ENVIRONMENTAL SOUND LEVEL SURVEY Hessler Associates, Inc. 11/ 27, 2007

Hessler Associates, Inc.
Consultants in Engineering Acoustics

3862 Clifton Manor Place
Suite B
Haymarket, Virginia 20169 USA
Phone: 703-753-1602
Fax: 703-753-1522
Website: www.hesslernoise.com
REPORT NO. 1810-112607-0

REV: 0
DATE OF ISSUE: NOVEMBER 27, 2007
ENVIRONMENTAL SOUND LEVEL SURVEY

SUMMERTIME CONDITIONS
CAPE VINCENT WIND FARM
TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT AND LYME

JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY
PREPARED FOR:
BP Alternative Energy N. A., Inc.
Prepared by:
David M. Hessler, P.E., INCE

Principal Consultant
Member National Council of Acoustical Consultants

Noise Control Services Since 1976
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 BACKROUND SOUND LEVEL SURVEY 1
2.1 OBJECTIVE AND MEASUREMENT QUANTITIES 1

2.2 SITE DESCRIPTION AND MEASUREMENT POSITIONS 2
2.3 INSTRUMENTATION 10
2.4 SURVEY WEATHER CONDITIONS 11
2.5 OVERALL SURVEY RESULTS 13
2.6 FREQUENCY CONTENT OF BACKGROUND SOUNDS 17
3.0 CONCLUSIONS 19
Graphic A General Site Map Showing Background Survey Positions

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Hessler Associates, Inc. has been retained by BP Alternative Energy to evaluate potential noise
impacts from the proposed Cape Vincent Wind Farm Project on residents in the vicinity of the
project area, which is located in Jefferson County, NY just east of the Town of Cape Vincent.
The study consists of three phases:
• A field survey of existing background sound levels during leaf-on, summertime

conditions
• A field survey of existing background sound levels during leaf-off, wintertime conditions
• An impact assessment based on the measured levels of background sound from both
surveys and the predicted project sound levels developed from an analytical noise model
This interim report covers only the first phase, the summertime survey, which was carried out in
late August and early September of 2007. The leaf-off, wintertime field survey will be carried out
when seasonal conditions permit. An impact assessment will then be prepared based on the results
of both surveys.
The measurement of existing sound levels at the site is necessary to determine how much natural
masking noise there might be - as a function of wind speed - at the nearest residences to the
project. The relevance of this is that high levels of background noise due to wind-induced natural
sounds, such as tree rustle, would act to reduce or preclude the audibility of the wind farm, while
low levels of natural noise would permit operational noise from the turbines to be more readily
perceptible. Because it would be incorrect, for example, to compare the maximum turbine sound
level, which occurs only during windy conditions, with the background level during calm and
quiet conditions, the background sound level must be determined as a function of wind speed. For
a broadband noise source the audibility of and potential impact from the new noise is a function of
how much, if at all, it exceeds the pre-existing background level under comparable conditions.
The evaluation of new sound sources on the basis of their audibility above the natural background
level is the approach set forth in the Program Policy Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts
published by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Feb.
2001. This assessment procedure looks at potential noise impacts in relative rather than absolute
terms by comparing expected future sound levels (developed from modeling) to the pre-existing
level of background sound (determined from field measurements). The procedure essentially
defines a cumulative increase in overall sound level of 6 dBA as the threshold between no
significant impact and a potentially adverse impact. Hence the need to determine what the
background sound level is.
2.0 BACKGROUND SOUND LEVEL SURVEY
2.1 OBJECTIVE AND MEASUREMENT QUANTITIES
The purpose of the survey was to determine what minimum environmental sound levels are
consistently present and available at the nearest potentially sensitive receptors to mask or obscure
potential noise from the project under summertime conditions when the trees are leafed out. A
number of statistical sound levels were measured in consecutive 10 minute intervals over the
entire survey. Of these, the average (Leq) and residual (L90) levels are the most meaningful.
Member National Council of Acoustical Consultants 1

