserial correlations), some of which are not suitable for conversion into the Cohen d; thus, following the recommendations of McGrath and Meyer, 117 r will be used as the common effect size measure for evaluating studies. As reference points,r between 0.10 and 0.23 represents small effects,r between 0.24 and 0.36 represents medium effects, and r of 0.37 and greater represent large effects. 117 Although these values offer useful guidelines for comparing findings, it is im- portant to realize that, in health-related research, very small effects with r <0.10 can be of great importance. 119 Noise Sensitivity Noise sensitivity is a stable and normally distributed psycho- logical trait, 120 but predicting who will be annoyed by sound is not a straightforward process. 121 Noise sensitivity has been raised as a major risk factor for reporting annoyance in the context of environ- mental noise. 156 Noise sensitivity is a psychological trait that affects how a person reacts to sound. Despite lacking a standard definition, people can usually reliably rate themselves as low (noise tolerant), average, or high on noise sensitivity questionnaires; those who rate themselves as high are by definition noise sensitive. Noise-sensitive individuals react to environmental sound more easily, evaluate it more negatively, and ex- perience stronger emotional reactions than noise tolerant people.122–124,146,153–156,159–161 Noise sensitivity is not re- lated to objectively measured auditory thresholds, 125 intensity discrimination, auditory reaction time, or power-function exponents for loudness. 120 Noise sensitivity reflects a psycho- physiological process with neurocognitive and psychological features. Noise-sensitive individuals have noise “annoyance thresh- olds” approximately 10 dB lower than noise tolerant individuals. 123 Noise sensitivity has been described as increasing a person’s risk for experiencing annoyance when exposed to sound at low and moderate levels. 4,157 Noise-Related Annoyance Noise sensitivity and noise-related annoyance are moderately correlated (r =0.32120 ) but not isomorphic. The WHO 112 defines noise annoyance as a subjective experience that may include anger, disappointment, dissatisfaction, withdrawal, helplessness, depres- sion, anxiety, distraction, agitation, or exhaustion. A survey of an international group of noise researchers indicated that noise-related annoyance is multifaceted and includes both behavioral and emo- tional features. 126 This finding is consistent with Job’s 122 definition of noise annoyance as a state associated with a range of reactions, including frustration, anger, dysphoria, exhaustion, withdrawal, and helplessness. Annoyance and Wind Turbine Sounds As noted elsewhere in this review, Pedersen and colleagues58,61,62,65 conducted the world’s largest epidemiological studies of people living in the vicinity of wind turbines. These studies have been discussed in detail in the epidemiological studies section of this review. Other authors have also addressed annoyance in the context of living near wind turbines. 57,61,125,127,128 Pedersen63 later compared findings from the three cross-sectional epidemiolog- ical studies to identify common outcomes. Across all three studies, SPLs were associated with annoyance outside (r between 0.05 and 0.09) and inside of the people’s homes (r between 0.04 and 0.05). These effect sizes were all less than the small effect boundary of 0.10, meaning that sound levels played a minor role in annoyance. The percentages of people reporting annoyance with wind turbine noise ranged from 7% to 14% for indoor exposure and 18% to 33% for outside exposure. 58,61 These rates are similar to those reported for exposure to other forms of environmental noise. 129 The dynamic nature of wind turbine sound may make it more annoying than other sources of community noise according to Ped- ersen et al. 58 They compared self-reported annoyance from other environmental noise exposure studies (aircraft, railways, road traf- fic, industry, and shunting yards) with annoyance from wind turbine sound. Proportionally, more subjects were annoyed with wind tur- bine sound at levels lower than 50 dB than with all other sources of noise exposure, except for shunting yards. Pedersen and Waye 107,128 reported that the sound characteristics of swishing (r =0.70) and whistling (r =0.62) were highly correlated with annoyance to wind turbine sound. Others have reported similar findings. One author has suggested that wind turbine sound may have acoustic qualities that may make it more annoying at certain noise levels. 80 Other theories forsymptomsdescribedinassociationwithlivingnearwindturbines have also been proposed. 139 Annoyanceassociatedwithwindturbinesoundstendstoshow a linear association. Sound levels, however, explain only between 9% (r =0.31) and 13% (r =0.36) of the variance in annoyance ratings.57,61 Therefore,SPLsseemtoplayasignificant,albeitlimited, role in the experience of annoyance associated with wind turbines, a conclusion similar to that reached by Knopper and Ollson. 4 Nonacoustical Factors Associated With Annoyance Although noise levels and noise sensitivity affect the risk of a person reporting annoyance, nonacoustic factors also play a role, including the visual effect of the turbines, whether a person derives economic benefit from the turbines and the type of terrain where one lives.4 Pedersen and Waye 61 assessed the effect of visual/perceptual factors on wind turbine–related annoyance; all of the variables de- scribed above were significantly related to self-reported annoyance after controlling for SPLs. Nevertheless, when these variables were evaluated simultaneously, only attitude to the visual effect of the tur- bines remained significantly related to annoyance (r =0.41, which can be interpreted as a large effect) beyond sound exposure. Peder- sen and Waye 128 also found visual effect to be a significant factor in addition to sound exposure for self-reported annoyance to wind turbine sounds. Pedersen et al 58 explored the effect of visual atti- tude on wind turbine sound-related annoyance. Logistic regression showedthatsoundlevels,noisesensitivity,attitudestowardwindtur- bines, and visual effect were all significant independent predictors of annoyance. Nevertheless, visual attitudes showed an effect size of r =0.27 (medium effect), whereas noise sensitivity had an r of 0.09.Otherauthorshavealsofoundthevisualeffectofwindturbines to be related to annoyance ratings. 130 Results from multiple studies support the conclusion that visual effect contributes to wind turbine annoyance,4 with this review finding visual effect to have an effect sizeinthemediumtolargerange.Nevertheless,giventhatnoisesen- sitivity and visual attitude are consistently correlated (r =0.19 and r =0.26, respectively), 58,61 it is possible that visual effect enhances Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. e122 C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 302 JOEM Volume 56, Number 11, November 2014 Wind Turbines and Health annoyance through multisensory (visual and auditory) activation of the noise-sensitivity trait. Economic Benefit, Wind Turbines, and Annoyance Somestudieshaveindicatedthatpeoplewhoderiveeconomic benefit from wind turbines are less likely to report annoyance. Ped- ersen et al 58 found that people who benefited economically (n = 103) from wind turbines reported significantly less annoyance de- spite being exposed to relatively high levels of wind turbine noise. The annoyance mitigating effect of economic benefit was replicated in Bakker et al. 57 The mitigation effect of economic benefit seems to be within the small effect size range (r =0.15).57 In addition, because receiving economic benefit represents a personal choice to have wind turbines on their property in exchange for compensation, the involvement of subject selection factors (ie, noise tolerance) re- quires additional study. Annoyance, Quality of Life, Well-being, and Psychological Distress Thelargestcross-sectionalepidemiologicalstudyofwindtur- bine noise on QOL was conducted in northern Poland. 67 Surveys were completed by 1277 adults (703 women and 574 men), aged 18 to 94 years, representing a 10% two-stage random sample of the selected communities. Although the response rate was not re- ported, participants were sequentially enrolled until a 10% sample was achieved, and the proportion of individuals invited to partic- ipate but unable or refusing to participate was estimated at 30% (B. Mroczek, personal communication). Proximity of residence was the exposure variable, with 220 (17.2%) respondents within 700 m, 279 (21.9%) between 700 and 1000 m, 221 (17.3%) between 1000 and 1500 m, and 424 (33.2%) residing more than 1500 m from the nearest wind turbine. Several indicators of QOL, measured using the SF-36, were analyzed by proximity to wind turbines. The SF- 36 consists of 36 questions divided into the following subscales: physical functioning, role-functioning physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-functioning emotional, and mental health. An additional question concerning health change was included, as well as the Visual Analogue Scale for health assess- ment. It is unclear whether age, sex, education, and occupation were controlled. The authors report that within all subscales, those living closesttowindfarmsreportedthebestQOL,andthoselivingfarther than 1500 m scored the worst. They concluded that living in close proximity to wind farms does not result in worsening of the QOL. 67 The authors recommend that subsequent research evaluate the rea- sons for the higher QOL and health indicators associated with living in closer proximity to wind farms. They speculated that these might includeeconomicfactorssuchasopportunitiesforemploymentwith or renting land to the wind farm companies. Individuals living closer to wind farms reported higher levels of mental health (r =0.11), physical role functioning (r =0.07), and vitality (r =0.10) than did those living farther away. 67 Nevertheless, the implications of the study 67 are unclear, as the authors did not estimate sound-level exposure or obtain noise annoyance ratings from their subjects. Overall, with the exception of the study by Mroczek et al, 67 noise annoyance demonstrated a consistent small to medium effect on QOL and psychological well-being. A study a year earlier of 39 individuals in New Zealand came to different conclusions than the Polish study. 131 Survey results from 39 residents located within 2 km of a wind turbine in the South Makara Valley in New Zealand were compared with 139 geograph- ically and socioeconomically matched individuals who resided at least 8 km fromany wind farm. Theresponseratesfor both theprox- imal and more distant study groups were poor, that is, 34% and 32%, respectively, although efforts were made to blind respondents to the study hypotheses. No other indicator of exposure to wind turbines wasincludedbeyondtheselectionofindividualsfromwithin2kmor beyond 8 km of a wind turbine, so actual or calculated wind turbine noise exposures were not available. Subjective HRQOL scales were used to describe and compare the self-reported physical, psycholog- ical, and social well-being for each group. Health-related quality of lifemeasuresarebelievedtoprovideanalternativeapproachtodirect health assessment in that decrements in well-being are assumed to be sensitive to and reflect possible underlying health effects. The au- thorsreportedstatisticallysignificantdifferencesbetweenthegroups insomeHRQOLdomainscores,withresidentslivingwithin2kmof aturbineinstallationreportinglowermeanphysicalHRQOLdomain score (including lower component scores for sleep quality and self- reported energy levels) and lower mean environmental QOL scores (including lower component scores for considering one’s environ- ment to be less healthy and being less satisfied with the conditions of their living space). The wind farm group scored significantly lower on physical HRQL (r =0.21), environmental QOL (r =0.19), and overallHRQL(r =0.10)relativetothecomparisongroup.Although the psychological QOL ratings were not significantly different (P =0.06), the wind farm group also scored lower on this measure (r =0.16). In the wind farm group, noise sensitivity was strongly correlated with noise annoyance (r =0.44), psychological HRQL (r =0.40), and social HRQOL (r =0.35). These correlations ap- proach or exceed the large effect size boundary (r >0.37 suggested by Cohen). There were no differences seen for social or psychological HRQOL domain scores. The turbine group also reported lower amenity scores, which are based on responses to two general questions—“I am satisfied with my neighborhood/living environ- ment,” and “My neighborhood/living environment makes it difficult for me to relax at home.” No differences were reported between groups for traffic or neighborhood noise annoyance. Lack of actual wind turbine and other noise source measurements, combined with the low response rate (both noted by the authors as limitations), lim- its the inferential value of this study because it might pertain to wind turbine emissions. Acrossthreestudies,Pedersen63 foundthatoutdoorannoyance with turbine sound was associated with tension and stress (r =0.05 to 0.06) and irritability (r =0.05 to 0.08), qualities associated with psychological distress. Bakker et al 57 also found that psychological distress was significantly related to wind turbine sound (r =0.16), reported outside annoyance (r =0.18) and inside annoyance (r = 0.24). Taylor et al 69 found that subjects living in areas with a low probability of hearing turbine noise reported significantly higher levels of positive affect than those living in moderate or high noise areas (r =0.24), suggesting greater well-being for the low noise group. Personality Factors and Wind Turbine Sound Personality psychologists use five bipolar dimensions (neu- roticism, extraversion-introversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) to organize personality traits. 132 Two of these dimensions, neuroticism and extraversion-introversion, have been studied in relation to noise sensitivity and annoyance. Neuroticism ischaracterizedbynegativeemotionalreactions,sensitivitytoharm- ful cues in the environment, and a tendency to evaluate situations as threatening. 133 Introversion (the opposite pole of extraversion) is characterized by social avoidance, timidity, and inhibition. 133 A strong negative correlation has been shown between noise sen- sitivity (self-ratings) and self-rated extraversion, 125 suggesting that introverts are more noise sensitive. Introverts experience a greater disruption in vigilance when exposed to low-intensity noise than do extroverts. 134 Extroverts and introverts differ in terms of stimula- tionthresholdswithintrovertsbeingmoreeasilyoverstimulatedthan extroverts.135 Despite these studies, the potential link between broad personality domains and noise annoyance remains unclear. Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine e123303 McCunney et al JOEM Volume 56, Number 11, November 2014 Taylor et al 69 explored the role of neuroticism, attitude to- wardwindturbines,negativeorientedpersonality(NOP)traits(nega- tiveaffectivity,frustrationintolerance),andself-reportednonspecific somatic symptoms (NSS) in reaction to wind turbine noise. Despite one of the few peer-reviewed studies of personality and noise sensi- tivity, it only achieved a 10% response rate, which raises questions as to the representativeness of the findings. Nonetheless, the study sample reported a moderately positive attitude toward wind turbines in general and seemed representative of the local community. In the studybyTayloretal,69 zero-ordercorrelationsshowedthatestimated sound levels were significantly related to perceived turbine noise (r =0.33) and reduced positive affect (r =−0.32) but not to non- specific symptoms (r =0.002), whereas neuroticism and NOP traits were significantly related to NSS (r of 0.44 and 0.34, respectively). Multivariate analysis suggested that high NOP traits moderated the relationship between perceived noise and the report of NSS; that is, subjects with higher NOP traits reported significantly more NSS than did subjects low in NOP across the range of perceived loudness of noise. Nocebo Response The nocebo response refers to new or worsening symptoms produced by negative expectations. 98,136 When negatively worded pretreatment information (“could lead to a slight increase in pain”) was given to a group of chronic back pain patients, they reported significantly more pain (r =0.38) and had worse physical per- formance (r =0.36).98 These effect sizes are within the mod- erate to large ranges and reflect a meaningful adverse effect for the negative information contributing to the nocebo response. The effect of providing negative information regarding wind turbines prior to exposure to infrasound has been experimentally explored. Crichton et al 137 exposed college students to sham and true infra- sound under high-expectancy (ie, adverse health effects from wind turbines) and low-expectancy (ie, no adverse health effects) condi- tions. The high-expectancy group received unfavorable information from TV and Internet accounts of symptoms associated with wind farm noise, whereas the low-expectancy group heard experts stat- ing that wind farms would not cause symptoms. Symptoms were assessed pre- and postexposure to actual and sham infrasound. The high-expectancy group reported significantly more symptoms (r = 0.37) and greater symptom intensity (r =0.37) following both sham and true infrasound exposure (r =0.65 and 0.48, respectively). The effectsizesweresimilartothosefoundinmedicalresearchontheno- ceboresponse.Thesefindingsdemonstratethatexposingindividuals to negative information can increase symptom reporting immedi- ately following exposure. The inclusion of information from TV and the Internet suggests that similar reactions may occur in real-world settings. A study by Deignan et al 138 analyzed newspaper coverage of wind turbines in Canada and found that media coverage might con- tribute to nocebo responses. Newspaper coverage contained fright factor words like “dread,” “poorly understood by science,” “in- equitable,” and “inescapable exposure”; the use of “dread” and “poorly understood by science” had increased from 2007 to 2011. These results document the use of fright factor words in the popular coverage of wind turbine debates; exposure to information contain- ing these words may contribute to nocebo reactions in some people. Windturbines,similartomultipletechnologies,suchaspower lines, cell phone towers, and WiFi signals, among others, have been associated with clusters of unexplained symptoms. Research sug- gests that people are increasingly worried about the effect of modern life (in particular emerging technologies) on their health (modern health worries [MHW]). 140 ) Modern Health Worries are moderately correlated with negative affect (r =0.23) and, like the nocebo re- sponse,areconsideredpsychogenicinorigin.Theexpansionofwind turbineenergyhasbeenaccompaniedbysubstantialpositiveandneg- ative publicity that may contribute to MHW and nocebo responses among some people exposed to this information. Health concerns have also been raised about the potential of electromagnetic fields associated with wind turbine operations; however, a recent study indicated that magnetic fields in the vicinity of wind turbines were lower than those produced by common household items. 140 Chapman et al 52 explored the pattern of formal complaints (health and noise) made in relation to 51 wind farms in Australia from1993to2012.Theauthorssuggestthattheirstudyisatestofthe psychogenic(noceboorMHW)hypothesis.Thefindingsshowedthat very few complaints were formally lodged; only 129 individuals in Australia formally or publically complained during the time period studied, and the majority of wind farms had no complaint made against them. The authors found that complaints increased around 2009 when “wind turbine syndrome” was introduced. On the basis ofthesefindings,theauthorsconcludethatnoceboeffectslikelyplay an important role in wind farm health complaints. But the authors do report that the vast majority of complaints (16 out of 18) were filed by individuals living near large wind farms (r =0.32). So while few individuals complain, those who do almost exclusively live near large wind farms. Nevertheless, it is important to note that filing a formal or public complaint is a complex sociopolitical action, not a health-related outcome. Furthermore, analysis of data provided in Table 2 of the Chapman 54 study shows that the strongest predictor of a formal complaint was the presence of an opposition group in the area of the wind farm. A review of Table 2 shows that opposition groups were present in 15 of the 18 sites that filled complaints, whereas there was only one opposition group in the 33 areas that did not file a complaint (r =0.82). Therefore, the relevance of this study for understanding health effects of wind turbines is limited. Chapman has also addressed the multitude of reasons why some Australianhomeownersmayhavelefttheirhomesandattributedthe decision to wind turbines. 54 Gross140 provides a community justice model designed to counter the potential for nocebo or psychogenic response to wind farm development. This method was pilot tested in one community and showed the potential to increase the sense of fairness for diverse community members. No empirical data were gathered during the pilot study so the effect of method cannot be formally evaluated. Conclusions Annoyance is a recognized health outcome measure that has beenusedinstudiesofenvironmentalnoiseformanydecades.Noise levels have been shown to account for only a modest portion of self- reportedannoyanceinthecontextofwindturbines(r =0.35).4 Noise sensitivity, a stable psychological trait, contributes equally to expo- sureinexplainingannoyancelevels(r =0.37).Annoyanceassociated with wind turbine noise shows a consistent small to medium adverse effect on self-rated QOL and psychological well-being. Given the coarsenessof measuresused inmany studies,themagnitudeof these findings are likely attenuated and underestimate the effect of an- noyance on QOL. Visual effect increases annoyance beyond sound exposure and noise sensitivity, but at present there is insufficient re- search to conclude that visual effect operates separately from noise sensitivitybecausethetwovariablesarecorrelated.Windturbinede- velopment is subject to the same global psychogenic health worries and nocebo reactions as other modern technologies. 139 Economic benefit mitigates the effect of wind turbine sound; however, research is needed to clarify the potential confounding role of (self) selection in this finding. The most powerful multivari- ate model reviewed accounted for approximately 50% (r =0.69) of the variance in reported annoyance, leaving 50% unexplained. Clearly other relevant factors likely remain unidentified. Neverthe- less, it is not unusual for there to be a significant percentage of unex- plained variance in biomedical or social science research. For exam- ple, a meta-analysis of postoperative pain (a subjective experience), Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. e124 C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 304 JOEM Volume 56, Number 11, November 2014 Wind Turbines and Health covering 48 studies and 23,037 subjects, found that only 54% (r = 0.73) of the variance in pain ratings could be explained by the vari- ables included inthestudies. 144 Wind turbinedevelopment issubject to the same global psychogenic health worries and nocebo reactions as other modern technologies. Therefore, communities, government agency, and companies would be well advised to adopt an open, transparent, and engaging process when debating the potential ef- fect of wind turbine sites. The vast majority of findings reviewed in this section were correlational and, therefore, do not imply causality, and that other as of yet unidentified (unmeasured) factors may be associated with or responsible for these findings. DISCUSSION Despite the limitations of available research related to wind turbinesandhealth,inferencescanbedrawnfromthisinformation,if usedinconcertwithavailablescientificevidencefromotherenviron- mentalnoisestudies,manyofwhichhavebeenreviewedandassessed for public policy in the WHO’s Nighttime Noise Guidelines. 104 A substantial database on environmental noise studies related to trans- portation, aviation, and rail has been published. 147 Many of these studieshavebeenusedtodevelopworldwideregulatorynoiseguide- lines, such as those of the WHO, 104 which have proposed nighttime noise levels primarily focused on preventing sleep disturbance. Because sound and its components are the potential health hazards associated with living near wind turbines, an assessment of other environmental noise studies can offer a valuable perspective in assessing health risks for people living near wind turbines. For ex- ample, one would not expect adverse health effects to occur at lower noise levels if the same effects do not occur at higher noise levels. In the studies of other environmental noise sources, noise levels have been considerably higher than those associated with wind turbines. Noise differences as broad as 15 dBA (eg, 55 dBA in highways vs 40 dBAfrom wind turbines)have been regularly reported. 147 Insettings where anthropogenic changes are perceived, indirect effects such as annoyance have been reported, and these must also be considered in the evaluation of health effects. Wenowattempttoaddressthreefundamentalquestionsposed atthebeginningofthisreviewrelatedtopotentialhealthimplications of wind turbines. Is there available scientific evidence to conclude that wind turbines adversely affect human health? If so, what are the circumstances associated with such effects and how might they be prevented? The epidemiological and experimental literature provides no convincing or consistent evidence that wind turbine noise is associ- ated with any well-defined disease outcome. What is suggested by this literature, however, is that varying proportions of people resid- ing near wind turbine facilities report annoyance with the turbines or turbine noise. It has been suggested by some authors of these studies that this annoyance may contribute to sleep disruption and/or stress and, therefore, lead to other health consequences. This self- reportedannoyance,however,hasnotbeenreportedconsistentlyand, when observed, arises from cross-sectional surveys that inherently cannot discern whether the wind turbine noise emissions play any direct causal role. Beyond these methodological limitations, such results have been associated with other mediating factors (includ- ing personality and attitudinal characteristics), reverse causation (ie, disturbed sleep or the presence of a headache increases the per- ception of and association with wind turbine noise), and personal incentives (whether economic benefit is available for living near the turbines). There are no available cohort or longitudinal studies that can more definitively address the question about causal links between wind turbine operations and adverse health effects. Nevertheless, results from cross-sectional and experimental studies, as well as studies of other environmental noise sources, can provide valuable information in assessing risk. On the basis of the published cross- sectional epidemiological studies, “annoyance” is the main outcome measure that has been raised in the context of living in the vicinity of wind turbines. Whether annoyance is an adverse health effect, however, is disputable. “Annoyance” is not listed in the International Classification of Diseases (10th edition), although it has been sug- gested by some that annoyance may lead to stress and to other health consequences, such as sleep disturbance. This proposed mechanism, however,hasnotbeendemonstratedinstudiesusingmethodscapable of elucidating such pathways. The authors of this review are aware of the Internet sites and non–peer-reviewed reports, in which some people have described symptomsthattheyattributetolivingnearwindturbines.Thequality of this information, however, is severely limited such that reasonable assessments cannot be made about direct causal links between the wind turbines and symptoms reported. For example, inviting only people who feel they have symptoms because of wind turbines to participate in surveys and asking people to remember events in the past in the context of a current concern (ie, postturbine installa- tion) introduce selection and recall biases, respectively. Such ma- jor biases compromise the reliability of the information as used in any rigorous causality assessment. Nonetheless, consistent associa- tions have been reported between annoyance, sleep disturbance, and altered QOL among some people living near wind turbines. It is not possible to properly evaluate causal links of these claims in the absence of a thorough medical assessment, proper noise studies, and a valid study approach. The symptoms reported tend to be nonspe- cific and associated with various other illnesses. Personality factors, including self-assessed noise sensitivity, attitudes toward wind en- ergy, and nocebo-like reactions, may play a role in the reporting of these symptoms. In the absence of thorough medical evaluations that include a characterization of the noise exposure and a diagnos- tic medical evaluation, confirmation that the symptoms are due to living near wind turbines cannot be made with any reliability. In fact, the use of a proposed case definition that seemed in a journal not indexed by PubMed can lead to misleading and incorrect assess- ments of people’s health, if performed in the absence of a thorough diagnostic evaluation. 