Maine's wildlife is one of our greatest treasures.
Building massive roaring, thumping and flashing wind factories throughout our beautiful countryside undermines our enjoyment of wildlife in its natural settings. Additionally, despite the wind industry's desperate and shameless propaganda, the construction of these factories has direct effects on the wildlife itself ranging from habitat fragmentation to herbicide use to silting of streams to noise.
The wind industry sometimes uses photos of cows grazing near turbines seemingly undisturbed. Of course what they don't call to our attention is that these animals are fenced in without egress.
This section is an attempt to organize information related to this subject. Our Table of Contents is date-based and chronological. Additionally, certain topics are given separate sub-tabs, e.g., birds.
Table of Contents
1999 - Watching Out for Maine's Wildlife - includes discussion on the importance of wildlife to Maine
September 2004 - Noise Effects on Wildlife Populations (Based on road noise)
1/1/08 - American Society of Mammalogists Publishes Resolution on The Effects of Wind-Energy Facilities on Bats and Other Wildlife
April 6, 2009 - Effect on Alpacas Being Raised
August 30, 2010 - Responses of the Ear to Infrasound and Wind Turbines (using guinea pigs)
February 9, 2011 - Commercial Wind Power & Wildlife in Maine
June 1, 2011 - Statement on Wind Power by The Maine Professional Guides Association
August 2011 - Annotated Bibliography National Park Service: Impacts of Noise on Wildlife
October 31, 2011 - Noise Effects on Wildlife Factsheet (Noise Pollution Clearinghouse)
October 31, 2011 - USFWS The Effects of Turbine Noise on Wildlife
October 31, 2011 - Nature Sounds Society: Effects of Noise on Wildlife
October 31, 2011- The Biological Effects of Noise on Wildlife (Acoustic Ecology Institute)
June 23, 2014 - Wind Turbines take terrible toll on animals
July 25, 2014 - Nova Scotia seeks info on wind farm’s effect on lynx
March 2, 2015 - Fear of health: Denmark stops expansion of wind power plants
Contents
1999 - Watching Out for Maine's Wildlife - includes discussion on the importance of wildlife to Maine
Download PDF at: Watching_out_for_Maine%27s_wildlife.pdf
Source: http://www.maineaudubon.org/resource/r_watching_out_for_Maine's_wildlife.pdf
Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
September 2004 - Noise Effects on Wildlife Populations (Based on road noise) - This study may not be wholly applicable to turbine noise but is nevertheless included. Moreover, one needs to be careful in applying this information, e.g., just because a species may cross a road and briefly endure the road noise does not mean that the same species would continue its use of an area in normal fashion upon installation of turbines and associated structures. See attached PDF at:
Download PDF: Noise_Effects_on_Wildlife_Populations.pdf
Source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/noise_effect_on_wildlife/effects/effects.pdf
1/1/08 - American Society of Mammalogists Publishes Resolution on The Effects of Wind-Energy Facilities on Bats and Other Wildlife (Not sure of exact date in 2008)
The American Society of Mammalogists (ASM) was established in 1919 for the purpose of promoting interest in the study of mammals.
At the 2008 Annual Meeting of the ASM, the Resolutions Committee brought one resolution to the Society for consideration, Effects of Wind-Energy Facilities on Bats and Other Wildlife. The Resolution was supported unanimously by the ASM membership and was published in the Journal of Mammalogy. President McLaren sent copies of the resolution and accompanying letters to >190 recipients that included Congressional committees, governors, NGOs, and many
federal, state, and regional agencies. A copy is available on the ASM web-page at:
http://www.mammalsociety.org/uploads/WindEnergyResolution.pdf
Download PDF at: Amer_Soc_of_Mammologists_WindEnergyResolution.pdf
4/6/09 - Effect on Alpacas Being Raised
Author: Wirtz, Ann
April 6, 2009
In 1997 my husband and I purchased our current property. It was an old farmhouse in the country. We knew it would be work because the house and yard needed so much. So for more than the next decade we spent all our money improving our property and renovating our home. We buried barn ruins that had laid charred for years. We took down old buildings and fixed the ones we chose to leave. We dismantled a total of 3 old silos. We spent $12,000 putting in a swimming pool and deck for our family.
In 2005 we refinanced our home to add $60,000 for all new cedar siding and new windows. We had come so far and were finally seeing that we had improved so much and that everything we envisioned was getting closer after years and years of hard work.
In 2002 I purchased two alpacas (llama type animals) for $12,000 each. I started with 2 alpacas and kept breeding them to build my herd. I currently have 10.
Alpacas are very easy animals to raise. We never had any problems with birthing, breedings or daily care. An alpaca’s gestation period is just shy of a year. This last summer, in 2008, after waiting a whole year for our new babies, we had one mother abort early in spring. Then in late summer our second mother gave birth to a stillborn baby.
Is this coincidental? I don’t think so. Year after year I never had any problems, and then I lose two babies the first time I re-breed after the turbines were up.