The average, or equivalent energy sound level (Leq), is literally the average sound level over each
measurement interval. This is the “typical” sound level most likely to be observed at any given
moment.
The L90 statistical sound level, on the other hand, is commonly used to conservatively quantify
background sound levels. The L90 is the sound level exceeded during 90% of the measurement
interval and has the quality of filtering out sporadic, short-duration noise events thereby capturing
the quiet lulls between such events. It is this consistently present “background” level that forms a
conservative, or “worst-case”, basis for evaluating the audibility of a new source.
An additional factor that is important in establishing the minimum background sound level
available to mask potential wind turbine noise is the natural sound generated by the wind itself.
Wind turbines only operate and produce noise when the wind exceeds a minimum cut-in speed of
about 3 or 4 m/s (measured at a reference elevation of 10 m). Turbine sound levels increase with
wind speed up to about 8 m/s when the sound produced reaches a maximum and no longer
increases with wind speed. Consequently, at moderate to high speeds when turbine noise is most
significant the level of natural masking noise is normally also relatively high due to tree or grass
rustle thus reducing the perceptibility of the turbines. In order to quantify this effect, wind speed
was measured over the entire sound level survey period at two met towers within the site area for
later correlation to the sound data.
2.2 SITE DESCRIPTION AND MEASUREMENT POSITIONS
At the time of the initial field survey the number of turbines and their specific locations were still
being worked out. The general extent of the project area was known from the distribution of land
owners who had concluded leasing agreements with the project. The site area can be broadly
defined as the eastern half of the Town of Cape Vincent, beginning several miles back from the
bank of the St. Lawrence River and extending to the Lyme town line. Some turbines are also
being tentatively considered in the western part of Lyme generally from town line with Cape
Vincent to the village of Three Mile Bay.
The site area is rural and can be characterized as consisting mostly of farms on relatively large
tracts of land irregularly interspersed with scattered residences on smaller parcels. On the whole,
the distribution of residential dwellings over the area is fairly thin but there are several areas of
higher density, such as the villages of Rosiere and Three Mile Bay and along CR 57 in Lyme
where there are a number of homes along the shore of Chaumont Bay.
The site topography is essentially flat. In terms of vegetation, the area is a largely even mixture of
open fields and wooded areas. Most of the homes and farm houses have at least a few trees
immediately around the house.
Seven measurement locations were chosen to evenly cover and represent the entire area as shown
in Graphic A. The specific positions are listed below along with photographs of each location.
As will be noted from the pictures, a variety of settings were deliberately chosen to see if
background sound levels were uniform or variable over the site area. For example, some monitors
were placed at isolated farms and while others were located near the three relatively high
population density areas mentioned above.

Position 1 – 8718 County Road 8 – Cape Vincent

Typical farm. Monitor placed on a fencepost near the barn.
Figure 2.2.1 Position 1 Looking North.
Figure 2.2.2 Position 1 Looking Northeast.

Position 2 – 30485 CR 4 – Rosiere (Cape Vincent)

Monitor located on a fence post at a farm near the center of Rosiere.
Figure 2.2.3 Position 2 Looking West towards

Church of St. Vincent de Paul
Figure 2.2.4 Position 2 Looking Southeast towards Barn

Position 3 – Huff Road and Route 12E – Cape Vincent

Monitor located on a utility pole about 40 ft. from edge of Route 12E, the principal road in the
area. The objective of this position was to measure sound levels representative of those
experienced at the homes along Route 12E, such as the farm house in the background of Figure
2.2.5.
Figure 2.2.5 Position 3 Looking West towards Huff Road
Figure 2.2.6 Position 3 Looking North towards Route 12E

Position 4 – 27323 Fox Creek Road – Cape Vincent

Typical farm. Monitor located on a utility pole near the house.
Figure 2.2.7 Position 4 Looking Northeast towards House
Figure 2.2.8 Position 4 Looking West towards Barns