143 We recommend that people who suspect that they have symptoms from living near wind turbines undergo a thorough medical evaluation to identify all potential causes of and contributors to the symptoms. Attributing symptoms to living near wind turbines in the absence of a comprehensive medical evaluation is not medically appropriate. It is in the person’s best interest to be properly evaluated to ensure that recognized and treatable illnesses are recognized. Available scientific evidence does not provide support for any bona fide–specific illness arising out of living in the vicinity of wind turbines. Nonetheless, it seems that an array of factors con- tribute to some proportion of those living in proximity to wind turbines, reporting some degree of annoyance. The effect of pro- longed annoyance—regardless of its source or causes—may have other health consequences, such as increasing stress; however, this cannot be demonstrated with the existing scientific literature on an- noyance associated with wind turbine noise or visibility. Is there available scientific evidence to conclude that psycho- logical stress, annoyance, and sleep disturbance can occur as a result of living in proximity to wind turbines? Do these effects lead to adverse health effects? If so, what are the cir- cumstances associated with such effects and how might they be prevented? Available research is not suitable for assessing causality be- cause the major epidemiological studies conducted to date have been cross-sectional, data from which do not allow the evaluation of the temporal relationship between any observed correlated factors. Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine e125305 McCunney et al JOEM Volume 56, Number 11, November 2014 Cross-sectional studies, despite their inherent limitations in assess- ing causal links, however, have consistently shown that some people living near wind turbines are more likely to report annoyance than those living farther away. These same studies have also shown that a person’slikelihoodofreportingannoyanceisstronglyrelatedtotheir attitudes toward wind turbines, the visual aspect of the turbines, and whether they obtain economic benefit from the turbines. Our review suggeststhattheseotherriskfactorsplayamoresignificantrolethan noise from wind turbines in people reporting annoyance. The effect of annoyance on a person’s health is likely to vary considerably, based on various factors. To minimize these reactions, solutions may include informative discussions with area residents before developing plans for a wind farm along with open communi- cations of plans and a trusted approach to responding to questions and resolving noise-related complaints. Is there evidence to suggest that specific aspects of wind turbine sound such as infrasound and low-frequency sound have unique potential health effects not associated with other sources of environmental noise? Bothinfrasoundandlow-frequencysoundhavebeenraisedas possibly unique health hazards associated with wind turbine opera- tions.Thereisnoscientificevidence,however,includingresultsfrom field measurements of wind turbine–related noise and experimental studies in which people have been purposely exposed to infrasound, to support this hypothesis. Measurements of low-frequency sound, infrasound, tonal sound emission, and amplitude-modulated sound show that infrasound is emitted by wind turbines, but that the levels at customary distances to homes are well below audibility thresh- olds, even at residences where people have reported symptoms that they attribute to wind turbines. These levels of infrasound—as close as 300 m from the turbines—are not audible. Moreover, experimen- tal studies of people exposed to much higher levels of infrasound than levels measured near wind turbines have not indicated adverse health effects. Because infrasound is associated more with vibra- tory effects than high-frequency sound, it has been suggested that the vibration from infrasound may be contributing to certain physi- cal sensations described by some people living near wind turbines. Thesesensationsaredifficulttoreconcileinlightoffield studiesthat indicated that infrasound at distances more than 300 m for a wind turbinemeetinternationalstandardsforpreventingrattlingandother potential vibratory effects. 14 Areas for Further Inquiry In light of the limitations of available studies for drawing definitive conclusions and the need to address health-related con- cerns associated with wind turbines raised by some nearby resi- dents, each author discussed potential areas of further inquiry to ad- dress current data gaps. These recommendations primarily address exposurecharacterization,healthendpoints,andthetypeofepidemi- ological study most likely to lead to informative results regarding potential health effects associated with living near wind turbines. Noise From Wind Turbines As with any potential occupational or environmental hazard, further efforts at exposure characterization, that is, noise and its components such as infrasound and low-frequency sound, would be valuable. Ideally, uniform equipment and standardized methods of measurement can be used to enable comparison with results from publishedstudiesandevaluateadherencetopublicpolicyguidelines. Effortsdirectedatevaluatingmodelsusedtopredictnoiselev- elsfromwindturbines—incontrasttoactualmeasurednoiselevels— would be valuable and may be helpful in informing and reassuring residents involved in public discussions related to the development of wind energy projects. Efforts at fine tuning noise models for ac- curacy to real-world situations can be reassuring to public health officials charged with evaluating potential health effects of noise. The development and the use of reliable and portable noise mea- suring devices to address components of noise near residences and evaluating symptoms and compliance with noise guidelines would be valuable. Epidemiology Prospective cohort studies would be most informative for identifying potential health effects of exposure to wind turbine noise before and after wind turbines are installed and operating. Ideally, substantiallylargepopulationswouldbeevaluatedforbaselinehealth status, and subsequently part of the population would become ex- posed to wind turbines and part would remain unexposed, as in an area where large wind turbine farms are proposed or planned. The value of such studies is in the avoidance of several forms of bias such as recall bias, where study participants might, relying on recall, under- or overreport risk factors or diseases that occurred sometime in the past. As has been noted by several authors, the level of at- tention given the topic of wind turbines and possible health effects in the news and the Internet makes it difficult to study any popu- lation truly “blinded” to the hypotheses being evaluated. The main advantage of prospective cohort studies with a pre- and post–wind turbine component is the direct ability to compare changes in dis- ease and health status among individuals subsequently exposed to wind turbine noise with those among similar groups of people not exposed.Theseconditionsarenotreadilyapproximatedbyanyother study approach. A similar but more complex approach could include populations about to become exposed to other anthropogenic stim- uli, such as highways, railroads, commercial centers, or other power generation sources. We note that additional cross-sectional studies may not be capable of contributing meaningfully and in fact might reinforce biases already seen in many cross-sectional studies and surveys. Sound and Its Components Several types of efforts can be undertaken to test hypothe- ses proposed about inaudible sound being a risk for causing ad- verse health effects. It would be simple, at least conceptually, to expose blinded subjects to inaudible sounds, especially in the in- frasound range, to determine whether they could detect the sounds or whether they developed any unpleasant symptoms. Ideally, these studies would use infrasound levels that are close to hearing thresh- olds and comparable with real-world wind turbine levels at residen- tial distances. Crichton et al 137,149 have begun such studies, finding that subjects could not detect any difference between infrasound and sham “exposures.” The infrasound stimulus used, however, was only 40 dB at 5 Hz, more than 60 dB lower than hearing threshold and lower than levels measured at some residences near wind turbines. The possibility of adverse effects from inaudible sound could also be tested in humans or animals in long-term studies. To date, there seem to be no reports of adverse effects in people exposed to wind turbine noise that they could never hear (such reports would require careful controls), nor are any relevant animal studies known to the authors of this review. Controlled human exposure studies have been used to gain insight into the effects of exposure to LFN from wind turbines. Human volunteers are exposed for a short amount of time under defined conditions, sometimes following various forms of precon- ditioning, and different response metrics evaluated. Most of these studies addressed wind turbine noise annoyance but no direct health indicator; however, one study addressed visual reaction to the color of wind turbines in pictures, 73 and another evaluated physical symp- toms in response to wind turbine noise. 137,149 Efforts to document a potential effect of infrasound on health have been unsuccessful, including searches for responses to sound from cochlear type II afferent neurons or responses to inaudible Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. e126 C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 306 JOEM Volume 56, Number 11, November 2014 Wind Turbines and Health airborne sound from the vestibular system. But in other cases, the relevant experiments (can inaudible sound cause endolymphatic hy- drops?) seem not to have been conducted to date. This seemingly improbable hypothesis, however, could be tested in guinea pigs, which reliably develops endolymphatic hydrops in response to other experimental interventions. Psychological Factors This review has demonstrated that a complex combination of noise and personal factors contributes to some people reporting annoyanceinthecontextoflivingnearwindturbines.Furtherefforts at characterizing and understanding these issues can be directed to improvements in measurement of sound perception, data analysis, and conceptualization. We suggest improvements in the quality and standardization of measurement for important constructs like noise sensitivity and noise annoyance across studies. We also suggest eliminating the use of single-item “measures” for primary outcomes. Data analysis should ideally include effect size measures in all studies to supplement the significance testing (some significant differences are small when sample sizes are large). This will help improve the comparability of findings across studies. Integrate noise sensitivity, noise annoyance, and QOL into a broader more comprehensive theory of personality or psychologi- cal functioning, such as the widely accepted five-factor model of personality. SUMMARY 1. Measurements of low-frequency sound, infrasound, tonal sound emission, and amplitude-modulated sound show that infrasound is emitted by wind turbines. The levels of infrasound at cus- tomary distances to homes are typically well below audibility thresholds. 2. No cohort or case–control studies were located in this updated review of the peer-reviewed literature. Nevertheless, among the cross-sectional studies of better quality, no clear or consistent association is seen between wind turbine noise and any reported disease or other indicator of harm to human health. 3. Componentsofwindturbinesound,includinginfrasoundandlow- frequency sound, have not been shown to present unique health risks to people living near wind turbines. 4. Annoyance associated with living near wind turbines is a com- plexphenomenonrelatedtopersonalfactors.Noisefromturbines plays a minor role in comparison with other factors in leading people to report annoyance in the context of wind turbines. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors are most appreciative of the guidance of Profes- sor William Thilly, of MIT’s Department of Biological Engineering, who participated in the development of the outline and review and selection of contributors. He also conducted a comprehensive re- view of the manuscript with commentary addressed by all of the coauthors. REFERENCES 1. Knopper LD, Ollson CA, McCallum LC, et al. Wind turbines and human health.Front Public Health.2014;2:1–20. 2. Roberts JD, Roberts MA. Wind turbines: is there a human health risk? J Environ Health. 2013;75:8–13. 3. Kurpas D, Mroczek B, KarakiewiczB, Kassolik K, Andrzejewski W.Health impact of wind farms.Ann Agric Environ Med.2013;20:595–604. 4. Knopper LD, Ollson CA. Health effects and wind turbines: a review of the literature.Environ Health. 2011;10:78. doi:10.1186/1476-06X-10-78. 5. Jeffery R, Krough C, Horner B. Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines.Can Fam Physician. 2013;59:923–925. 6. Arra I, Lynn H, Barker K, et al. Systematic Review 2013: Association between wind turbines and human distress.Cureus. 2014;6:1–14. 7. Colby DC, Dobie R, Leventhall G, et al.Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects an Expert Panel Review. Washington, DC: American Wind Energy Association; Canadian Wind Energy Association; 2009. 8. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Preamble. In:IARC Mono- graphs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Lyon, France: IARC; 2006. 9. Bowlder D, Leventhal D.Wind Turbine Noise. Essex, England: Multi- Science Publishing; 2011. 10. Ohlund O, Larsson C. Sound propagation from wind turbines under various weather conditions. Fifth International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise; 2013; Denver, CO. 11. International Organization for Standardization.Acoustics—Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors—Part 2: General Method of Calcula- tion. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 1996. 12. Tachibana H, Yano H, Fukushima A. Assessment of wind turbine noise in immission areas. Fifth International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise; 2013; Denver, Colorado. 13. Hessler DM, Hessler G. Recommended noise level design goals and limits at residential receptors for wind turbine developments in the United States. Noise Control Eng J. 2011;59:94–104. 14. O’Neal R, Hellweg R, Lampeter R. Low-frequency noise and infrasound from wind turbines.Noise Control Eng. 2011;59:135–157. 15. O’Neal R, Hellweg R, Lampeter R. A study of low frequency noise and infrasound from wind turbines. July 2009. Available at http://www. nexteraenergycanada.com/pdf/Epsilon study.pdf . Accessed September 29, 2014. 16. Bullmore A, Adcock J, Jiggins M, Cand M. Wind farm noise predictions and comparison with measurements. Third International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise; 2009; Aalborg, Denmark. 17. Moeller H, Pedersen CS. Low-frequency noise from large wind turbines.J Acoust Soc Am.2011;129:3727–3744. 18. Turnbull C, Turner J, Walsh D. Measurement and level of infrasound from wind farms and other sources.Acoust Australia.2012;40:45–50. 19. Department of Trade and Industry.The Measurement of Low-Frequency Noise at Three UK Wind Farms. London, UK: Department of Trade and Industry; 2006. 20. Ochiai H, Inoue Y. Recent field measurements of wind turbine noise in Japan.Fourth International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise; 2011; Rome, Italy. 21. Howe B, McCabe N. Assessment of sound and infrasound at the Pubnico point wind farm, Nova Scotia. Second International Meeting on Wind Tur- bine Noise; 2007; Lyon, France. 22. Evans T, Cooper T, Lenchine V.Infrasound Levels Near Windfarms and in Other Environments. Adelaide, South Australia: Environment Protection Authority—Australia; 2013. 