I know it is not coincidental because the sounds that echo through the metal pole-shed our animals live in are unbearable at times. It is like being in a tin can with echoes of jet engines running right outside. I spent an entire night out there while caring for the birthing mother and I knew in my heart what had happened here.
Alpacas are gentle animals and, since dealing with the wind turbines, we have seen a huge change in the behavior of our animals. They are no longer gentle. They are very jumpy and always stressed.
All the years prior to this we never saw this behavior.
When we found out about the wind turbines that were going to be put up around our property, we listed our home for sale. Even without the remodeling complete, all realtors who came through thought it should bring a price of over $300,000. We had an appraisal done that appraised the property for $315,000 as it sat.
We had several interested parties, but everyone that looked at it asked what the roads were that were going in down the road. As soon as anyone found out they were the driveways for wind turbines that were to be constructed, the interest in the property stalled.
Month after month of getting the house perfectly cleaned for showings, we decided to just take it off the market.
My three older children are from a previous marriage. Their father and I divorced years ago when they were little kids. When the kids were little I always feared he would quit his job and I would not receive child support. Fifteen years later this fear came true.
In May of 2008 my children’s dad left his job after 25 years of employment. I did not receive any child support from April to December of 2008. And even now it has been a struggle to get him to pay anything at all. I had to pay an attorney to take him back to court several times.
In June of 2008 several of our rental properties we had owned in the City of Fond du Lac were flooded. Three units were even condemned. We found ourselves faced with a financial disaster. We were faced with foreclosure on our condemned rental properties.
From there we looked at what we could do to restructure our financials. We had lost a lot of money in the rental properties. The animals I invested in are now a great risk to pay $1000-$2500 to re-breed. So, in turn, my initial investment costs are wasted.
Everything we had was turning upside down fast. I had to make a decision. Did it make sense to stick any more money into our home to finish it? We were already being told we couldn’t sell it for even close to what we already had in it. We had watched neighbors’ homes sit on the market for years.
I am a mother of four children, and all these years we thought our home would be our nest egg. Now it is only another losing gamble as to if we could ever sell it. Not because of today’s market, but because of the turbines behind our home. I talked with a couple of realtors and heard time and time again that people will not pay big money to live near these wind turbines. I was told we would have to price our home under $200,000 in order to interest anyone. This is the same home we had just had appraised at $315,000.
My husband is seeing a doctor for depression. I have a daughter who is seeing a specialist for serious stomach problems. I have had endless sleepless nights since the wind turbines went up. I constantly have feelings of anxiety. My children have complained of headaches and not sleeping well.
Let me ask you, What would you do?
I have been forced to make a decision I never thought I’d have to make. My husband and I have decided to walk away from our property. We can’t wait years to sell it.
I can’t stand it here for another day. I can’t leave soon enough. You may be able to put turbines up behind our home, but that doesn’t mean I am going to do nothing when it affects my family’s health and my animals’ well-being. The only recourse I have at this point is to just walk away.
I have a 21-year-old daughter in college, a 17-year-old son, and 16- and 8-year-old daughters.
It’s too late for me to take any more chances. I have kids I need to get through college. I don’t know how I’ll do it. I just know it’s not good to live in this house any more. This property I once loved and was so proud to own is of no use to me.
I have worked 60 hours a week for years, only to find myself with nothing. But my health as well as my family’s cannot be sacrificed.
So as you read this, I do not know where we are going to live, but I do know it won’t be under a wind turbine or anywhere near one. The safest bet would to find a house right next door to the people who determine these setbacks, because no matter what they decide, it seems they are never the people affected.
Ann Wirtz
N11957 Hwy YY
Oakfield, Wisconsin 53065 (temporarily)
Editor’s note: Gerry Meyer (see his turbine diary) is Mrs. Wirtz’s neighbor. “Alpacas,” he was told by Mrs. Wirtz, “give birth from 6 am to 12 noon, due to the fact they are mountain animals. This gives the newly-born alpaca time to dry off and get some strength in its legs before the cold night sets in. Before the turbines, her alpacas did give birth that way. Since the turbines went up, they have been birthing in the evening or even night-time.”
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/i-just-know-its-not-good-to-live-in-this-house-anymore-oakfield-wisc/
Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
August 30, 2010 - Responses of the Ear to Infrasound and Wind Turbines (using guinea pigs)
Responses of the Ear to Infrasound and Wind Turbines
Cochlear Fluids Research Laboratory, Washington University in St. Louis
Alec Salt Ph.D., Revised August 30th, 2010
Overview
Our recently-published paper reviews well-established publications about low frequency hearing by leading scientists in the field of auditory physiology.
It concludes that low frequency sounds that you cannot hear DO affect the inner ear. The commonly held belief that “if you can't hear it, it can't affect you” is incorrect.
The paper shows how the outer hair cells of the cochlea are stimulated by very low frequency sounds at up to 40 dB below the level that is heard.