Position 5 – 8559 Church St. – Three Mile Bay, Lyme

Monitor located on a post in an open field about 200 ft. behind the house and barn. This position
conservatively represents sound levels in the village of Three Mile Bay, since the meter was
placed on the outskirts of the village and away from much of the normal man-made noise present
around the homes.
Figure 2.2.9 Position 5 Looking South towards the Village

(just beyond the barn)
Figure 2.2.10 Position 5 Looking North away from the Village

Position 6 – Opposite 27140 CR 57 – Lyme

Monitor located on gate post in an open field across the road from the homes along CR 57 facing
Chaumont Bay.
Figure 2.2.11 Position 6 Looking East

(CR 57 to right just past first few trees)
Figure 2.2.12 Position 6 Looking Southwest

(CR 57 to left beyond the trees)

Position 7 – 29766 CR 6 – Cape Vincent

Monitor located on fence post in rear yard of house.
Figure 2.2.13 Position 7 Looking North
Figure 2.2.14 Position 7 Looking West

2.3 INSTRUMENTATION AND SURVEY DURATION
Rion NL-32 and NL-22 sound level meters (ANSI Type 1 and 2, respectively) were used at 6 of
the 7 positions. A Norsonic 118, ANSI Type 1, 1/3 octave band analyzer was used at Position 7 to
record the frequency spectrum of the sound as well as the overall A-weighted levels measured by
the other instruments.
The meters were all enclosed in watertight cases with the microphones supported 12” to the side or
above each case to minimize any local reflections.
The microphones were protected from wind-induced self-noise by several different types of wind
screens. Positions 1 and 4 were fitted with extra-large 7” diameter foam windscreens while
remaining Rion instruments had weather-treated 3”diameter foam windscreens. The Norsonic
meter had a special environmental microphone housing where the microphone tip is protected
from wind by mesh covered slots and an external foam windscreen. In each case, the
microphones were situated at a fairly low elevation of approximately 1 m so that they were
exposed to relatively low wind speeds. Figure 2.3.1 illustrates a typical wind speed profile based
on IEC 61400-111.
Typical Wind Speed Profile

at a Wind Speed of 6 m/s
per IEC 61400-11
90
Typ. Hub Height = 80 m
80
70
Anemometer Height = 60 m
Height Above Ground Level, m
60
50 Background Sound
Measurement Microphone
40 Height = 1 m
Standard IEC
30 Height = 10 m
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Wind Speed, m/s
Figure 2.3.1
1
International Electromechanical Commission (IEC) 61400-11:2002(E) Wind Turbine Generator Systems – Part 11:
Acoustic Noise Measurement Techniques, Second Edition 2002-12.

Wind speed normally diminishes rapidly close to the ground, theoretically going to zero at the
surface; consequently, at a 1 m height the microphones were typically exposed to inconsequential
wind speeds of about 3 or 4 m/s during the wind conditions of greatest interest (6 to 8 m/s at 10
m). In any event, self-generated wind noise affects only the extreme lower frequencies and,
except in very high wind conditions, has little or no influence on the measured A-weighted level
(the quantity sought in the survey) since the lower frequencies are heavily suppressed before the
spectrum is summed to give an overall A-weighted level. Consequently, the measured values are
considered reasonably valid and free of any meaningful or significant self-generated
contamination.
All equipment was field calibrated at the beginning of the survey and again at the end of the
survey. The observed calibration drift of all the instruments was between 0 to - 0.4 dB with most
in the 0 to -0.2 dB range.
The survey was carried out over an 18 day period from August 23 to September 9, 2007. Because
of an apparent AC power interruption the frequency recording monitor at Position 7 ran only for
the first several days while all other meters operated perfectly.
2.4 SURVEY WEATHER CONDITIONS
Although the amount of cloud cover varied from clear to overcast at various times, the weather
conditions during the survey period were generally fair with no significant precipitation after the
first day when a very strong thunderstorm passed over the area.
Winds during the survey were fairly light, although two periods of moderate winds (Aug. 24 – 26
and Sep. 7 – 8) were captured.
The general conditions of temperature, barometric pressure and wind for the survey period are
shown in the chart below (Figure 2.4.1) as observed at Watertown, NY, some 20 miles southeast
of the site.
It is important to note that the survey was carried out during summertime conditions with the
leaves on the trees. Leaf rustle, even in relatively light winds, normally generates significantly
higher sound levels than might be observed at the same location when the trees are bare. In
addition, normal summertime noise from insects, such as cicadas and crickets, was present at the
time of the survey resulting in elevated sound levels on most evenings and at other times of day.