23. Ambrose SE, Rand RW, Krogh CM. Wind turbine acoustic investigation: Infrasound and low-frequency noise—a case study.Bulletin Sci Technol Soc.2012;32:128–141. 24. Stigwood M, Large S, Stigwood D. Audible amplitude modulation—results of field measurements and investigations compared to psychoacoustical as- sessment and theoretical research. Fifth International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise; 2013; Denver, CO. 25. McCabe J. Detection and quantification of amplitude modulation in wind turbine noise. Fourth International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise; 2011; Rome, Italy. 26. Cooper J, Evans T, Petersen D. Tonality assessment at a residence near a wind farm. Fifth International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise; 2013; Denver, CO. 27. Di Napoli C. Case study: wind turbine noise in a small and quiet commu- nity in Finland. Third International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise; 2009; Aalborg, Denmark. 28. Selenrich N. Wind turbines: a different breed of noise?Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122:20–25. 29. Walker B, Schomer P, Hessler G, Hessler D, Rand R.Low Frequency Acoustic Measurements at Shirley Wind Park. Madison, Wisconsin: Clean Wisconsin; 2012. 30. Gabriel J, Vogl S, Neumann T, Hubner G. Amplitude modulation and com- plaints about wind turbine noise. Fifth International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise; 2013; Denver, CO. 31. van den Berg F, Pedersen E, Bouma J, Bakker R.Project WINDFARMper- ception: Visual and Acoustic Impact of Wind Turbine Farms on Residents. Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine e127307 McCunney et al JOEM Volume 56, Number 11, November 2014 University of Gothenburg, Sweden: FP6-2005-Science and Society Final Report; project no. 044628;2008. 32. Jakobsen J. Infrasound emission from wind turbines J Low Freq Noise Vib. 2004;145–155. 33. Kaliski K, Neeraj G. Prevalence of complaints related to wind turbines in Northern New England. In: Proceedings of Meeting on Acoustics; June 2–7, 2013. Montreal, Canada. 34. ANSI 12.9.ANSI 12.9-2003 Part 2 Quantities and Procedures for Descrip- tion and Measurement of Environmental Sound. Part 2: Measurement of Long-Term, Wide-Area Sound. New York: American National Standards Institute; 2003. 35. International Electrotechnical Commission.IEC 61400-11 Wind Turbine Generator Systems—Part 11: Acoustic Noise Measurement Techniques. Geneva, Switzerland: International Electrotechnical Commission; 2012. 36. Sondergaard B, Hoffmeyer D, Plovsing B. Low-frequency noise from large wind turbines. Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise; 2007; Lyon, France. 37. ANSI 12.18.ANSI12.18-2009 Procedures for Outdoor Measurement of Sound Pressure Level. New York, NY: American National Standards Institute; 2009. 38. Tachibana H, Yano H, Sakamoto S, Sueoka S.Synthetic Research Program on Wind Turbine Noise in Japan. New York, NY: Inter-Noise; 2012. 39. Hessler G. Measuring and analyzing wind turbine infrasound and audible imissions at a site experiencing adverse community response. Fifth Interna- tional Conference on Wind Turbine Noise; 2013; Denver, CO. 40. Hansen K, Zajamsek B, Hansen C. Evaluation of secondary windshield designs for outdoor measurement of low-frequency noise and infrasound. Fifth International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise; 2013; Denver, CO. 41. Thibault B.Survey of Complaints Received by Relevant Authorities Regard- ing Operating Wind Energy in Alberta. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Pembina Institute; 2013. 42. Hennekens CH, Buring JE.Epidemiology in Medicine. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company; 1987. 43. Keith SE, Michaud DS, Bly SHP. A proposal for evaluating the potential healtheffectsofwindturbinenoiseforprojectsundertheCanadianEnviron- mentalAssessment Act.J Low Freq Noise Vib ActiveControl.2008;27:253– 265. 44. Bolin K, Bluhm G, Eriksson G, Nilsson ME. Infrasound and low-frequency noise from wind turbines: exposure and health effects.Environ Res Lett. 2011;6:035103. 45. Salt A, Kaltenbach J. Infrasound from wind turbines could affect humans. Bulletin Sci Technol Soc. 2011;31:296–302. 46. Bronzaft AL. The noise from wind turbines: potential adverse impacts on children’s well-being.Bulletin of Sci Technol Soc. 2011;31:291–295. 47. Harrison J.P. 2011. Wind turbine noise. Bull Sci Technol Soc.31: 256–261. 48. Krogh CME, Gillis L, Kouwen N, Aramini J. WindVOiCe, a self-reporting survey: adverse health effects, industrial wind turbines, and the need for vigilance monitoring.Bull Sci Technol Soc. 2011;31:334–345. 49. Phillips CV. Properly interpreting the epidemiologic evidence about the healtheffectsofindustrialwindturbinesonnearbyresidents.BullSciTechnol Soc. 2011;31:303–315. 50. Shain M. Public health ethics, legitimacy, and the challenges of indus- trial wind turbines: the case of Ontario, Canada.Bull Sci Technol Soc. 2011;31:346–353. 51. Farboud A, Crunkhorn R, Trinidade A. Wind turbine syndrome: fact or fiction?J Laryngol Otol.2013;127:222–226. 52. ChapmanS,StGeorgeA,WallerA,CakicA.Thepatternofcomplaintsabout Australian wind farms does not match the establishment and distribution of turbines: support for the psychogenic, “communicated disease” hypothesis. PLOS One. 8:e76584. 53. Mulvaney KK, Woodson P, Prokopy LS. Different shades of green: a case study of support for wind farms in the rural midwest.Environ Manage. 2013;51:1012–1024. 54. Chapman S. Factoid forensics: Have “more than 40” Australia families abandoned their homes because of wind turbines?Noise and Health. 2014;16:208–212. 55. Wolsink M, Sprengers M, Krreuper A, Pedersen TH, Westra CA. Annoy- ance from wind turbine noise on sixteen sites in three countries. In:Euro- pean Community Wind Energy Conference. Germany: Lubeck-Travemunde; 1993. 56. PedersenE,vandenBergF,BakkerR,BoumaJ.Canroadtrafficmasksound from wind turbines? Response to wind turbine sound at different levels of road traffic sound.Energy Policy.2010;38:2520–2527. 57. Bakker RH, Pedersen E, Van den berg GP, Stewart RE, Lok W, Bouma J. Impact of wind turbine sound on annoyance, self-reported sleep dis- turbance and psychological distress.Sci Total Environ. 2012;425:42–51. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.001. 58. Pedersen E, van den Berg F, Bakker R, Bouma J. Response to noise from modernwindfarmsintheNetherlands.JAcoustSocAm.2009;126:634–643. 59. Pedersen E, Larsman P. The impact of visual factors on noise annoyance among people living in the vicinity of wind turbines.J Environ Psychol. 2008;28:379–389. 60. Pedersen E, Waye K. Wind turbines—low level noise sources interfering with restoration?Environ Res Lett.2008;3:1–5. 61. PedersenE,WayeKP.Perceptionandannoyanceduetowindturbinenose—a dose-response relationship.J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;16:3460–3470. 62. Pedersen E, Waye KP. Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported health and well-being in different living environments.Occup Environ Med. 2007;64:480–486. 63. PedersenE.Healthaspectsassociatedwithwindturbinenoise—resultsfrom three field studies.Noise Control Eng J.2011;59:47–53. 64. Janssen S, Vos H, Eisses A, Pedersen E. A comparison between exposure- response relationships for wind turbine annoyance and annoyance due to other noise sources.J Acoust Soc Am. 2011;130: 3746–3753. 65. Pedersen E, Hallberg L-M, Persson Waye K. Living in the vicinity of wind turbines—a grounded theory study.Qual Res Psychol.2007;4:49–63. 66. Shepherd D, McBride D, Welch D, Dirks KN, Hill EM. Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health-related quality of life.Noise Health. 2011;13:333–339. 67. MroczekB,KurpasD,KarakiewiczB.Influenceofdistancesbetweenplaces of residence and wind farms on the quality of life in nearby areas.Ann Agric Environ Med.2012;19:692–696. 68. Nissenbaum M, Aramini J, Hanning CD. Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health.Noise & Health. 2012;14:237–243. 69. Taylor J, Eastwick C, Wilson R, Lawrence C. The influence of negative oriented personality traits on the effects of wind turbine noise.Pers Individ Differ.2013;54:338–343. 70. Magari SR, Smith CE, Schiff M, Rohr AC. Evaluation of community re- sponse to wind turbine related noise in Western New York State.Noise and Health. 2014;16:228–239. 71. Pawlaczyk-Luszczyriska M, Dudarewicz A, Zaborowski K, Zamojska- Daniszewska M, Waszkowska M. Evaluation of annoyance from the wind turbine noise: a pilot study.Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2014;27:364– 388. 72. Crichton F, Dodd G, Schmid G, Gamble G, Petrie KJ. Can expectations produce symptoms from infrasound associated with wind turbines?Health Psychol. 2014;33:360–364. 73. Crichton F, Dodd G, Schmid G, et al. The power of positive and negative expectations to influence reported symptoms and mood during exposure to wind turbine sound.Health Psychol. 2013 Nov 25 [Epub ahead of print]. 74. Maffei L, Iachini T, Masullo M, et al. The effects of vision-related aspects on noise perception of wind turbines in quiet areas.Int J Environ Res Public Health.2013;10:1681–1697. 75. Hill AB. Observation and experiment.N Engl J Med.1953;248:995–1001. 76. Leventhall HG, Benton S, Pelmear P. A review of published research on low-frequency noise and its effects. Available at:http://www.defra.gov.uk/ environment/noise/research/lowfrequency/pdf/lowfreqnoise.pdf . Published 2003. Accessed March 24, 2014. 77.Kaldellis JK, Garakis K, Kapsali M. Noise impact assessment on the basis of onsite acoustic noise immission measurements for a representative wind farm.Renewable Energy. 2012;41:306–314. 78. NationalResearchCouncil.EnvironmentalImpactsofWindEnergyProjects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007. 79. National Health and Medical Research Council.Wind Turbines and Health: A Rapid Review of the Evidence. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Govern- ment; 2010. 80. Møller H, Pedersen CS. Low-frequency noise from large wind turbines.J Acoust Soc Am.2011;129:3727–3744. 81. Leventhall G. Infrasound from wind turbines—fact, fiction or deception? Can Acoust.2006;34:29–36. 82. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Cincinnati, Ohio, 2014. 83. Salt A, Hullar TE. Responses of the ear to low-frequency sounds, infrasound and wind turbines.Hear Res.2010;268:12–21. 84. Pierpont N.Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment. Santa Fe, NM: K-Selected Books; 2009. Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. e128 C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 308 JOEM Volume 56, Number 11, November 2014 Wind Turbines and Health 85. Schomer PD, Erdreich J, Boyle J, Pamidighantam P. A proposed theory to explain some adverse physiological effects of the infrasonic emissions at some wind farm sites. Presented at 5th International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise; August 2013; Denver, CO. 86. Nageris BI, Attias J, Shemesh R, Hod R, Preis M. Effect of cochlear window fixation on air- and bone-conduction thresholds.Otol Neurotol. 2012;33:1679–1684. 87. Berglund AM, Brown MC. Central trajectories of type II spiral ganglion cells from various cochlear regions in mice.Hear Res.1994;75:121–130. 88. RobertsonD,SellickPM,PatuzziR.Thecontinuingsearchforouterhaircell afferents in the guinea pig spiral ganglion.Hear Res.1999;136:151–158. 89. Bowdler D. Wind turbine syndrome—an alternative view.Acoustics Australia. 2012;40:67–71. 90. Todd N, Rosengren SM, Colebatch JG. Tuning and sensitivity of the human vestibular system to low-frequency vibration.Neurosci Lett.2008;444:36– 41. 91. WelgampolaMS,RosengrenSM,HalmagyiGM,etal.Vestibularactivations by bone conducted sound.J Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2003;74:771–778. 92. Todd N, Rosengren SM, Colebatch JG. A source analysis of short-latency evoked potentials produced by air- and bone-conducted sound.J Clin Neu- rophysiol.2008;119:1881–1894. 93. Krause E, Mayerhofer A, G ¨urkov R, et al. Effects of acoustic stimuli used for vestibular evoked myogenic potential studies on the cochlear function. Otol Neurotol.2013;34:1186–1192. 94. Salt A. Acute endolymphatic hydrops generated by exposure of the ear to nontraumatic low-frequency tones.JARO.2004;5:203–214. 95. Yamada S, Ikuji M, Fujikata S, Watanabe T, Kosaka T. Body sensations of low-frequencynoiseofordinarypersonsandprofoundlydeafpersons.JLow Freq Noise Vibrat.1983;2:32–36. 96. Mittelstaedt H. Somatic graviception.Biol Psychol. 1996;42:53–74. 97. Mittelstaedt H. The role of otoliths in perception of the verticle and in path integration.Ann NY Acad Sci. 1999;871:334–344. 98. TakahashiY, KanadaK, Yonekawa Y, Harada N. A study on therelationship between subjective unpleasantness and body surface vibrations induced by high- level low-frequency pure tones.Ind Health.2005;43:580–587. 99. Hauser W, Hansen E, Enck P. Nocebo phenomena in medicine: their relevance in everyday clinical practice.Dtsch Arztebl Int.2012;109:459– 465. 100. Persson Waye K, Ohrstrom E. Psycho-acoustic characters of relevance for annoyance of wind turbine noise.J Sound Vibrat.2002;250:65–73. 101. Lee S, Kim K, Choi W, Lee S. Annoyance caused by amplitude modulation of wind turbine noise.Noise Control Eng J. 2011;59:38–46. 102. Fisher RS, Harding G, Erba G, et al. Photic and pattern induced seizures: a review for the Epilepsy Foundation of America Working Group.Epilepsia. 2005;46:1426–1441. 103. Harding G, Harding P, Wilkins A. Wind turbines, flicker, and photosensi- tive epilepsy: characterizing the flashing that my precipitate seizures and optimizing guidelines to prevent them.Epilepsia. 2008;49:1095–1098. 104. Smedley AR, Webb AR, Watkins AJ. Potential of wind turbines to elicit seizures under various meteorological conditions.Epilepsia. 2009;51:1146– 1151. 105. WorldHealthOrganization.NightNoiseGuidelinesforEurope.Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization; 2009. 106. Hanning C. Wind turbine noise [editorial].BMJ. 2012;344:e1527. doi: 1136/bmj.e1527 (March 8, 2012). 107. Chapman S. Editorial ignored 17 reviews on wind turbines and health.BMJ. 2012;344:e3366. 108. Pedersen E, Waye KP. Wind turbines: low level noise sources interfering with restoration?Environ Res Lett. 2008;3:1–5. 109. Muzet A. Environmental noise, sleep and health.Sleep Med Rev. 2007;11:135–142. 110. Szalma JL, Hancock PA. Noise effects on human performance: a meta- analytic synthesis.Psychol Bull. 2011;137:682–707. 111. Basner M, Babisch W, Davis A, et al. Auditory and non-auditory effects of noise on health.Lancet.2014;393:1325–1332. 112. Niemann H, Maschke C.WHO LARES: Report on Noise Effects and Mor- bidity. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2004. 113. World Health Organization.Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise: Quantification of Healthy Life Years Lost in Europe. Copenhagen: World Health Organization; 2011. 114. World Health Organization. World Health Organization quality of life as- sessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41:1403–1409. 115. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD.SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Sum- mary Scales: A User’s Manual. Boston, MA: The Health Institute; 1994. 