It shows that there are many possible ways that low frequency sounds may influence the ear at levels that are totally unrelated to hearing sensitivity.
As some structures of the ear respond to low frequency sound at levels below those that are heard, the practice of A-weighting sound measurements grossly underestimates the possible influence of these sounds on the ear. Studies that focus on measurements in the “audio frequency range” (i.e. excluding infrasound) will not provide a valid representation of how wind turbine noise affects the ear.
The high infrasound component of wind turbine noise may account for high annoyance ratings, sleep disturbance and reduced quality of life for those living near wind turbines.
Introduction
Copyright. Michael A. Nissenbaum, MD. With Permission
Wind turbines are becoming increasingly important to our society, providing a “green” form of energy generation. As a result, the size and the numbers of wind turbines being built are rapidly increasing.
The noise generated by wind turbines has been reported to be substantially more annoying than most forms of transportation noise (airplanes, railways, roads, etc) (Pederson and Persson Wayne, 2004; Pederson and Persson Wayne, 2007; Pedersen et al, 2009). It has also been reported that some people with wind turbines located in the vicinity of their homes are upset by the noise and some have reported a variety of symptoms that only occur within the vicinity of wind turbines ( Pierpont 2009; Nissenbaum, 2010)
|
Wind Turbine Noise
The noise generated by wind turbines is rather unusual, containing high levels (over 90 dB SPL) of very low frequency sound (infrasound) as shown in the Figure (Van den Berg 2006; Jung and Cheung 2008).
There has been a widely held view that the infrasound at the levels produced by wind turbines cannot influence the ear because they are below the threshold for human hearing. Our study shows this view is incorrect.
But as a result, most measurements of wind turbine noise are A-weighted (i.e. adjusted according to the sensitivity of human hearing).
According to the British Wind Energy Association, the A-weighted sound level (in which the high infrasound component has been taken out) generated by wind turbines is 35-45 dB SPL. They state that “Outside the nearest houses, which are at least 300 metres away, and more often further, the sound of a wind turbine generating electricity is likely to be about the same level as noise from a flowing stream about 50-100 metres away or the noise of leaves rustling in a gentle breeze. This is similar to the sound level inside a typical living room with a gas fire switched on, or the reading room of a library or in an unoccupied, quiet, air-conditioned office.”
From this description, wind turbines would appear to be incredibly quiet.
So no one would expect emitted sound at this level to be a problem.
This characterization of wind turbine noise totally ignores the high infrasound component of the noise. A-weighting or G-weighting sound measurements are perfectly valid if hearing the sound is the important factor. But, as sensory cells in the ear are stimulated at levels substantially below those that are heard, A-weighted measurements do not adequately reflect the true effect of the sound on the ear.
|
Research by Our Group
The research performed in our laboratory covers a number of areas related to inner ear function and the physiology of the cochlear fluids (apparent from the rest of the Cochlear Fluids website). Our group has for years been using infrasonic tones to study how the ear works. These are often described as “biasing tones”, because they allow the structures of the ear to be displaced slowly while measurements are made. For almost 10 years we have been using infrasonic 5 Hz bias tones at levels as low as 85 dB SPL (shown as thegreen diamond in the graph at the right) to manipulate cochlear responses in guinea pigs. The guinea pig is LESS sensitive to low frequencies than the human, so this makes you realize that low frequency infrasonic sounds ARE AFFECTING THE FUNCTION OF THE EAR at levels well below those that are heard by humans. (shown as blue symbolsin the graph). Also shown for comparison (red line) is the calculated sensitivity of the inner hair cells (IHC) of the cochlea – the cells that you hear with.
So, the question remains, how can infrasonic bias tones affect cochlear responses at levels well below those that should be heard by the guinea pig.
The answer is complex and requires an understanding of the physiology of the ear and how it responds to low frequency stimuli. It is the subject of our paper titled:
Responses of the Ear to Low Frequency Sounds, Infrasound and Wind Turbines
Alec N. Salt and Timothy E. Hullar
Some of the points made by our paper include:
-
The outer hair cells of the cochlea are stimulated by low frequency sounds at levels much LOWER than the inner hair cells. It is likely that the OHC arestimulated in some people by infrasounds at the levels generated by wind turbines. Thus the infrasound component of wind turbine noise may be the cause of the increased annoyance of some individuals to wind turbine noise. It also has to be considered that if there are health effects in some individuals, then the infrasound component of wind turbine noise could be involved.
-
Stimulation of the OHC occurs at infrasound levels substantially below the levels that are heard. We calculate that stimulation of the OHC occurs at approximately 30-40 dB below sensation level depending on frequency. The concept that sounds that you cannot hear can have no influence on the inner ear is incorrect. Infrasounds that cannot be heard DO influence inner ear function.
-
The practice of A-weighting measurements of wind turbine noise underestimates the influence of this noise on the inner ear.