Figure 2.4.1 General Weather Data for the Survey Period as Observed in Watertown, NY
The wind speed at the site itself was measured at two met towers distributed over the project area:
one near Monitor Position 1 in the northern part of the site and the other near Position 4 in the
southern end. The figure below, Figure 2.4.2, shows the average wind speed measured by both
towers by the mast top (60 m) anemometers and the wind speed normalized to an elevation of 10
m per IEC Standard 61400-11, Equation 7. A roughness length of 0.05 was used, which is
associated with “farmland with some vegetation”. The 10 m wind speed is important because
turbine sound levels are expressed as a function of the wind speed at this standardized elevation.

Measured Wind Speed at 60 m (Towers 4207 and 4208) and

Wind Speed Normalized to Standard 10 m Elevation
14
12
Average Wind Speed at 60 m
Normalized Wind Speed at 10 m
10
Wind Speed, m/s
0
8/23/07 12:00
8/24/07 0:00
8/24/07 12:00
8/25/07 0:00
8/25/07 12:00
8/26/07 0:00
8/26/07 12:00
8/27/07 0:00
8/27/07 12:00
8/28/07 0:00
8/28/07 12:00
8/29/07 0:00
8/29/07 12:00
8/30/07 0:00
8/30/07 12:00
8/31/07 0:00
8/31/07 12:00
9/1/07 0:00
9/1/07 12:00
9/2/07 0:00
9/2/07 12:00
9/3/07 0:00
9/3/07 12:00
9/4/07 0:00
9/4/07 12:00
9/5/07 0:00
9/5/07 12:00
9/6/07 0:00
9/6/07 12:00
9/7/07 0:00
9/7/07 12:00
9/8/07 0:00
9/8/07 12:00
9/9/07 0:00
Date and Time
Figure 2.4.2 Measured Wind Speeds at Site during Sound Survey Period
2.5 OVERALL SURVEY RESULTS
As discussed above in Section 2.1 the L90, or residual, sound level is a conservative measure of
background sound levels in the sense that it filters out short-duration, sporadic noise events that
cannot be relied upon to provide consistent and continual masking noise to obscure potential
turbine noise. This level represents the quiet, momentary lulls between all relatively short
duration events, such as cars passing by or tractor activity in a neighboring field. As such, it is the
near “worst-case” background level with regard to evaluating potential impacts from a new source.
The L90 sound levels over consecutive 10 minute periods for all 7 positions are plotted below for
the survey period.

Residual (L90) Sound Levels vs Time at All Positions
70
60
50
Sound Pressure Level, dBA
40
30
20
Position 1 Position 2 Position 3 Position 4