116. Skevington SM, Lotfy M, O’Connell KA. The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: psychometric properties and results of the international field trial—a report from the WHOQOL group. Qual Life Res. 2004;13:299–310. 117. Rosenthal R. Progress in clinical psychology: is there any?Clin Psychol Sci Pract.1995;2:133–150. 118. McGrath RE, Meyer GJ. When effect sizes disagree: the case of r and d. Psychol Methods. 2006;11:386–401. 119. Cohen J.Statistical Power and Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988. 120. Rosenthal R. How are we doing in soft psychology?Am Psychol. 1990;45:775–777. 121. ZimmerK,EllermeierW.Psychometricpropertiesoffourmeasuresofnoise sensitivity: a comparison.J Environ Psychol. 1999;19:295–302. 122. Botteldooren D, Verkeyn A. A fuzzy rule based framework for noise annoy- ance modeling.J Acoust Soc Am. 2003;114:1487–1498. 123. Job RFS. Noise sensitivity as a factor influencing human reaction to noise. Noise Health. 1999;1:57–68. 124. Miedema HME, Vos H. Demographic and attitudinal factors that modify annoyance from transportation noise.J Soc Am. 1999;105:3336–3344. 125. Stansfeld SA. Noise sensitivity and psychiatric disorders: epidemiological and psycho physiological studies.Psychol Med Monogr Suppl.1992;22: 1–44. 126. Belojevic G, Jalovljevic B, Slepcevic V. Noise and mental performance: personality attributes and noise sensitivity.Noise Health. 2003;6:77–89. 127. Guski R, Felscher-Suhr U, Schuemer R. The concept of noise annoyance: how international experts see it.J Sound Vibr.1999;223:513–527. 128. vandenBergF.Lowfrequencynoiseandphantomsounds.JLowFrequency, Noise, Vibration and Active Control. 2009;28:105–116. 129. Pedersen E, Persson Waye K. 2007a. Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported health and well-being in different living environments.Occup Environ Med. 64:480–486. 130. Miedema HME, Oudshoorn CGM. Annoyance from transportation noise: relationship with exposure metrics DNL and DENL and their confidence interval.Environ Health Persp. 2001;109:409–416. 131. Johansson M, Laike T. Intention to respond to local wind turbines: the role of attitudes and visual perception.Wind Energy. 2007;10:435–445. 132. Shepherd D, McBride D, Welch D, et al. Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health related quality of life.Noise Health. 2011;13:333– 339. 133.Goldberg LR. The structure of phenotypic personality traits.Am Psychol. 1993;48:26–34. 134. Costa PT, McCrae RR.The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI- R) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1992. 135. Green RG, McCown EJ, Broyles JW. Effects of noise on sensitivity of introverts and extraverts to signals in a vigilance task.Pers Individ Dif. 1985;6:237–241. 136. Wright CI, Williams D, Feczko E, et al. Neuroanatomical correlates of extraversion and neuroticism.Cerebral Cortex.2006;16:1809–1819. 137. Colloca L, Finniss D. Nocebo effects, patient-clinician communication and therapeutic outcomes.JAMA.2012;307:567–568. 138. Crichton F, Dodd G, Schmid G, Gamble G, Cundy T, Petrie KJ. The power of positive and negative expectations to influence reported symptoms and mood during exposure to wind farm sound.Health Psychol. 2013. 139. Deignan B, Harvey E, Hoffman-Goetz L. Fright factors about wind turbines and health in Ontario newspapers before and after the Green Energy Act, Health, Risk & Society. 2013. doi:Htt://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 13698575.2013.776015. 140. Petrie KJ, Sivertsen B, Hysing M, et al. Thoroughly modern worries: the relationship of worries about modernity to reported symptoms, health and medical care utilization.J Psychosom Res. 2001;51:395–401. 141. McCallumLC,AslundML,KnopperL,FergusonGM,OllsonC.Measuring electromagnetic fields (EMF) around wind turbines in Canada: is there a human health concern?Environ Health. 2014;13:2–8. 142. Gross C. Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: the appli- cation of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance.Energy Policy.2007;35:2727–2736. 143. Aguinis H, Pierce CA, Culpepper SA. Scale coarseness as a methodologi- cal artifact: correcting correlation coefficients attenuated form using coarse scales.Organ Res Methods. 2009;12:623–652. Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine e129309 McCunney et al JOEM Volume 56, Number 11, November 2014 144. Rubin GJ, Burns M, Wessely S. Possible psychological mechanisms for “wind turbine syndrome.”Noise Health. 2014;16:116–122. 145. Vivian HY, Abrisham A, Peng PWH, Wong J, Chung F. Predictors of post- operative pain and analgesic consumption: a qualitative systematic review. Anesthesiology.2009;111:657–677. 146. Walker C, Baxter J, Ouelette D. Adding insult to injury: the development of psychosocial stress in Ontario Wind Turbine communities.Soc Sci Med. 2014; Jul 31:S0277–9536 [Epub ahead of print]. 147. Ambrose SE, Rand RW, James RR, Nissenbaum MA. Public complaints about wind turbine noise and adverse health impacts.J Acoust Soc Am. 2014;135:2272. 148. MiedemaHME,VosH.Associationsbetweenselfreportedsleepdisturbance and environmental noise based on reanalyses of polled data from 24 studies. Behav Sleep Med. 2007;5:1–20. 149. McMurtry R. Toward a case definition of adverse health effects in the en- virons of industrial wind turbines: facilitating a clinical diagnosis.Bull Sci Technol Soc. 2011;31:316. 150. Crichton F, Dodd G, Schmid G, Gamble G, Petrie KJ. Can expectations produce symptoms from infrasound associated with wind turbines?Health Psychol. 2014;33:360–364. 151. Macintosh A. Research to practice in the Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions: a thematic analysis of Volumes 1 through 24.J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26:230–243. 152. Benfield JA, Nurse GA, Jakubwski R, et al. Testing noise in the field: a brief measure of individual noise sensitivity [published online ahead of print August 1, 2012].Environ Behav. doi:10.1177/0013916512454430. 153. Buysse DJ, Reynolds CF,Monk TH, BermanSR,Kupfer DJ. The Pittsburgh sleep quality index: a new instrument for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatry Res.1989;28:193–213. 154. Hatfield J, Job R, Carter NL, Peploe P, Taylor R, Morrell S. The influence of psychological factors on self-reported physiological effects of noise.Noise Health. 2001;3:1–13. 155. International Organization for Standardization.Acoustics—Frequency- Weighting Characteristic for Infrasound Measurements. 2011. 156. Langdon FJ. Noise nuisance caused by road traffic in residential areas: part II.J Sound Vibrat. 1976;47:265–282. 157. MarksA,GriefahnB.Associationsbetweennoisesensitivity,andsleep,sub- jectively evaluated sleep quality, annoyance and performance after exposure to nocturnal traffic noise.Noise Health. 2007;9:1–7. 158. Miedema HME, Vos H. Noise sensitivity and reactions to noise and other environmental conditions.J Acoust Soc Am. 2003;113:1492–1504. 159. Shepherd D, Welch D, Dirks KN, Mathews R. Exploring the relationship between noise sensitivity, annoyance and health-related quality of life in a sample of adults exposed to environmental noise.Int J Res Public Health. 2010;7:3579–3594. 160. Soames Job RF. Noise sensitivity as a factor influencing human reactions to noise.Noise Health. 1999;1:57–68. 161. Stansfeld SA, Clark CR, Jenkins IM, Tranoplsky A. Sensitivity to noise in a community noise sample: I. The measurement of psychiatric disorders and personality.Psychol Med. 1985;15:243–254. 162. Weinstein ND. Individual differences in the reaction to noise: a longitudinal study in a college dormitory.J Appl Psychol. 1978;63:458–466. Copyright © 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. e130 C 2014 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 Comments to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Marcus Gingerich, PhD 101 Rumsey Hill Road Newfield, NY 14867 April 22, 2016 Town of Enfield Town Clerk 168 Enfield Main Road Ithaca, NY 14850 To the Enfield Town Board: This letter presents my comments to the Black Oak Wind Farm (BOWF) Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS). Personal Impacts 1. The Modified Project now potentially places two additional turbines (B and C) within 0.87mi and 0.99mi. of my home, see Table 1. What this means is that there are now potentially 6 turbines within less than 1mi. of my home where my family spends a great deal of time due to being homeschooled. In particular, during the winter months when the wind speeds tend to be the highest, my wife and children will be subjected to an elevated probability of being exposed to low frequency noise (LFN) and infrasound (IS) for long periods of time due to being predominately downwind from one or more turbines. This will be exacerbated by the additional 2 turbines (B and C) located to the northwest which is the direction from which the wind is often blowing from during the winter. 2. With 6 turbines located in an array extending from the southwest to the northwest, our home will be often subjected to the elevated effects of noise, in particular, infrasound, due to being downwind from a wind turbine a high percentage time based on the prevailing wind direction. Our single greatest concern is the potential adverse effects of infrasound upon the health of my children whether it a result of annoyance or sleep disturbance. While many people completely disregard all reported effects except noise annoyance and sleep disturbance, and those are usually trivialized; sleep disturbance resulting in chronic sleep loss is a significant health issue which has been shown to have very serious ramifications including permanent neural damage and may have implications to Parkinson's and Alzheimer’s disease.1,2,3 With no consideration for these possible effects in the DSEIS, is doesn't seem that a real hard look was given to the 1 https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/3584/scientists-discover-previously-unknown-cleansing-system-in- brain.aspx 2 https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/3956/to-sleep-perchance-to-clean.aspx 3 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3880190/ 1 394 environmental impacts. Since no real consideration was given, obviously, no mitigation was deemed necessary. This issue should have been addressed in the DSEIS since it is becoming recognized as a real and significant problem. 3. Another great personal concern is the potential loss of real estate value and/or the complete incapability of selling our home if living in it becomes impossible. There are cases in this country and around the world of people simply boarding up their homes and abandoning them because they can no longer tolerate the effects of wind turbine noise and they can not sell their homes. Many claim that studies show that there is no loss of property value; however, Denmark recognizes the problem and has a national law which requires that homeowners be compensated for their loss in property value depending upon how close the property is located to wind turbines. There is no consideration given in this DSEIS to the possibility of such an occurrence in the vicinity of this project even though the distances between turbines and residents are very short. This impact must be considered and mitigation proposed. Turbine Distance to my home* T1 0.76mi T3 0.50mi. T4 1.45mi. T5 0.67mi. T6 0.55mi. TA 1.11mi. TB 0.87mi TC 0.99mi. Table 1: Distance between my home and the various turbines. It is clear from the DSEIS that the Turbines in bold have moved. *as indicated on Google Earth based on coordinates from FAA website. 4.Based on the DSEIS, it is unclear whether shadow flicker may affect our home due to the lack of specific simulation data and the poor resolution of the overall shadow flicker map. From the map, it appears to fall on my property at least somewhat and in an area where my family raises a garden and utilizes the field for recreation. In particular, it appears to fall across an area of our property which is used as an ice skating rink in the winter and that is the season when the flicker would be expected to be most prevalent due to the sun passing low in the southwestern sky behind turbine 6. Based on the DSEIS, it is unclear what the impact might be because there is a lack of data or enough detail to make a definitive assessment. 5.The FAA lighting on the top of the nacelle has the potential to cause a problem year round, but particularly during the winter months with 'leaf off' conditions. The DSEIS only considers the 'leaf on' conditions for almost all of the evaluations which is not the case for 6 months of the year. In fact, during the winter any snow cover is likely to increase the effect of flashing tower 2 395 lights due to reflection and may cause sleep disturbance since my children's bedrooms have windows in the direction of the towers. No consideration is given to the impact of the wind turbines during the 'leaf off' conditions. The DSEIS can not be considered to be complete if it does not take into consideration these potential impacts. Possible mitigation for visual effects during the leaf off half of the year need to be included in the DSEIS. The Modified Project 1. The modified project includes a number of changes, but without the benefit of exact locations of the various components it is difficult to ascertain the validity of the claims made. The DSEIS does indicate the relocation of two turbines (Turbine 2 and Turbine 7) and states that there is a “Shift of Turbine 5 approximately 160 feet to the south‐southeast to comply with GE recommended setback for ice throw;” however, it does not acknowledge the shift of Turbine 6 by approximately 75 feet (shown on pg. 5, Appendix E) or the apparent shift of all of the remaining turbines by small amounts as indicated in the attached reports by Les Blomberg. 2. The actual movement of Turbine 5 is not clear because depending on where it is mentioned in the DSEIS, it ranges from 100ft. to 160ft. Is the exact proposed location even known? Without knowing the exact location, how can an accurate assessment of the impact of such things as shadow flicker, ice/blade throw, and to some extent noise, be properly assessed. The DSEIS should not be considered until consistently accurate details are included in the document. The DSEIS should be corrected by the sponsor and then presented to the public again for review and substantive comments. 