-
Some clinical conditions (endolymphatic hydrops and “third window” pathologies, such as superior canal dehiscence) make the ear hypersensitive to infrasound stimulation. In both hydrops and SCC dehiscence it is possible to have the condition and be asymptomatic. This leads to the possibility that some “apparently normal” (asymptomatic) individuals may be hypersensitive to infrasound.
-
In order to more fully understand why infrasound affects the ear at levels that are not heard, you will have to read the paper!
The Outer Hair Cells Respond to Infrasound
The estimated outer hair cell sensitivity curve for humans is shown as the brown line in the figure at the left, and compared to the spectrum of wind turbine noise (shown as the blue line and the red line). The outer hair cells are far more sensitive to infrasound than previously appreciated. In addition, the outer hair cells are known to be mechanically motile (these cells contract when you stimulate them). They are the mechanical “amplifiers” of the inner ear and contribute to making your hearing as sensitive as it is. They can be thought of as miniature “muscles” that amplify vibrations for the higher frequencies that you hear. However, another function of these cells may be to mechanically counteract very low frequency, infrasonic vibrations - to help make sure you don't hear them. This would represent a biological form of active noise cancellation. So, these cells are not insensitive to infrasound. Instead, they transduce the signal and then actively cancel it out at the inner hair cell so you don't hear it. So a high infrasonic component in a noise would at best be expected to give the outer hair cells “a darned good workout”. And you wouldn't necessarily be aware of what they were doing, because their role may be to cancel out the sound so you don't hear it. This raises the POSSIBILTY that the dislike / disturbance of individuals by wind turbine noise may be related to the long-term stimulation of the outer hair cells with infrasound.
It cannot yet be concluded that this type of stimulation causes specific symptoms in people. More research needs to be performed in this area. It does, however, suggest that the infrasound component of wind turbine noise should be studied further as a possible cause of people's symptoms, rather than being dismissed as an impossible cause. There is a need to collect more direct evidence from humans. For example, it is possible to reduce the infrasound sensitivity of the ear in humans by placing a tympanostomy tube in the eardrum. The tympanostomy tube provides a tiny perforation so that sound pressure is shunted across the eardum. Because infrasound changes pressure rather slowly it gets equilibrated across the eardrum more easily than high frequency sound, so the low frequencies will no longer stimulate the ear as much (Voss et al, 2001). If the symptoms of patients who were sensitive to wind turbine noise were alleviated by placement of tympanostomy tubes, then this would support the case that the infrasound component of the noise was the source of the problem.
|
References Cited
Harry A. Wind turbines, noise and health. 2007
Jung SS, Cheung W. Experimental identification of acoustic emission characteristics of large wind turbines with emphasis on infrasound and low-frequency noise. J Korean Physic Soc 2008; 53:1897-1905.
Nissenbaum 2010 The Society for Wind Vigilance
Pedersen E, van den Berg F, Bakker R, Bouma J. Response to noise from modern wind farms in The Netherlands. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009;126:634-643.
Pedersen E, Waye KP. Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise--a dose-response relationship. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;116:3460-3470.
Pedersen A, Persson Waye K. Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported health and well-being in different living environments. Occup Environ Med 2007;64:480-486.
Pierpont N. Wind turbine syndrome. 2009.
Van den Berg GP. The sound of high winds: the effect of atmospheric stability on wind turbine sound and microphone noise. PhD Dissertation, University of Groningen, Netherlands.
Voss SE, Rosowski JJ, Merchant SN, Peake WT. Middle-ear function with tympanic-membrane perforations. I. Measurements and mechanisms. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 ;110:1432-44.
Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
February 9, 2011 - Commercial Wind Power & Wildlife in Maine
Commercial Wind Power & Wildlife
Guest blog by David Miller
Does industrial wind and wildlife really mix well? I would suggest no. There has been much research into the affects of industrial wind turbines and its deadly affect on bats and birds, but little to none on mammals.
The effects on both livestock and wildlife are starting to be realized by land owners, and by hunters and trappers. The effects of wind turbines on domestic animals are thankfully starting to be recorded, such as 100 goats dying in Taiwan because they could not feed. The turbines noise kept them “instinctively on alert” for predators to the point they could not eat. The livestock of an Ontario cattle rancher having many still born and what few calves were born were attacked by their mothers who kicked and bit them, others refused to nurse their young as a result of the affects of newly installed industrial size wind turbines. These are but two recorded and reported examples. Domesticated animals cannot escape the noise and shadow flicker of wind turbines because of their restricted (fenced in) range resulting in these types of incidents.
The higher forms of wildlife such as deer, bear, moose, and many furbearers take the option of leaving the immediate area of industrial wind complexes. But by this action, they are forced into habitat that is already occupied resulting in conflicts such as over browsing and an increased rate of predation. These activities have been recorded in various locations where industrial turbine complexes have become operational. The loss of habitat due to road, transmission line, and turbine site construction also results in the loss of thousands of acres of habitat. The affects of the turbines on the lower forms of wildlife such as rodents, snakes, and even insects is an unknown to date. They all have their place in the chain of life and any single loss will affect other wildlife and also the overall environment.