10
Position 5 Position 6 Position 7
0
8/23/07 12:00
8/24/07 0:00
8/24/07 12:00
8/25/07 0:00
8/25/07 12:00
8/26/07 0:00
8/26/07 12:00
8/27/07 0:00
8/27/07 12:00
8/28/07 0:00
8/28/07 12:00
8/29/07 0:00
8/29/07 12:00
8/30/07 0:00
8/30/07 12:00
8/31/07 0:00
8/31/07 12:00
9/1/07 0:00
9/1/07 12:00
9/2/07 0:00
9/2/07 12:00
9/3/07 0:00
9/3/07 12:00
9/4/07 0:00
9/4/07 12:00
9/5/07 0:00
9/5/07 12:00
9/6/07 0:00
9/6/07 12:00
9/7/07 0:00
9/7/07 12:00
9/8/07 0:00
9/8/07 12:00
9/9/07 0:00
Date and Time
Figure 2.5.1 10 minute L90 Sound Levels at All Monitoring Positions
This somewhat chaotic appearing plot shows that sound levels over the site area roughly follow
the same temporal trends except at Position 4 (green trace), where sound levels are consistently
lower than at all other locations. The reason for this anomalous behavior is not clear but may be
associated with a relative lack of vehicle noise on seldom used Fox Creek Road, a relative lack of
insect noise, or the fact that the monitor was not particularly close to any trees and was exposed to
less wind-induced noise.
In any event, the general trend in site-wide sound levels can be seen much more clearly if the
Position 4 data are removed, as in Figure 2.5.2. Although there is some inevitable local variation,
all of these levels at these widely distributed locations in a diversity of settings follow a much
more consistent pattern. No one position is consistently higher or lower than the mean value,
which is plotted in Figure 2.5.3.
A daily trend is clearly evident in the average site-wide sound level where it briefly reaches a
minimum in the early morning hours (on some days more than others) and then rapidly increases.
These minima are generally associated with a temporary reduction in insect noise followed by a
sudden resumption of insect noise possibly augmented by an increase in man-made and natural
sounds in the morning.
The average L90 value plotted in Figure 2.5.3 is considered a design value that reasonably
represents the likely sound level anywhere in the site area. Except for occasional nighttime lulls, it
can be seen that sound levels typically range between about 40 and 55 dBA.

Sound Pressure Level, dBA Sound Pressure Level, dBA
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
8/23/07 12:00 8/23/07 12:00
8/24/07 0:00 8/24/07 0:00
8/24/07 12:00 8/24/07 12:00
8/25/07 0:00 8/25/07 0:00
8/25/07 12:00 8/25/07 12:00
8/26/07 0:00 8/26/07 0:00
8/26/07 12:00 8/26/07 12:00
8/27/07 0:00 8/27/07 0:00
8/27/07 12:00 8/27/07 12:00

8/28/07 0:00 8/28/07 0:00
8/28/07 12:00 8/28/07 12:00
8/29/07 0:00 8/29/07 0:00
8/29/07 12:00 8/29/07 12:00
8/30/07 0:00 8/30/07 0:00
Position 5
Position 1
8/30/07 12:00 8/30/07 12:00

8/31/07 0:00 8/31/07 0:00
8/31/07 12:00 8/31/07 12:00
9/1/07 0:00 9/1/07 0:00
9/1/07 12:00 9/1/07 12:00
Date and Time

Date and Time
Position 6
Position 2
9/2/07 0:00 9/2/07 0:00
9/2/07 12:00 9/2/07 12:00
9/3/07 0:00 9/3/07 0:00
9/3/07 12:00 9/3/07 12:00
9/4/07 0:00 9/4/07 0:00

Position 7
Position 3
9/4/07 12:00 9/4/07 12:00

Residual (L90) Sound Levels vs Time at All Positions Except 4
9/5/07 0:00 9/5/07 0:00
Average Residual (L90) Sound Level vs Time at All Positions Except 4

9/5/07 12:00 9/5/07 12:00
9/6/07 0:00 9/6/07 0:00
9/6/07 12:00
2.5.3 Average L90 Background Level at All Positions Except 4

9/6/07 12:00
9/7/07 0:00 9/7/07 0:00
9/7/07 12:00 9/7/07 12:00

Figure 2.5.2 10 minute L90 Sound Levels at All Monitoring Positions Except 4
9/8/07 0:00 9/8/07 0:00
9/8/07 12:00 9/8/07 12:00
9/9/07 0:00 9/9/07 0:00
15
The average L90 design sound level is plotted along with the average wind speed at 10 m in
Figure 2.5.4 below.
Average Residual (L90) Sound Level Compared to Concurrent Wind Speed
12 60
Wind Speed at 10 m
Average L90
10 50
8 40
Sound Pressure Level, dBA