3. The modified project indicates that there is an increase in electrical generation capacity (nameplate capacity) from 11.9 MW to 16.1 MW, but it does not indicate what the actual production is expected to be. For the proposed region, it is going to be significantly less than the name plate capacity and based on various estimates, it will possibly be 25% or even as low as 12-15% of name plate capacity. Thus, there may be a gross overestimation of the beneficial environmental impact of clean energy. Without a knowledge of the real benefits of the wind turbines, a real assessment of the trade-offs between adverse impacts and benefits cannot be made. According to the online resource Biodiversity and Wind Energy Siting in New York4, most of the proposed wind farm and in particular Turbines B and C are located in areas which are rated as having marginal wind resource potential although this data does reflect a 50m height. There is no indication in the DSEIS that the wind resource in the modified layout has high enough energy potential to warrant the environmental impacts that are caused by the modified location of the turbines. The move must be justified with data that shows there is a reasonable expectation of beneficial returns given the environmental impacts. There is no cost/benefit analysis even qualitatively much less quantitatively. The assumption seems to be made that 4 http://www.ebd.mapny.info/ 3 396 wind energy is clean thus any impacts on the environment and the local residents is justified no matter what the actual energy production. Avian and Bat Studies 1. There has been a significant change in the project layout with Turbines B and C being much farther north than any turbines previously and Turbine A much farther south. Turbines B and C are well away, more than a 1 mile, from the location where the bat acoustic study was conducted near the intersection of Black Oak Road and Cayutaville Road in 2009. (see DEIS, Appendix O) This study needs to be redone in the proximity of the new turbine locations as there are barns and trees in the proposed areas which could house bats in general, and endangered bats, in particular. This should be redone and included in the DSEIS since it is impossible to assess the true impact of the modified project on these areas. 2. Bat populations could certainly be expected to move several miles within 7 years. As the NYSDEC noted in their 2013 DEIS comments, “Bat acoustical monitoring took place only during August 24-October 9, 2009. This time frame does not cover the spring migratory, summer breeding or early fall swarming/migratory periods. Bats in NY are active April through October, and are particularly susceptible to impacts from turbines July through September. Acoustical monitoring should be a component of post-construction monitoring surveys.” This should also be done and included in the DSEIS to ascertain that there are no potential impacts prior to commencing the project rather than simply picking up the dead bats after the project is in operation. There can be no substantive assessment of the impact on the bat population if there is no study on them in the local vicinity. There is also no real proposed mitigation except to participate in a post-construction study. If there are problems, how will the impact on birds and bats be mitigated? Possible solutions would be to shut down the turbines during critical times/seasons; however, no such mitigation measures are presented. If the mitigation includes shutting down or reducing operation of the turbines, how does this impact the benefit of project? A hard look requires knowing the potential trade-offs between adverse impacts on the local environment and residents versus the potential benefits of the green energy provided by the wind turbines. 3. The Fish and Wildlife Service also had many recommendations for the DEIS, but only after the close of the public comment period because they were not even notified. There is no mention of mitigation of bat fatalities by adjusting turbine cut-in speeds as recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Service also recommended radar studies to determine wildlife use of the project area which is of particular concern due to its location between two lakes and the nearby Connecticut Hill Wildlife Management Area among other nearby significant natural wildlife areas. Fish and Wildlife Service goes on to say, “no other wind energy projects have been constructed in a similar setting.” Since at least 2 turbines are in completely new areas, a 4 397 new set of studies including bird surveys needs to be done. 4. The Post Construction Avian Bat Monitoring Study Plan (FEIS, Appendix P) specifies a search area of 125m x 125m under each turbine which doesn't even cover the extent of the turbine blades on the GE2.3-107. This is convenient for the wind farm operator as then there are fewer carcasses to be found due to being struck by the turbines and fewer carcasses means fewer impacts to have to explain. There is also no mention of an acoustic monitoring study post- construction as recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Service. 5. There were many recommendations by the Fish and Wildlife Service with regard to the DEIS and the FEIS, but it seems that many were simply disregarded up to and including the current DSEIS. The bottom line is that it appeared to that the Fish and Wildlife Service found that there was a general lack of data which does not appear to have improved with the latest DSEIS related to the Modified Project layout. The Town of Enfield needs to be sure that all of the relevant points are addressed before accepting the DSEIS for the Modified Project. In particular, the additional avian and bat studies must be done prior to producing an FSEIS. 6. The proposed assessment of Threatened and Endangered Species is to include in the FEIS the response of a letter to the New York Natural Heritage Program regarding threatened and endangered species in the Modified Project Site and in its vicinity. This is not an assessment of the environmental impact nor does it propose any mitigation. As discussed above, at minimum, an acoustic study needs to be conducted in the vicinity of Turbines B and C as well as Turbine A. These locations are a significant distance away from the original study location conducted in 2009 and both areas include features that would be conducive the habitation of bats including the endangered Long Eared Bat. This must be done before the DSEIS can realistically be considered complete or having taken a hard look at the environmental impact. Shadow Flicker 1. The DSEIS shadow flicker study indicates that 30 hours per year is the typical threshold (not actually true, 30hrs/yr. is the typical MAX); however, there is no assessment of the daily amount of shadow flicker on all residences, in particular, my home or my neighbors on Rumsey Hill Road. Germany establishes a daily limit of 30min. of shadow flicker. No exact amount is indicated at my residence and due to the poor resolution of the shadow flicker maps it is difficult to make a reasonable assessment of the impact of flicker upon my home and property. There are any number of homes which do receive a very significant amount of shadow flicker. The study indicates that none will receive more than 30hrs per year; however, it never acknowledges that this assessment is based on a statistical model which makes assumptions such as to the wind direction (turbine orientation) and sunny days per year. It is very unlikely that the number of hours of shadow flicker will actually be what was modeled. In fact, it could be several times higher during any given year. 5 398 The only safe way to evaluate the impact is to assume that all days will be sunny and the turbines will be oriented in such a way that they produce maximum flicker to the receptor. Under that scenario, a number of the residents near turbines B and C will likely receive shadow flicker several times as much as predicted. A simple Google Sketchup model indicates that receptor CG could receive almost an hour of shadow flicker per day depending on the time of year. This would be considered completely unacceptable by German standards. Yet again, the true environmental impacts are not considered by the DSEIS and again, no mitigation is deemed necessary except for a complaint hotline. That is not mitigation. NOISE 1. The noise study does not include updated ambient sound levels for the Modified Project areas. As noted in the attached reports by Les Blomberg, the DSEIS itself is significantly flawed with respect to its noise analysis. Not only does the DSEIS utilize an excessively high ambient noise figure, it makes numerous other errors which need to be corrected before the DSEIS can be considered to have taken a hard look at the at the environmental impact of noise. 2. It is also noted that there has been little assessment of the ambient noise on the eastern slope of Connecticut Hill. All but one of the measurements were done on the western slope which is where the prevailing winds tend to come from. Therefore it would seem likely that the western slope would be noisier due to any wind during sound monitoring. If this same measurement is used as the ambient noise level on the eastern slope, this will give the effect of an ambient noise level which is higher than it actually is. With 6 turbines within 1mi. of my home it is very conceivable that the noise level will be significantly higher than predicted, but the level above the reported ambient will be minimized by referencing to an inflated ambient measured from the west slope of Connecticut Hill. 3. There can be compounded effects depending upon the configuration of multiple turbines particularly if they line up in a row as that can have a significant effect on sound attenuation. The sound source becomes more like a line source which has a lower decay rate than is normally seen with a point source.5 Of even more significance is the modeling used which is not accurate for a noise source more than 30m above the ground.6 The computer simulations typically use this flawed model, but without access to the input data or the actual modeling, it is impossible to assess the accuracy of the modeling, thus is should be considered of no value. 4. With the addition of 2 turbines to the northwest of my home and one to the south, one would think that the specific noise level would be evaluated at my home. With 6 proposed turbines less than 1mi. from my home, it would be reasonable to think that it would receive a specific predicted noise level much like other receptors which are located at greater distances and in the 5 http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910007366.pdf 6 Richard James, INCE, Enfield Wind Farm Advisory Committee Meeting Expert Testimony 6 399 noise band of similar or lower predicted noise levels. With 4 turbines located to the northwest of my home and the prevailing winds from the NW, it seems very likely that wind carried noise may be a particular problem for my family's home. Instead, there are many receptors delineated farther from the project, but to the northwest. This is very peculiar and might suggest plans to expand the wind farm in that direction in the future. Any such plans must be indicated. It should also be noted that a comparison of the DEIS and DSEIS noise contour maps shows that the noise at my property is likely to have increased by several dBA though again, the exact amount is difficult to ascertain due to the low resolution and lack of specific data. 5. The stated ambient noise level is an averaged A-weighted noise level which is not indicative of the very quiet nature of this rural area. Rural areas are typically much quieter than that. The figures should be much lower including down into the 20-30dBA range. If the monitoring was not done properly or was done when there was rain or wind (as was indicated at one point in the monitoring study) then the ambient noise levels will average out to be much higher than it should. These measurements should be redone during various seasons of the year to get a more accurate representation of the soundscape of the area. This should be done, included in the DSEIS and made available for public review and comment. 6. The claims are made that the LNTE blades will decrease the noise levels by 2dBA, but there is no indication what portion of the frequency spectrum is actually affected. Without any indication of the specific effect on the various portions of the noise spectrum, it is unclear whether this might actually cause more problems as it could push the noise into a range which is more problematic or otherwise objectionable. 7. All data is given in bands which average out any individual peaks that might be occurring at specific frequencies. Without the use of narrow band data across the frequency spectrum, it is difficult to assess whether there might be very high peaks at specific frequencies which might prove to be particularly annoying or harmful. A recent study by Cooper has shown that the wind turbine noise does have very distinct peaks particularly in the low frequency and infrasound range.7 This data for the GE2.3-107 turbine needs to be included in the DSEIS and made available for public scrutiny, comment and use. Infrasound and Vibration 1. There is no data included in the DSEIS regarding the sound power produced by the GE2.3-107. In order to make any reasonable assessment of the noise impacts or the modeling results, these data are absolutely necessary and the DSEIS should not be considered as completely reviewed until such time as that data is made available with appropriate time for scrutiny and use in modeling and simulations. The sound power needs to be included down into the <20Hz range 7 http://www.pacifichydro.com.au/english/our-communities/communities/cape-bridgewater-acoustic-study-report/? language=en 7 400 and measured in (Sound Pressure Level) SPL or C-weighted rather than A-weighted as A- weighting (audible weighting) the low frequency and infrasound ranges hides the true power in the air pressure waves which have been attributed to causing annoyance, sleep disturbance, and indirectly, if not directly, health related problems for individuals living more than a mile from industrial wind turbine facilities. 2. Wind developers generally dismiss the health risks of infrasound and low frequency noise as insignificant; thus, they generally not regulated or monitored.8 In keeping, there is no evaluation in this DSEIS or DEIS of infrasound at all except to refer to a scientist who makes the claim that because individuals can not audibly hear infrasound produced by wind turbines, it will not be perceived by the individual. However, this has been shown to be incorrect based upon recent studies which monitored brain activity using EEG,9 fMRI and MEG10 while subjecting the individual to inaudible infrasound. Salt, et al., showed that there is a plausible pathway for infrasound to be perceived by the inner ear.11 By directly quantifying the inner ear sensitivity to LFN through measurement of spontaneous otoacoustic emissions, another study demonstrated the potential for hearing damage as there is a significant discrepancy between perception and the risk potential of LFN.12 Thus, there is no substantive reason to completely dismiss infrasound as a potential source of significant impact upon the environment around wind turbines. Information and studies need to be included in the DSEIS and evaluated properly. Mitigation measures need to be considered. 3. Infrasound is claimed by some to be a non-issue because modern wind turbines are upwind design versus downwind. A NASA/DOE/SERI study of 3 wind turbine configurations including downwind, upwind and vertical showed that all wind turbines produce infrasound although upwind is better than the other two configurations.13 No mitigation is proposed except to coerce the residents into a Good Neighbor Agreement thereby giving up their rights. The use of a community outreach and communication plan does not provide an acceptable mitigation as there is no proposed resolution except to escalate any complaint that may arise up the chain of command within the company. With only an 800 number to call, this is not an acceptable form of mitigation. Real mitigation must be proposed and included in the DSEIS. 