Te Rere Hau Wind Farm Palmerston North, New Zealand Independent Review of Noise-Related Conditions

Transcription

1 Report Date: Thursday, 27 October 16 Reference: M16516RP1, Revision 0

2 Document Information Project Client Report title Project Number Author Reviewed by Palmerston North City Council M16516 Tom Evans Associate Director p m tom.evans@resonateacoustics.com Jon Cooper Revision Table Report revision Date Comments 0 27 October 2016 Initial Issue

3 Glossary A-weighting Amplitude modulation Decibel (db) Frequency Hertz (Hz) Leq L90 L95 Peak-to-trough Special audible characteristic Tonal audibility Tonality A spectrum adaption that is applied to measured noise levels to represent human hearing. A-weighted levels are used as human hearing does not respond equally at all frequencies. The variation in level of noise over time. With regards to wind turbine noise, amplitude modulation is the regular variation in aerodynamic noise which occurs at the blade pass frequency. Wind turbine noise is generally considered to contain a normal level of amplitude modulation as a fundamental characteristic, e.g. the blade swish noise, but excessive amplitude modulation has been identified in limited cases. Unit of measurement used to express sound level (as db). We typically perceive a 10 db increase in sound as a doubling of that sound level. The number of times a vibrating object oscillates (moves back and forth) in one second. Fast movements produce high frequency sound (high pitch/tone), but slow movements mean the frequency (pitch/tone) is low. Unit of frequency one Hz is equivalent to one cycle per second. The energy averaged equivalent noise level over a measurement period. Noise level exceeded for 90% of the measurement time as required under NZS 6808:2010. The L90 is used to assess wind farm noise, as it is less likely to be adversely affected by extraneous noise than other noise descriptors. Noise level exceeded for 95% of the measurement time as required under NZS 6808:1998. The L95 is used to assess wind farm noise, as it is less likely to be adversely affected by extraneous noise than other noise descriptors. The difference between the peak and trough of noise levels with modulating amplitude, also known as the modulation depth. An audible characteristic of wind turbine noise that is not considered a normal characteristic and has the potential to increase annoyance. Special audible characteristics are defined by NZS 6808:2010 to include tonality, excessive amplitude modulation and impulsivity. A measure of tonality describing the audibility (in db) of a tone in relation to the surrounding masking noise. As defined in ISO Values greater or equal to 4 db indicate that the tone is prominent and subject to a penalty. A characteristic of a noise where there is a distinctly higher level over a relatively narrow frequency range. Examples include the reversing signal on a truck or the low frequency hum of a transformer. A noise exhibiting tonality is subjectively more annoying than a non-tonal noise at the same level.

4 Table of Contents 1 Summary Introduction... 3 Site visit... 3 Information received... 4 Qualifications and Experience Site description... 6 Complaints... 7 Wind conditions at the site... 9 Background to this review Noise monitoring Overall noise levels Tonality Amplitude modulation Summary Noise criteria considerations Overall noise levels Tonality Amplitude modulation Impulsiveness Penalties for SACs Other considerations Peer review Stage 4 construction Other changes to the wind farm Recommended conditions Conclusion Appendix A Original consent conditions Appendix B CV Appendix C Map showing wind farm and complaint locations Appendix D Updated District Plan map Appendix E Wind roses... 34