Wind Speed at 10 m, m/s
6 30
4 20
2 10
0 0
8/23/07 12:00
8/24/07 0:00
8/24/07 12:00
8/25/07 0:00
8/25/07 12:00
8/26/07 0:00
8/26/07 12:00
8/27/07 0:00
8/27/07 12:00
8/28/07 0:00
8/28/07 12:00
8/29/07 0:00
8/29/07 12:00
8/30/07 0:00
8/30/07 12:00
8/31/07 0:00
8/31/07 12:00
9/1/07 0:00
9/1/07 12:00
9/2/07 0:00
9/2/07 12:00
9/3/07 0:00
9/3/07 12:00
9/4/07 0:00
9/4/07 12:00
9/5/07 0:00
9/5/07 12:00
9/6/07 0:00
9/6/07 12:00
9/7/07 0:00
9/7/07 12:00
9/8/07 0:00
9/8/07 12:00
9/9/07 0:00
Date and Time
Figure 2.5.4 Background L90 Sound Levels and Wind Speed
This plot shows that, for summertime conditions at least, background sound levels over the site
area are not directly driven by wind-induced natural sounds. The two traces would generally
parallel each other if this were the case, rising and falling at the same times. This lack of
correlation indicates that sounds from such sources as crickets, distant farm equipment and local
roads dominate the sound level observed at any given location and that wind-induced sounds are
very secondary.
This is shown quantitatively in Figure 2.5.5, which is a regression analysis of sound levels as a
function of wind speed. As shown by the trend line there is only a very slight tendency towards
louder sound levels during windier conditions. In essence, the likely background sound level from
the point where the turbines would begin to operate (at a wind speed of around 3 to 4 m/s) to the
point where they reach maximum sound output (roughly 8 to 9 m/s) ranges from 45 to 50 dBA. In
many cases, the critical wind speed where turbine noise is generally the greatest relative to the
amount of available masking noise is about 6 m/s. The survey data indicate that a sound level of
about 47 dBA is likely to exist at this wind speed under summertime conditions.

Regression Analysis of L90 Statistical Sound Level vs. Normalized Wind Speed
August 2007 Leaf-on, Summertime Survey
65
60
55
50
L90 Sound Pressure Level, dBA
45
40 y = 0.8458x + 42.904
R2 = 0.0722
35
30
25
20 Typical wind speed (6 m/s) where turbine

noise is most prominent relative to rural
15 background sound levels -
Measured Level: 47 dBA
10
Approximate cut-in wind speed
5
for typical turbines
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Wind Speed at 10 m above Ground Level, m/s
Figure 2.5.5 Regression Analysis of Sound Levels vs. Wind Speed
2.6 FREQUENCY CONTENT OF BACKGROUND LEVELS
The frequency content of the background levels was recorded by a 1/3 octave band analyzer at
Position 7. Figure 2.6.1 below is a plot of the A-weighted sound levels measured vs. time at this
position for the first several days of the survey. The site-wide average sound level is also shown
indicating that the levels at this position are similar to and representative of those measured at the
other locations. Five spectra, designated as A through E, are marked at various minimum and
maximum points. These spectra are plotted in Figure 2.6.2.