4. There is no assessment of the impact of larger turbine blades and likely slower rotation which pushes the infrasound frequency even lower. Residents near turbines A, B and C have the potential to be suffer adverse effects if only annoyance and sleep interruption as a result of the greater infrasound amplitude and lower frequencies generated by the larger blades. The 8 Stelling et al., 2015, s3.amazonaws.com/windaction/attachments/2510/Infasound__and_wind_turbines_final_version_4_August_2015.pdf 9 Kasprzak, 2014, http://psjd.icm.edu.pl/psjd/element/bwmeta1.element.bwnjournal-article-appv125n4a04kz 10 Bauer, et al., 2015, http://waubrafoundation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Bauer-et-al.-Investigation-of- Perception-at-Infrasound-Frequencies-by-MRI-and-MEG.pdf 11 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2923251/ 12 http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/2/140166 13 Hubbard, et al., http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910007366.pdf 8 401 distance is less than 1mi. to my home and thus it is very possible that my home could be a significant receptor of the infrasound due to the lower rate of dissipation associated with lower frequency and longer wavelength of the generated noise. 5. Infrasound has been found to cause vibration in structures which can effectively amplify the pressure waves, thereby making the problem more significant inside structures than outside. Prof. Alan Hedges of Cornell U. indicates that vibrations in the frequency range of 0.5 Hz to 80 Hz have significant effects on the human body because of the natural resonance frequencies of the human body and its various parts or organs. The resonant frequencies can result in as much as a 350% amplification of the vibration depending on the frequency and location in the body (20 to 30 Hz between the head and shoulders). According to Prof. Hedges, whole body vibration may create chronic stresses and sometimes even permanent damage to the affected organs or body parts. Suspected health effects of whole body vibration include:14 –Blurred vision –Decrease in manual coordination –Drowsiness (even with proper rest) –Low back pain/injury –Insomnia –Headaches or upset stomach As pointed out by the Kelley studies of 30 years ago, one of the significant issues was the sensation of vibrations in the structure of the affected homes.15 There is evidence that the strong resonances found in the acoustic pressure field measured within rooms indicates a coupling of sub-audible energy to human body resonances at 5, 12, and 17-25 Hz, resulting in a sensation of whole-body vibration.16 The Army investigated the potential health issues related to low frequency vibration based on their own studies of developing chick embryos (as a model for human embryos) and because of the potential health hazard restricted pregnant aviators from rotary-wing flying duties.17 There is no acknowledgment or discussion of the potential impact of infrasound and whole body vibration much less a proposed mitigation. This impact should be considered in the DSEIS and mitigation proposed. 6. Another potential environmental impact which should be included in the DSEIS is an analysis of the coupling of vibrations from the wind turbine into the ground and propagation to residences. There are several sources of vibration including the machinery in the nacelle which would in general be of higher frequency in nature. If they couple directly to the bedrock, these vibrations could propagate for very long distances. An even more significant potential source of ground vibration is the natural resonant frequency 14 http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/studentdownloads/dea3500pdfs/whole-bodyvibration.pdf 15 http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/3261.pdf 16 http://docs.wind-watch.org/kelley_ASME_1982.pdf 17 http://www.usaarl.army.mil/techreports/95-1.pdf 9 402 of the tower with the very heavy nacelle attached to the top. It acts much like a giant tuning fork when excited by wind. No analysis of what frequency this might resonate at is included. This is likely to be a very low frequency much like the infrasound. With the very low frequency and thus long wavelength, it is not inconceivable that the pressure waves could propagate for very long distances through the ground and/or bedrock. These traveling pressure waves could couple into the structures of residences through the foundation and cause structural vibration. Without an analysis of the natural resonant frequeny of these particular wind turbine and how they might propagate locally, it is very difficult to make a reasonable assessment of the impact. The impact of these vibrations on wildlife is not addressed in the DSEIS. This analysis should be developed, included and presented to the public for further scrutiny and comments. Cumulative Impacts 1. The cumulative impacts are not correctly assessed. While the DSEIS indicates that 2 turbines are being completely relocated to 2 of 3 possible sites and one turbine (Turbine 5) is moving a small distance. The reality is that almost all of the turbines appear to be moving at least a small amount. In particular, turbine 6 is moving a small amount as shown in Appendix E, Summary of Cultural Resources Studies Relative to Modified Project Layout. A careful overlay of the project reveals that turbines 3 and 6 have moved by about the same amount whereas turbine 1 has moved by about half as much. So, what we have is a situation where virtually all of the components of this project have moved. So, either the project does not have an accurate site plan, or the developer is hiding the fact that they are moving the turbines to avoid conducting a more comprehensive environmental impact assessment. Again, since the developer fails to disclose the exact location of the turbines in the previous FEIS or the current DSEIS, it is easy for them to do so without anyone noticing it. The exact location data needs to be included and resubmitted to the public for scrutiny and comments. 2. The DSEIS states in section 2.12.1 that the Modified Project visual study area and the Approved Project study are essentially the same. The reality is that the north-to-south extent has increased from approximately 0.88 mi to 1.92 mi. (according to Google Earth, and depending on the configuration ultimately chosen for the project layout), this is over a 100% increase in potential visual impact when viewed from the east or west though primarily east. 3. The DSEIS compares the proposed modified project to other proposed or future projects, but it doesn't really look at the cumulative effect of the Modified Project itself. Due to the placement of turbines A and B in close proximity to each other as well as to turbines 1 and 3, the cumulative effect upon the nearby residents is likely to be very significant. In particular, properties R101 and R102 are virtually at a focal point or the intersection of where a straight line drawn through turbines A and B intersects with a straight line drawn through turbines 1 and 3. This focal point has the potential to result in several very significant impacts. This could 10 403 easily become a “heightened noise zone”18 depending upon wind direction and prevailing atmospheric conditions as well as a point where shadow flicker is absolutely excessive. Depending on the relative rotational speed, blade synchronization and distance between the turbines and the receptors, the combined effects could be completely intolerable. There is no discussion of this potential extreme impact nor are any possible mitigation factors presented or considered. If the worst case becomes reality, what mitigation would the developer propose? Would it shut down the turbines as necessary when conditions cause problems at those receptors? How much of the time will that be necessary? Depending upon the amount of lost production time, is the environmental impact of those turbines even worth the minimal benefit of the reduced energy production? What is the break even point and upon which side of the equation is the configuration currently fall? These hard questions need to be answered properly and exposed to public scrutiny and comment. 4. A similar, but not as extreme, situation occurs at 101 Rumsey Hill Road where there is an array of 6 turbines arranged from north-to-south which have the potential to cause multiple problems at my home. What are the answers to the cumulative problems and how might they be mitigated? I would like to hear answers to those questions before the modified project is approved. 5. There is no assessment of the potential impact of the cumulative mitigation measures on the projected output of the seven turbines. If mitigation measures necessitate the shutdown or reduction in output of some or all of the turbines at various times, what is the effect on power output of the project. If necessary mitigation measures reduce the energy output of the project by too much, then there comes a point when cost (environmental impact) of the project outweighs the benefit. No hard look at the cost-benefit relationship of the project is presented and considered where the break even point might be. At what point does this project fall in that analysis? Is it above the break even point or below it? At what point does mitigation push the cost-benefit equation to the point of being too costly to the local environment/residents to be of any use? The DSEIS needs to take a hard look at the environmental impacts and truly assess whether the benefits outweigh the costs. This needs to be presented to the public for comment. 6. The Modified Project does not include new core boring for the turbine foundation locations. This needs to be done to assess the geology for proper placement of the turbine foundation. Another issue is there is no indication that the previous core drillings were ever properly sealed in order to protect the water table. Left unsealed, there is now a direct path for surface contamination at numerous bore locations around the Black Oak area. This has the potential to be a very adverse environmental impact. 18 Thorne, et. al, https://www.acoustics.asn.au/conference_proceedings/INTERNOISE2014/papers/p599.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,- 12,843 11 404 Mitigation 1. Throughout the DSEIS, the proposed mitigation measures are very minimal and generally dismissive. The most prominent method of mitigation is to make an affected resident a project participant through a 'Good Neighbor Agreement' (GNA). While this might provide a minimal amount of monetary compensation for the affected residents, it is highly unlikely to cover significant medical expenses which might be incurred by residents who suffer health issues as a result of the proximity to the turbines. Also, since the GNA requires that individuals sign away their rights for minimal monetary benefits, it is essentially coercion. 2. In several cases, one mitigation simply utilizes the property of nonparticipants to provide the necessary safety zone around the turbines to gain protection from physical dangers such as ice throw or blade failure. This is not a proper form of mitigation, it is an uncompensated easement onto a neighboring property. The neighboring property owner is now forced to give up safe access and usable right to their property. Other means of mitigation must be developed or the turbines must be moved so as not to infringe upon the property rights of nonparticipating neighbors. 3. Until the DSEIS actually proposes useful and real measures of mitigation, the DSEIS cannot be considered complete or as having taken a hard look at the environmental impact and truly propose alternatives and/or mitigation measures. A hard look raises the real issues. A hard look then proposes alternatives or mitigation to those real issues. This DSEIS does not. Community Character The DSEIS indicates that “the Modified Project is not anticipated to result in any additional adverse impacts to growth and community character.” The DSEIS obviously did not consider the additional traffic on the community roads due to 'gawkers' visiting the community and likely trespassing on private property in order to get close to wind turbines. This effect will contribute to the already significant loss of a serene and private environment for which the proposed area is known. This quiet country setting is why many of the residents chose to live here. With the intrusion of large industrial wind turbines and the likely incursion of added road traffic and loss of privacy for the area residents, many of those residents will have lost a significant and important characteristic of their chosen community. Summary In summary, the DSEIS in its current form is cursory at best. Extensive consideration must be given to the various impacts and look at possible mitigation measures. Based on the cumulative changes to the entire project as well as the poor evaluation of the actual environmental impacts, the DSEIS should be completely revised to include the results of additional studies of the actual presence of and effects on wildlife including birds and bats. Real consideration should actually be given to the location of the 12 405 turbines rather than just placing them at the location that seems to be feasible. It should also take a real look at the potential health and safety impacts of the turbines and where they are located relative to residents. The setback distances from those residents should be increased or some other method of mitigating the potential adverse health effects enlisted. If they cannot be located in the proposed locations while still maintaining the health and safety of the residents, then they need to be located somewhere else where the adverse effects will not harm residents. Sincerely, Marcus Gingerich, PhD 13 406 Ambient Sound Levels Near BOWF April 22, 2016 Prepared by Les Blomberg, Noise Pollution Clearinghouse, PO Box 1137, Montpelier VT 05601 407 2 I. Introduction On April 17th and 18th, 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 17th and 18th, 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. 408 3 Figure 1: Approximate Measurement Locations 377 Harvey Hill Rd. Daytime: 34.1 dBA Nighttime: 27.1 dBA 115 W. Enfield Center Rd. (not shown on map) Daytime: 35.9 dBA Nighttime: 25.2 dBA 637/641 Black Oak Daytime: 34.0 dBA Nighttime: 37.3 dBA 215 Connecticut Hill Daytime: 31.9 dBA Nighttime: 27.2 dBA 185 Leonard Rd Daytime: 30.1 dBA Nighttime: NA 409 4 Figure 2 shows the measurement results. 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.) Daytime Location Date and Time Leq Lmax L1 L10 L50 L90 Lmin 637/641 Black Oak Rd.4/17/16 16:00 34.0 54.6 45.7 35.4 28.5 24.2 21.4 115 W. Enfield Center Rd.4/18/16 11:45 35.9 58.0 47.4 38.4 29.3 25.0 21.5 215 Connecticut Hill Rd.4/18/16 11:00 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.4/17/16 17:10 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.4/17/16 23:45 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.4/17/16 22:10 27.1 49.4 33.4 29.6 25.5 19.9 14.2 410 5 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. 411 6 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. 