5 1 Summary 1.1 My name is Thomas Ross Evans, Associate Director, from Resonate Consulting Pty Ltd (trading as Resonate Acoustics) of Level 4, 10 Yarra Street, South Yarra, Victoria. I have been appointed by Palmerston North City Council (PNCC), with the agreement of New Zealand Windfarms Limited (NZWL), to review available information relating to noise emissions from Te Rere Hau Wind Farm and to recommend noise-related conditions for the wind farm. 1.2 PNCC is undertaking a process to determine appropriate consent conditions relating to noise emissions from the. is located to the east of Palmerston North in the Tararua Ranges. The site consists of 65 wind turbine generators (WTGs), with the original resource consent allowing for an additional 32 WTGs that have not yet been constructed. The site is operated by NZWL. Consent for the wind farm was granted by Consent Order issued by the Environment Court on 30 May The Consent Order included conditions relating to operational noise from the wind farm that are included as Appendix A. 1.3 A recent decision issued by the Environment Court, [2015] NZEnvC 70, identified that, due to inaccuracies in the original Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) provided for the wind farm, PNCC was entitled to conduct a review of the conditions of the wind farm consent. This report provides my recommendations as to noise-related conditions that should be applied to the wind farm consent. Importantly, the conditions are informed by existing knowledge of the noise generated by the wind farm that has been gathered since it commenced operation. 1.4 Since the wind farm commenced operation, PNCC has received numerous complaints regarding noise emissions. The complaints have been received from multiple residents and do not necessarily refer to the loudness of the noise, often focussing on the character instead, and do not necessarily correspond to downwind conditions. It is agreed between all parties that the WTGs at the wind farm produce Special Audible Characteristics (specifically tonality) in the near field but, to date, it has not been demonstrated that Special Audible Characteristics occur at residences, at least in a form that would attract a penalty. 1.5 NZWL engaged Marshall Day Acoustics to undertake a significant noise compliance monitoring exercise to assess compliance with the original consent conditions for the site. The conclusions of the noise compliance assessment were that the wind farm was operating in compliance with the original consent conditions and no penalties for Special Audible Characteristics were applicable. 1.6 Generally, I consider the noise compliance report to detail an appropriate assessment of overall noise levels in accordance with the original consent conditions, but note that I have some concerns with respect to the assessment of Special Audible Characteristics. Specifically, the assessment of tonality, while broad in the number of periods assessed, may not have considered all possible tonal frequencies emitted by the WTGs. The assessment of amplitude modulation was limited in the number of periods assessed and was based on an methodology that has since been superseded due to concerns around its accuracy. Additionally, it is clear that new consent conditions would need to refer to updated guidance on wind turbine noise, primarily New Zealand Standard NZS 6808:2010, and therefore, at a minimum, reassessment of the compliance monitoring data will be required. 1

6 1.7 Based on my review, I have proposed recommended consent conditions for noise emissions from the as documented in Section 7. The conditions address the measurement and assessment of overall noise levels, the measurement and assessment of tonality and amplitude modulation, and the application of penalties for Special Audible Characteristics, should they be detected at the residences. 1.8 Specific areas of the recommended consent conditions that are different to the original consent conditions include: Updating the reference to noise criteria and measurement methodologies from the 1998 version of New Zealand Standard NZS 6808 to the 2010 version. Requiring the background noise levels to be determined without influence of noise from the Extension of the or any other nearby wind farm. Requiring the consideration of the High Amenity definition for Rural Residential areas recently introduced into the Palmerston North District Plan. Tonality assessment criteria have been updated to refer to the objective assessment criteria referenced by NZS 6808:2010. This prescribes a penalty that should be applied to samples where tonal noise is identified. An amplitude modulation assessment methodology recently developed by the UK Institute of Acoustics and reviewed by the UK Department of Energy & Climate Change has been referenced. This is considered the most robust and appropriate assessment criteria for amplitude modulation given the considerable body of work underpinning it. A method for applying penalties to wind farm noise where Special Audible Characteristics may be identified on occasion but not consistently. A condition requiring a peer review of the noise compliance report. A condition addressing the potential installation of additional WTGs at the site. A condition requiring PNCC to be notified where changes may be made to WTGs at the site which may have an impact on the noise emissions. 1.9 Certain aspects of the original consent conditions have been retained such as the consideration of specific wind direction sectors and the focus of the assessment on the night time period, defined as 1 hour after sunset to 1 hour before sunrise. 2