The hydrology of the mountains may also be impacted by the deep bed rock blasting that is required to make the foundations for the 400+ foot tall wind turbines. This may affect our drinking water supplies and the surface waters that hold various species of life including our beloved cold water brook trout and landlocked salmon fisheries.
Fragile and rare high alpine vegetation will be destroyed by mountain top wind development. In places such as Maine, moose will be driven off the high mountains sides where many go to have the cold temperatures of winter freeze off their tick infestations that can if bad enough weaken them to the point that they may parish. The pine martin, one of the most valuable of our fur bearers thrives on mountains with heavy spruce growth. Our depleted northern deer herds will be further stressed and damaged due to the fact that the low frequency noise and construction will force them from current habitat. The use of herbicides to prevent re-vegetation may cause long term harm to wildlife, aqueduct species, and maybe our own drinking water. The possibility of forest fires will be greatly increased due to lighting strikes to the turbines and overheated gearbox lubricants igniting. This is in areas mostly far removed from any firefighting equipment and men.
The affects of industrial wind on wildlife (other than bats and birds) is not being actively researched by various federal and state fish and game departments due to several reasons, such as a lack of funding and most commonly due to political pressure where state administrations do not want anything negative being brought to light. This is because they support wind power development along with its tax incentives, stimulus monies, political gains, and of course their own long term pocket wealth over that of the welfare of wildlife. The loss of revenues generated by wildlife such as licensing fees and employment related to hunting, fishing and trapping industries which generates millions annually for the states affected by industrial wind is not in their greedy equations.
It must be noted that the scientific and medical communities are realizing the effects of low frequency noise and the strobe affect of the blades in sun light that cause mental and medical problems in humans. Even this is being contested and down played by the big wind companies with their multitude of lawyers and our greedy politicians who gain to lose face and wealth by opposing big wind. They are doing all they can to discredit those who oppose big wind. Along with that, they come into communities where they want to place commercial wind turbine complexes and buy off the local governments and tax payers with bribes of reduced electrical fees, offers to pay for lawyers to represent the local communities during negotiations, and cash settlements with private individuals who have to sign agreements not to publicly oppose them for the duration. Here in Maine we are staged to lose over 350 miles of mountain tops along with many thousands of acres of habitat. Most of the land is privately owned and the land owners cannot be blamed because of upfront monies, reduced tax burdens, and long term leases. This is all done with stimulus funding which are our federal tax monies or that borrowed by our current federal administration from foreign countries which will hurt generations of Americans for many decades. The sad part is that wind power generation is not even cost effective, nor does it reduce carbon emissions because more coal and oil fired generation plants must be built to back up wind power generation which is a variable dependent on wind. These are the basic reasons I feel that commercial wind generation is not beneficial to wild life, along with consideration of its impact to the human race.
I ask that you form your own opinion on this matter, but please educate yourself on the pro’s and con’s of this subject before forming that opinion. There are many websites that will educate one. All you need to do is search or Google industrial wind or wind turbines.
Dave Miller, Lexington TWP, ME
Dave Miller is a Maine resident, an outdoor writer and a member of the Carrabassett Valley Trappers Association.
http://www.skinnymoose.com/maineoutdoors/2011/02/09/commercial-wind-power-wildlife/
Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
June 1,2011 - Statement on Wind Power by The Maine Professional Guides Association
The Maine Professional Guides Association urges the State of Maine to recognize and address theadverse economic impact that industrial scale wind farms can cause to Maine’s guides. The unspoiledlands, waters and natural character of inland Maine's landscape are what attract clientele to ourAssociation's doorsteps. Without these elements, the livelihood of the Maine Guide and the quality ofoutdoor recreation in Maine will be irreplaceably lost. Unfortunately, industrial scale wind powerprojects have far reaching impacts well beyond the actual project site. Their visual and audible impacts,both day and night, can extend far and are in direct conflict with the very characteristics that bring ourclients to Maine. Our current knowledge of the impacts that these wind farms may have on wildlife largeand small is insufficient to provide comfort to those of us who depend on that resource for our economicsurvival.
Download PDF at: DC_Bowers-DP4889-MPGA-DaleTobeyTestimony.pdf
Source: http://www.maine.gov/doc/lurc/projects/Windpower/FirstWind/Champlain/Development/Application/Testimony/DC_Bowers-DP4889-MPGA-DaleTobeyTestimony.pdf
August 2011 - Annotated Bibliography National Park Service: Impacts of Noise on Wildlife
Download PDF: NPS_wildlifebiblio_Aug2011.pdf
Source: http://www.nature.nps.gov/naturalsounds/pdf_docs/wildlifebiblio_Aug2011.pdf
October 31, 2011 (document date not found;date shown is date posted) - Noise Effects on Wildlife Factsheet (Noise Pollution Clearinghouse)
Noise Pollution Clearinghouse
FACT SHEET
Noise Effects on Wildlife
Sources of noise that have the potential to effect wildlife include aircraft overflights, recreational activities such as snowmobiling and motorboating, automobile traffic, and heavy machinery and equipment. The effects of aircraft noise have been studied more intensively because of their threat to wildlife populations in national and state refuges and parks. Impacts to wildlife habitat in remote areas have increased from military aircraft overflights and helicopter activity related to the tourism and resource extraction industries (National Park Service, 1994).
