As part of many projects a consultant is hired to take pre-project sound measurements in order to establish background, or ambient, noise levels in the neighborhood. Since many noise regulations are based on ambient levels plus the project's noise, it is important to accurately establish the ambient level. If the original background level is high enough, the developer can justify higher noise emissions and thus more turbines.

Typically a consultant is hired who puts noise recording devices at various points in the proposed farm. The results are recorded and often published and then are used to help make siting decisions. In upstate New York one Mr. Bolton noticed that many of these readings were much higher than he would have expected. Upon researching the reasons, he discovered that the consultant did not properly shield the microphone from wind noise. He wasn't talking about shielding the noise the wind makes in the trees; he was talking about the noise the wind makes as it strikes the microphone. Even with the foam cover, the noise as recorded by the meter increases quite dramatically when the mike is exposed directly to wind. Bolton compared the wind speed with the noise readings and found a very high correlation, pretty much in line with the specs published by the meter manufacturer.

The consultant made a mistake, right? You might think - so what? But this is a very convenient mistake for the developer who, you should recall, paid the consultant. This very same "mistake" was made in the Wolfe Island measurements, and is being used to justify sitings that would otherwise not be proper. It would also make it harder, if not impossible, for a truly injured resident to prevail in court. John Harrison of Amherst Island is working on this and I'll be publishing his findings as soon as I get them.

The previously mentioned John Bolton in NY has done a lot of research on this "mistake" and has written two papers, both of them in response to developers' badly-done environmental studies.

• Bolton Reply, 0.4mb, Wind Turbine Noise Analysis Errors
• Bolton Reply, 0.8mb, Evaluation of Supplemental Environmental Noise Analysis

In addition to the wind noise issue, it is certainly possible for the noise consultant to take samples that overstate the ambient noise level, simply by their placement or timing. In Cape Vincent, NY, the pre-construction ambients were so high that concerned citizens hired an independent consultant, a Mr. Schomer, to do a second study, 1.5mb. Almost predictably, he found the original ambients were too high. The originals were done by a Mr. Hessler, who has done a lot of work for wind developers, and I assume would like to continue doing so. Since it is in their interest to get the ambients as high as possible, it is also in his interest. Mr. Schomer tries to remain civil, but there's little doubt how he regards Mr. Hessler. Reading just the executive summary is enlightening.