Sound Pressure Level, dB Sound Pressure Level, dBA
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
8/23/07 12:00
6.3 Hz 8/23/07 13:00
8/23/07 14:00
8.0 Hz
8/23/07 15:00
10 Hz 8/23/07 16:00
12.5 Hz 8/23/07 17:00
8/23/07 18:00
16 Hz
8/23/07 19:00
A
20 Hz 8/23/07 20:00
25 Hz 8/23/07 21:00
8/23/07 22:00
31.5 Hz
8/23/07 23:00

40 Hz 8/24/07 0:00
8/24/07 1:00
50 Hz
8/24/07 2:00
63 Hz
8/24/07 3:00
80 Hz 8/24/07 4:00
B
100 Hz 8/24/07 5:00

8/24/07 6:00
125 Hz
8/24/07 7:00
160 Hz 8/24/07 8:00

200 Hz 8/24/07 9:00
8/24/07 10:00
250 Hz
8/24/07 11:00
315 Hz 8/24/07 12:00
400 Hz 8/24/07 13:00
Position 7
(Except 4)
8/24/07 14:00
500 Hz
8/24/07 15:00
630 Hz 8/24/07 16:00
Site-wide Average
Date and Time

800 Hz 8/24/07 17:00
8/24/07 18:00
1.0 k
8/24/07 19:00
C
Spectrum E 8/25 5:00

Spectrum D 8/25 1:20
Spectrum B 8/24 5:00
1.25 k 8/24/07 20:00
Spectrum C 8/24 20:00

Spectrum A 8/23 20:00
Compared to Site-wide Average
1.6 k 8/24/07 21:00
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz

8/24/07 22:00
2.0 k
8/24/07 23:00
2.5 k 8/25/07 0:00
Residual (L90) Sound Level vs Time at Position 7
3.15 k 8/25/07 1:00

D
8/25/07 2:00
4.0 k
8/25/07 3:00
5.0 k 8/25/07 4:00
E
6.3 k 8/25/07 5:00

8/25/07 6:00
Selected Maximum and Minimum Frequency Spectra at Position 7
8.0 k
Figure 2.6.2 Frequency Spectra at Selected Minima and Maxima

8/25/07 7:00
Figure 2.6.1 Overall A-weighted Sound Level vs. Time at Position 7
10.0 k 8/25/07 8:00

12.5 k 8/25/07 9:00
8/25/07 10:00
16.0 k
8/25/07 11:00
20.0 k 8/25/07 12:00
8/25/07 13:00
8/25/07 14:00
dBA 8/25/07 15:00
8/25/07 16:00
8/25/07 17:00
18
Figure 2.6.2 clearly shows that insect noise peaking at 5000 Hz strongly affected the overall sound
levels when they were at a maximum and, significantly, also when they were at a minimum.
The overall A-weighted value of a sound is the logarithmic summation of the frequency spectrum
and is much more sensitive to the high end of the spectrum than the low end (just as the human ear
is). That is why the strong low frequency tone at 12.5 Hz in Spectrum C has relatively little
impact on the total A-weighted level. The origin of this tone is unknown but may have been a
truck idling or helicopter fly-over.
In general, the continual dominance of insect noise, which is clearly unrelated to wind or
atmospheric conditions, explains why the site sound levels – during the summer at least - do not
exhibit any real dependence on wind speed.
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
A field survey of existing sound levels during leaf-on, summertime conditions was carried out at
the Cape Vincent Wind Farm site in late August and early September of 2007. The objective of
the survey was to determine how much background masking sound there is at the site to
potentially obscure project noise during the summer when people are likely to be outside and
when windows are likely to be open.
The survey results indicate that, except for one anomalous location, sound levels over the site area
are reasonably consistent and follow the same temporal trends.
A comparison of the average site-wide L90 sound level to concurrent wind speed as measured by
two on-site met towers indicates that environmental sound levels have very little dependence on
wind speed and range from about 45 to 50 dBA over the wind speed range of importance to wind
turbine impact analyses – generally from about 3 to 9 m/s as measured at 10 m.
A review of the frequency content recorded at one position indicates that project area sound levels
during the summer are strongly dominated by insect noise at 5000 Hz and vary up and down over
the course of each day largely in accordance with insect activity. At no time, including daily
minima, was this high frequency insect noise absent. The dominance of this noise source explains
why sound levels have no real correlation to wind speed and wind-induced sounds.
An additional field survey is planned for this winter to measure project area sound levels without
any leaves on the trees and without any of this insect activity. A subsequent noise impact
assessment will be prepared based on the results of both the summer and winter background
surveys.
END OF REPORT TEXT


ENVIRONMENTAL SOUND LEVEL SURVEY Hessler Associates, Inc. 11/ 27, 2007

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ENVIRONMENTAL SOUND LEVEL SURVEY Hessler Associates, Inc. 11/ 27, 2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hessler Associates, Inc.