The study of animal response to noise is a function of many variables including characteristics of the noise and duration, life history characteristics of the species, habitat type, season and current activity of the animal, sex and age, previous exposure and whether other physical stressors (e.g. drought) are present (Manci, et al., 1988).
Physiological responses: Disturbances from aircraft noise range from mild, such as an increase in heart rate to more damaging effects on metabolism and hormone balance. Long term exposure to noise can cause excessive stimilation to the nervous system and chronic stress that is harmful to the health of wildlife species and their reproductive fitness (Fletcher, 1980; 1990).
Behavioral responses: Responses vary among species of animals and birds and among individuals of a particular species. Variations in response may be due to temperament, sex, age, and prior experience with noise. Minor responses include head-raising and body-shifting. More disturbed mammals will trot short distances; birds may walk around flappping wings. Panic and escape behavior results from more severe disturbances (National Park Service, 1994).
Behavioral and physiological responses have the potential to cause injury, energy loss (from movement away from noise source), decrease in food intake, habitat avoidance and abandonment, and reproductive losses (National Park Service, 1994). Studies have shown that when certain bird species are flushed from nests in response to noise, eggs are broken and young are exposed to injury and predators (Bunnell et al., 1981; Gladwin, 1987). Young mammals have been trampled as adults attempt to flee from aircraft (Miller and Broughton, 1974). Another study compared mortality rates of caribou calfs exposed to overflights to those not exposed (Harrington and Veitch, 1992). Mortality rates were significantly greater in the exposed group. Milk release may have been inhibited in mothers disturbed by the noise leaving calfs malnourished.
Animals rely on hearing to avoid predators, obtain food, and communicate. Auditory systems of some animals are particularly at risk to physical damage from chronic noise, for example desert animals that have evolved an acute sense of hearing. Studies have documented hearing loss caused from motorcycle noise in the desert iguana (Bondello, 1976) and the kangaroo rat, an endangered species (Bondello and Brattstrom, 1979)
Ninety-eight species of birds and mammals on national park lands have been identified as threatened or endangered. The impacts on these species from aircraft noise are largely undocumented. Some of the species became threatened or endangered because of loss of habitat. Further relocation necessary because of noise disturbance might not be possible for these species (National Park Service, 1994).
Studies are needed to determine the long term effects of noise disturbance. Long-term studies have been difficult because of the effort required and the complexity of the variables affecting animal survivorship (National Park Service, 1994).
Many important studies on wildlife can be found on our website. They include:
Top
List of References
Return to NPC Library
Return to NPC Home Page
LIST OF REFERENCES
Bondello, M.C., 1976. The effects of high-intensity motorcycle sounds on the acoustical sensitivity of the desert iguana, Dipsosaurus dorsalis. M.A. Thesis. California State University, Fullerton. 37 pp.
Bondello, M.C. and B.H. Brattstrom, 1979. The experimental effects of off-road vehicle sounds on three species of desert invertebrates. Report to the Bureau of Land Management. 61 pp.
Bunnell, F. L., Dunbar, D., Koza, L. and G. Ryder, 1981. Effects of disturbance on the productivity and numbers of white pelicans in British Colombia - observations and models. Colonial Waterbirds 4:2-11.
Fletcher, J.L., 1980. Effects of noise on wildlife: a review of relevant literature 1971-1978. Pages 611-620 in J.V. Tobias, G. Jansen, and W.D. Ward, eds. Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem. Am. Speech-Language-Hearing Assoc., Rockville, MD.
Fletcher, J.L., 1990. Review of noise and terrestrial species: 1983-1988. pp. 181-188 in: B. Berglund and T. Lindvall, eds. Noise as a Public Health Problem Vol. 5: New Advances in Noise Research Part II. Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm.
Gladwin, D.N., Asherin, D.A and K.M. Manci, 1987. Effects of aircraft noise and sonic booms on fish and wildlife: Results of a survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species and ecological services field offices, refuges, hatcheries, and research centers. NERC-88/30. USFWS, National Ecology Research Center, Fort Collins, CO. 24 pp.
Harrington F.H.and A.M.Veitch, 1992. Calving success of woodland caribou exposed to low-level jet fighter overflights. Arctic 45:213-218.
Manci, K.M., Gladwin, D.N., Villella, R. and M.G. Cavendish, 1988. Effects of aircraft noise and sonic booms on domestic animals and wildlife: A literature synthesis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Ecology Research Center, Ft. Collins, CO NERC-88/29. 88 pp.