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.4/18/16 11:45 35.9 NA 215 Connecticut Hill Rd.4/18/16 11:00 31.9 55 23.1 185 Leonard Rd.4/18/16 9:55 30.1 45 14.9 377 Harvey Hill Rd.4/17/16 17:10 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 25.9 412 Critique of the Noise Analysis of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Black Oak Wind Farm April 20, 2016 Prepared by Les Blomberg, Noise Pollution Clearinghouse, PO Box 1137, Montpelier VT 05601 413 2 Contents Critique of the Noise Analysis of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Black Oak Wind Farm Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 3 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 II. Quiet Is the Expectation in Rural Areas ................................................................................................ 5 III. 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 FEIS 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 at Night ................................................................................................................................................... 28 XIII. The DSEIS Understated the Scope of the Project and Shielded Noise Impacts from Scrutiny ........ 30 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 30 414 Introduction This report is a critique of noise analysis in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Black Oak Wind Farm (DSEIS), submitted on February 22, 2016, and the noise appendix, Appendix H of the DSEIS. To the extent that the DSEIS relied upon the prior Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Appendix K, and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Appendix T, those are also critiqued. The report is divided into 12 parts (I-XII) and it describes how the DSEIS failed to take a hard look at the noise impacts of the Black Oak Wind Farm (BOWF). The DSEIS failed to thoroughly analyze turbine noise for significant adverse impacts and failed to support its determination of no significant impact. Specific problems include: 1. The DSEIS failed to actually assess noise impacts of the project. Part IV. 2. The DSEIS failed to assess noise with respect to local laws. Part V. 3. The DSEIS incorrectly compared its noise data to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) SEQRA Criterion of Significance. Part VI. 4. The noise modeling the DSEIS used is unreliable. Part VII 5. The noise monitoring the DSEIS used is unreliable. Part VIII The DSEIS failed to analyze BOWF with respect to its own proposed tests of significant noise impacts (Parts V-VI). Had it correctly done that analysis, it would have concluded that the project has significant noise impacts (Parts IX-XII). Before examining the specific ways in which the DSEIS failed to take a hard look at the noise impacts of BOWF, it is important to understand noise pollution (Part I), the rural context of the existing acoustic environment (Part II) and the unique character of wind turbine noise (Part III). I. Understanding Noise and Noise Pollution Noise: a sound that interferes with a task, function, process, health or wellbeing; a sound that is inharmonious or out of place The term noise has multiple definitions because it has multiple uses. We use noise to describe a large range of sounds, including very loud sounds that cause hearing loss (a threat to well-being), sounds that are too loud (out of place or inappropriate), and quiet sounds that are distracting, such as a dripping faucet in a quiet home or a distracting buzz. Even these quieter noises might also interfere with well-being because they might interfere with falling asleep or concentration. The word "noise" is derived from the Latin word "nausea,” meaning “seasickness.” As its derivation suggests, noise has many unpleasant and harmful effects. It can cause hearing loss, stress, high blood pressure, sleep loss, lost productivity, and a general reduction in the quality of life and opportunity for personal and collective tranquility. It can interfere with communication and activities. Noise triggers the fight or flight response, resulting in stress related changes to our body. 415 4 Noise is an objective pollutant. It can be quantified and has known and quantifiable effects. People discussing noise often refer to a phenomenon called habituation, and mistakenly assume people get used to noise. This is not the case. Some people do habituate to some noises, just as some people can get used to living with a yard full of litter. Habituation, however, is by no means universal. Also, habituation always comes at a cost. The underlying physiological changes in one’s body, including stress related hormones, blood chemistry, etc, occur in the presence of noise, whether or not the listener is aware of them or habituated to them. Noise sensitivity can also develop with repeated exposure to noise, resulting in a heightened awareness of the degradation of the soundscape and its effects on people. Noise Pollution: A Noise Emitted into the Environment In general, noise and its effects are imposed more directly on one’s neighbors than the effects of acid emissions or CO2, which are imposed at a greater distance (both temporally and spatially) and in a more generalized, societal manner. Since the impact of noise tends to be more localized than many other pollutants, noise pollution tends to have more in common with second-hand smoke and litter than, for example, acid rain or global warming. It helps to think of noise pollution as both second-hand sound and audible trash. Noise is second-hand sound. Like second-hand smoke, second-hand sound, is a waste product of the activities of others, emitted into the environment—into the air. It negatively effects well-being, yet is emitted without the consent of the recipient. Noise is audible trash or aural litter. Noise is to the soundscape as litter is to the landscape. It is the aural equivalent of McDonalds wrappers strewn around the environment. If one pays attention, one will realize there is much more audible litter than there are cans, bottles, paper, etc, littering our landscape. If we could see our soundscape, particularly the urban soundscape, it would look like a landfill. When Is Noise Pollution a Problem? There are a number of acoustical factors influencing people’s response to noise and their ability to tolerate it. The most important of these includes the loudness of the noise, the character of both the noise and the neighborhood, whether it is heard in the home, and whether it interferes with activities, communication or sleep. Noise does not occur in a vacuum, both literally and figuratively. There are always political, social, economic and psychological aspects of noise problems. Consequently, several non-acoustical factors associated with noise also shape how well people tolerate noise. The most important of these is the reciprocity of the noise—whether the neighbors impose the same types and amount of noise on each other. Also very important are people’s ability to control the noise and their attitude toward the noise source. Finally, people have varying sensitivity to noise, and people who are more noise sensitive will more likely react negatively to noise. 416 5 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,1 so the noise would dominate the soundscape, being 8 times louder than the background. 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. 1 EPA, 1981, Noise Effects Handbook, 7-2. 417 6 Schomer, 2001, Assessment of Noise Annoyance, 27 Figure 2. Expectation of 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 to be 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 soundscape into 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 to 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. 418 7 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). 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). 419 8 CORRECTIONS TO BE ADDED TO THE MEASURED DAY-NIGHT SOUND LEVEL (Ldn) OF INTRUDING NOISE TO OBTAIN NORMALIZED Ldn Type of Correction Description Amount of Correction to be Added to Measured Ldn in dB Seasonal Correction Summer (or year-round operation) Winter only (or windows always closed) 0 -5 Correction for Outdoor Noise Level Measured in Absence of Intruding Noise Quiet suburban or rural community (remote from large cities and from industrial activity and trucking) +10 Normal suburban community (not located near industrial activity) +5 Urban residential community (not immediately adjacent to heavily traveled roads and industrial areas) 0 Noisy urban residential community (near relatively busy roads or industrial areas) -5 Very noisy urban residential community -10 Correction for Previous Exposure & Community Attitudes No prior experience with the intruding noise +5 Community has had some previous exposure to intruding noise but little effort is being made to control the noise. This correction may also be applied in a situation where the community has not been exposed to the noise previously, but the people are aware that bona fide efforts are being made to control the noise. 0 Community has had considerable previous exposure to the intruding noise and the noise maker's relations with the community are good -5 Community is aware that operation causing noise is very necessary and it will not continue indefinitely. This correction can be applied for an operation of limited duration and under emergency circumstances. -10 Pure Tone or Impulse No pure tone or impulsive character Pure tone or impulsive character present 0 +5 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). 420 9 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 Other Noise Sources 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. 421 10 That wind turbine noise is different from other noise sources can be seen from studies of individual reactions to noise. Annoyance2 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. Figure 6. Wind Turbine Noise Elicits a Greater Response at Lower Noise Levels than Other Noise Sources It is clear from 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 protect 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. 422 11 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. 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. 423 12 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 424 13 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,5 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. 425 14 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.7 Moreover, neither the FEIS (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. 7 “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. 426 15 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. 427 16 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 FEIS (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. 428 17 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 FEIS (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. 429 18 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 Near BOWF, ambient levels at these locations were measured, and they are shown Figure 11. 430 19 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 BOWF from 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 431 20 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 really just 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. 432 21 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. 433 22 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 FEIS modeling. Figure 13. Predicted Noise Levels from the DSEIS and FEIS. 434 23 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 FEIS 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 lines 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. 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 FEIS 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. Contour Line FEIS Figure 2: Area SqFt DSEIS Figure 3: Area SqFt % Increase Red (Lands > 55 dBA)552,000 1,622,000 194% Orange (Lands > 50 dBA)5,930,000 10,739,000 81% Yellow (Lands > 45 dBA)21,697,000 29,446,000 36% 435 24 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 “[t]he 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. Figure 15. Exceedances of the Criterion of Significance in the FEIS and DSEIS. FEIS 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 8 436 25 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. XI. 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: 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. 437 26 ISO 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. 438 27 Figure 17. DSEIS Modeling Results When the Accuracy of the Model Considered. 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 R50 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 47.7 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 R5 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 R11 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 43 439 28 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 AC 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 43.8 440 29 Figure 18. DSEIS Modeling Results With Significant Nighttime Impact. 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 71 441 30 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 VIII) 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 render the DSEIS conclusions unreliable. The DSEIS also has a number of omissions, that when corrected, show significant noise impacts (Parts XI an XII). 442 31 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. 443 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 S12, Noise. • Evaluated, revised, and approved national standards for noise measurement as a voting member of the S12 committee and as members of specific working groups • Member, ANSI S12 Working Group 15, Measurement and Evaluation of Outdoor Community Noise • Member ANSI S12 Working Group 38, Noise Labeling In Products • Member ANSI S12 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 21st Century,” Acoustical Society of America Lay Language Paper, 2014. • “Noise in the 21st 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. 444 • “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. • “Noise, Civility, and Sovereignty,” Noise Pollution Clearinghouse, 1999. 445 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 • Waitsfield 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 • 2012, District 7 Environmental Commission, Application #7C1321 446 • 2012, Vermont 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. 156-7-06 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 #3W0929 • 2004, Norwich, Vermont Zoning Permit, Verizon Wireless Tower • 2004, Moretown, Vermont Zoning Permit, Quarry • 2003, District 5 Environmental Commission, Barre Town Police Firing Range • 2001, District Number 5 Environmental Commission, Bull's Eye Sporting Center and Case Number 5W0743-3 • 2001, Dummerston, Vermont Zoning Permit, Quarry • 1999, Vermont State Environmental Board, OMYA, Inc. and Foster Brothers Farm, Inc., Land Use Permit #9A0107-2-EB. • 1999, Vermont State Environmental Board, Barre Granite Quarries, LLC, Application #7C1079-EB EDUCATION SEMINAR CADNA A EXPERT (Noise Model) 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 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463