Consultants in Engineering Acoustics

REPORT NO. 1810-112607-0

ENVIRONMENTAL SOUND LEVEL SURVEY

TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT AND LYME

BP Alternative Energy N. A., Inc.

David M. Hessler, P.E., INCE

Member National Council of Acoustical Consultants

2.0 BACKROUND SOUND LEVEL SURVEY 1

2.1 OBJECTIVE AND MEASUREMENT QUANTITIES 1

Graphic A General Site Map Showing Background Survey Positions

Member National Council of Acoustical Consultants

The study consists of three phases:

• A field survey of existing background sound levels during leaf-on, summertime

2.0 BACKGROUND SOUND LEVEL SURVEY

2.1 OBJECTIVE AND MEASUREMENT QUANTITIES

Member National Council of Acoustical Consultants 1

2.2 SITE DESCRIPTION AND MEASUREMENT POSITIONS

Member National Council of Acoustical Consultants 2

Position 1 – 8718 County Road 8 – Cape Vincent

Figure 2.2.1 Position 1 Looking North.

Figure 2.2.2 Position 1 Looking Northeast.

Member National Council of Acoustical Consultants 3

Position 2 – 30485 CR 4 – Rosiere (Cape Vincent)

Figure 2.2.3 Position 2 Looking West towards

Figure 2.2.4 Position 2 Looking Southeast towards Barn

Member National Council of Acoustical Consultants 4

Position 3 – Huff Road and Route 12E – Cape Vincent

Figure 2.2.5 Position 3 Looking West towards Huff Road

Figure 2.2.6 Position 3 Looking North towards Route 12E

Member National Council of Acoustical Consultants 5

Position 4 – 27323 Fox Creek Road – Cape Vincent

Figure 2.2.7 Position 4 Looking Northeast towards House

Figure 2.2.8 Position 4 Looking West towards Barns

Member National Council of Acoustical Consultants 6

Position 5 – 8559 Church St. – Three Mile Bay, Lyme

Figure 2.2.9 Position 5 Looking South towards the Village

Figure 2.2.10 Position 5 Looking North away from the Village

Member National Council of Acoustical Consultants 7

Position 6 – Opposite 27140 CR 57 – Lyme

Figure 2.2.11 Position 6 Looking East

Figure 2.2.12 Position 6 Looking Southwest

Member National Council of Acoustical Consultants 8

Position 7 – 29766 CR 6 – Cape Vincent

Figure 2.2.13 Position 7 Looking North

Figure 2.2.14 Position 7 Looking West

Member National Council of Acoustical Consultants 9

2.3 INSTRUMENTATION AND SURVEY DURATION

Typical Wind Speed Profile

Member National Council of Acoustical Consultants 10

2.4 SURVEY WEATHER CONDITIONS

Member National Council of Acoustical Consultants 11

Member National Council of Acoustical Consultants 12

Measured Wind Speed at 60 m (Towers 4207 and 4208) and

2.5 OVERALL SURVEY RESULTS

Member National Council of Acoustical Consultants 13

Residual (L90) Sound Levels vs Time at All Positions

Position 1 Position 2 Position 3 Position 4

Figure 2.5.1 10 minute L90 Sound Levels at All Monitoring Positions

Member National Council of Acoustical Consultants 14

8/24/07 0:00 8/24/07 0:00

8/24/07 12:00 8/24/07 12:00