Miller, F.L. and E. Broughton, 1974. Calf mortality on the calving grounds of Kaminuriak caribou during 1970. Canadian Wildlife Service Report Series No. 26, Information Canada, Ottawa.
National Park Service, 1994. Report to Congress, Report on effects of aircraft overflights on the National Park System.
http://www.nonoise.org/library/fctsheet/wildlife.htm
October 31, 2011 (document date not found;date shown is date posted) - USFWS The Effects of Turbine Noise on Wildlife
Download PDF: USFWS_The_Effects_of_Noise_on_Wildlife.pdf
Source: http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/docs/Noise.pdf
October 31, 2011 (document date not found;date shown is date posted) - Nature Sounds Society: Effects of Noise on Wildlife
Effects of Noise on Wildlife
As human beings continue their encroachment upon the last remaining vestiges of untouched wilderness, wildlife populations around the globe continue to diminish in size. The impacts of human encroachment and environmental pollution are evident wherever research biologists perform their studies: loss of habitat and territory; loss of food supply; behavioral changes in mating predation and migration; and changes in interspecies relationships, altered predator-prey balance, increased competition for food and shelter.
Human-induced noise pollution is one of many factors contributing to the depletion of wildlife populations. Laboratory studies and limited field research have uncovered four major ways in which animals are adversely affected by noise pollution:
- hearing loss, resulting from noise levels of 85 db or greater;
- masking, which is the inability to hear important environmental cues and animal signals;
- non-auditory physiological effects, such as increased heart rate and respiration and general stress reaction; and
- behavioral effects, which vary greatly between species and noise characteristics, resulting in, for example, abandonment of territory and lost reproduction.
Studies on Rhesus Monkeys in the lab have shown that a 30% increase in blood pressure following exposure to as an average 85 db (lower at night, higher during the day) for eight months resulted in a permanently higher blood pressure and heart rate even after one month of quiet time!
Sound, stressed mice have been shown to be much more susceptible to disease, less able to learn mazes, and to experience 40-100% resorption of embryos and 66% reduction in fetal weight when exposed to 82-85 db (equivalent to a power lawn mower ) for eight hours per day.
Exposure of Desert Kangaroo Rats to dune buggy sounds (95 db at 4 meters, on and off for 500 seconds) caused a major reduction on detection distance for its principal predator the Sidewinder (Rattlesnake). In fact, the distance for the normal sand kicking response to the snake's presence was reduced from 40 cm. to 2 cm., and it took three weeks for the rat to recover. Surely in the field, this nocturnal rodent could not have survive at such a disadvantage!
Plenty of evidence exists to indicate that serious damage is occurring to animals in the wild. Long-term effects from medium to low level noise intrusion need much more study, with emphasis on threatened and endangered species. The synergistic effects of noise with other stressors on animals also need investigation.
Dave Cornman
Nature Sounds Society
Source: http://www.naturesounds.org/conservENW.html
More information from Nature Sounds Society, including "Conservation and Quietude": http://www.naturesounds.org/index.html
Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
October 31, 2011 - (document date not found;date shown is date posted) -The Biological Effects of Noise on Wildlife (Acoustic Ecology Institute)
The Biological Effects of Noise on Wildlife
Research on this topic has taken place for years, quite a bit below the surface of public awareness. Bernie Krause has written about several striking examples; here are some excerpts (see full essay linked below).
"Many types of frogs and insects vocalize together in a given habitat so that no one individual stands out among the many. This chorus creates a protectively expansive audio performance inhibiting predators from locating any single place from which sound emanates. The synchronized frog voices originate from so many places at once that they appear to be coming from everywhere. However, when the coherent patterns are upset by the sound of a jet plane as it flies within range of the pond, the special frog biophony is broken. In an attempt to reestablish the unified rhythm and chorus, individual frogs momentarily stand out giving predators like coyotes or owls perfect opportunities to snag a meal"
"Because of the noise introduced into their environment by cruise boats traveling in Glacier Bay, humpback whales have been observed trying to swim away and hide from the noise, ducking behind spits of land or large blocks of ice that had broken off glaciers apparently in an effort to get into quieter "shadow" zones. Where once there were many, in recent years, fewer and fewer whales have been seen in the Bay. Along with other factors such as the special manner in which certain vessel noise may be amplified by the geological features of the Bay contour, it is believed by some biologists that human-induced noise is a major contributing ingredient to the falling numbers. "
"And very recently, Scott Creel, a biologist at Montana State Univ., along with a number of his colleagues, wrote a paper that tied (glucocorticoid) enzyme stress levels in elk and wolves to the proximity of snowmobiles and the noise they create in relation to the wild populations in Yellowstone and Voyageurs Parks. With wolves, over the period of time that snowmobile traffic increased 25%, stress enzyme levels increased by 28%. Conversely, within Voyageurs Park, a 37% decline in snow mobile traffic between 1998 and 2000 correlated to a an exact drop of the same percentage in stress enzyme levels over the same period. These figures are found to be comparable in elk. " See press report on this study: [GO THERE]
National Park Service Soundscape Program Research Bibliographies - Includes detailed lists of papers, with abstracts of each.
