Holmes B, Lenchine V, December 2011 Waterloo Wind Farm Environmental Noise Monitoring Report

In this report, from 2011, the EPA Officers discuss changing the location of the monitoring away from near the gum trees adjacent to the residence, because the noise measurements were significantly affected by the noise from the trees, and were not representative of the noise from the wind farm.

Extract from Page 2
1.4 Monitoring Locations
As this study aimed to address compliance at a particular residence (Residence 1), noise monitoring was undertaken at a location adjacent to Residence 1 over the several hours during the day (approximately 8am to 2pm). The monitoring locations chosen near Residence 1 are shown in Figure 1. …. Location A was changed in favour of location B after about 30min of noise monitoring as the measurements were significantly affected by noise from nearby trees and were not representative of noise from the wind farm.


Extract from Page 7
2.1.1 Residence 1 Discussion
…………….. For a reasonably small dataset
(covering approximately 6 hours), the gathered data demonstrates an extremely good R2 coefficient of 0.82 for a cubic regression. This is likely a consequence of the good monitoring location chosen, which lay in a recently harvested field between Residence 1 and the nearest WTG, approximately 50 metres separated from the house and any significant vegetation (such as large trees).

 This demonstrates that the SA EPA staff were well aware in December 2011 that it was important to locate microphones well away from large gum trees in order to obtain accurate measurements.

Why did the subsequent SA EPA Acoustic survey in 2013 have at least two locations including this particular residence, where the microphone was placed close to trees?

Download the SA EPA Report →