Effects of Noise on Wildlife [DOWNLOAD WILDLIFE BIBLIOGRAPHY(doc)]
Effects of Noise on Visitors [DOWNLOAD VISITOR BIBLIOGRAPHY(doc)]
The Effects of Noise on Wildlife: Literature Review (Autumn Lyn Radle, 1998). Detailed summary of research from the 1970's to the 1990's. [WEB PAGE]
Noise Pollution Clearinghouse Effects of Noise on Wildlife Archive - [WEB PAGE]
Effects of Terrestrial Seismic Surveys on Animals - A collection of research references compiled by the International Association of Geophysical Contractors. [WEB PAGE]
Loss of Natural Soundscape - A paper given to the World Affairs Council in 2001 by Bernie Krause, Ph.D. The above examples of animal responses to noise are included in this essay."Through my field work, I discovered that in undisturbed natural environments, creatures vocalize in relationship to one another very much like instruments in an orchestra. On land, in particular, this delicate acoustic fabric is almost as well-defined as the notes on a page of music when examined graphically in the form of what we sometimes call voice prints. For instance, in healthy habitats, certain insects occupy one sonic zone of the creature bandwidth, while birds, mammals, and amphibians occupy others not yet taken and where there is no competition. This system has evolved in a manner so that each voice can be heard distinctly and each creature can thrive as much through its iteration as any other aspect of its being. The same type of event also generally occurs within marine environments. This biophony, or creature choir, serves as a vital gauge of a habitat's health. But it also conveys data about its age, its level of stress, and can provide us with an abundance of other valuable new information such as why and how creatures in both the human and non-human worlds have learned to dance and sing. Yet, this miraculous biophony - - this concerto of the natural world - - is now under serious threat of complete annihilation. Not only are we moving toward a silent spring, but a silent summer, fall and winter, as well. " [WEB PAGE] For more detail on Krause's "Niche Hypothesis" of the biophony, see this full article: [NICHE ESSAY]
Effects of Ocean Noise on Wildlife - This is a burgeoning field of study and action, and is covered in detail in AI's Ocean Noise section [GO THERE]. Of particular interest:
Special Report: International Whaling Commission Science Committee's Symposium on Ocean Noise [GO THERE]
Reports on Ocean Noise by Federal Agencies and nonprofit groups [GO THERE]
AEI Annual Ocean Noise Recaps (science and regulatory developments):
[OCEAN NOISE 2006] [OCEAN NOISE 2007] [OCEAN NOISE 2008]
Source: http://www.acousticecology.org/wildlandbiology.html
============================================
June 23, 2014
Wind Turbines take terrible toll on animals
By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh June 23, 2014
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/64022
July 25, 2014
Nova Scotia seeks info on wind farm’s effect on lynx
http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1225421-nova-scotia-seeks-info-on-wind-farm%E2%80%99s-effect-on-lynx
Mar 2, 2015
Google Translation:
Fear of health: Denmark stops expansion of wind power plants
How dangerous is wind power for animals and humans? This question is the construction of wind turbines in Denmark almost stopped as the "Welt am Sonntag" reported. Also in Germany is growing skepticism about wind power projects.
Denmark is a pioneer country in the modern wind power technology and is equipped with a share of over 39 per cent of the national energy mix, the world's leading nation in this area. However, the development stagnates.
The starting point for the rising skepticism about wind power was an incident that occurred at the end of 2013 a mink farm in Denmark Vildbjerg. Already in the first round of new wind turbines behind a farm, flipped the animals in their cages. When the plant was off the next morning, had each other so added more than 100 of them deep wounds that they had to be killed.
State investigation will provide guidance on health consequences
Could the infrasound from wind turbines do animals crazy? Is thus perhaps also the health of people at risk? The uncertainty in the environmentally conscious Denmark has grown ever since.
Compared to the "world" says Jan Hylleberg, chief executive of the Association of Danish wind industry that the majority of Danish municipalities have laid the plans for new wind farms on ice. They wanted to wait until after, will be completed by government studies on the health effects of infrasound. During 2013, any new wind turbines went with a total capacity of nearly 700 megawatts, this value last year was only 67th
Also in Germany is growing skepticism
The new restraint in wind power development in Denmark transmits increasingly on Germany. According to the "world" is working now, more than 500 initiatives to end wind power projects, a - and it's not just that the wind turbines affect the landscape.
The critics often refer to studies to prove that the vibrations caused by wind turbines air health have resulted. Who is constantly exposed to infrasound, therefore, may have to contend with, inter alia, sleep disorders, headaches, concentration difficulties, tinnitus, nausea, impaired heart rate and anxiety.
http://www.feelgreen.de/daenemark-stoppt-ausbau-von-windkraftanlagen/id_73106348/index
Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.