7 2 Introduction 2.1 My name is Thomas Ross Evans, Associate Director, from Resonate Consulting Pty Ltd (trading as Resonate Acoustics) of Level 4, 10 Yarra Street, South Yarra, Victoria. 2.2 I have been appointed by Palmerston North City Council (PNCC), with the agreement of New Zealand Windfarms Limited (NZWL), to review available information relating to noise emissions from and to recommend noise-related conditions for the wind farm. 2.3 is located to the east of Palmerston North in the Tararua Ranges. The site consists of 65 wind turbine generators (WTGs), with the original resource consent allowing for an additional 32 WTGs that have not yet been constructed. The site is operated by NZWL. Consent for the wind farm was granted by Consent Order issued by the Environment Court on 30 May The Consent Order included conditions relating to operational noise from the wind farm that are included as Appendix A. 2.4 A recent decision issued by the Environment Court, [2015] NZEnvC 70, identified that, due to inaccuracies in the original Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) provided for the wind farm, PNCC was entitled to conduct a review of the conditions of the wind farm consent. This report provides my recommendations as to noise-related conditions that should be applied to the wind farm consent. Importantly, the conditions are informed by existing knowledge of the noise generated by the wind farm that has been gathered since it commenced operation. Site visit 2.5 To assist with conducting this review, I undertook a site visit to and the surrounds. The site visit to the wind farm was conducted between approximately 10 and 11 am on 13 September Craig Auckram (PNCC) and I were taken around the wind farm site by a representative of TRH Services and provided the opportunity to listen up close to WTGs at the site, including the two westernmost WTGs (T103 and T104) that are visible from the residences on Ridgehaven Road and Harrison Hill Road. 2.6 On the evening of 12 September 2016 and during the day on 13 September 2016, I also visited the nearest residences to the wind farm. I observed the line of sight of the residences to the wind farm, at those locations where WTGs can be seen, and the intervening land. 3

8 Information received 2.7 The information I have received to inform this review is summarised in Table 1. Table 1 Summary of information received Date of receipt Description of information 11 August 2016 Background materials: Noise Assessment Report for the original Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) prepared by Malcolm Hunt and Associates, dated August 2004 Report and Decision of Hearings Commissioner Alistair Aburn regarding the original application and AEE, dated 11 February Consent Order issued by the Environment Court on 30 May 2005, included as Appendix A. A Te Rere Hau Noise Complaints Map prepared by PNCC including all complaints up to 30 June Court decisions: Judgement of the Court of Appeal [2012] NZCA 601 dated 20 December 2012 Environment Court Decision [2012] NZEnvC 133 dated 4 July 2012 Environment Court Decision [2015] NZEnvC 70 dated 21 April 2015 noise monitoring reports: Data Collection Specification agreed between PNCC and NZWL, reference ENV-2010-WLG , dated 21 December 2010 Marshall Day Acoustics, Te Rere Hau Noise Compliance Noise Survey Results and Discussion, report reference Rp008 R W, dated 18 February Standards: New Zealand Standard (NZS 6808:1998) Acoustics The Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators New Zealand Standard (NZS 6808:2010) Acoustics Wind Farm Noise ETSU-R-97 The Assessment & Rating of Noise from Wind Farms International Standard IEC , 2002, Wind turbine generator systems Part 11: Acoustic noise measurement techniques. DELTA Acoustics & Vibration, 14 April 2000, Objective Method for Assessing the Audibility of Tones in Noise, Joint Nordic Method Version August 2016 PNCC noise complaints spreadsheet for 23 August 2016 Joint statements prepared by acoustic experts for Environment Court matter ENV WLG-00114: Joint Statement of Acoustic Experts dated 9 September 2011 Second Joint Statement of Acoustic Experts dated 13 December 2011 Third Joint Statement of Acoustic Experts dated 2 December September sent from residents to Craig Auckram from PNCC on 27 January 2014 regarding their observations as part of the site visit on 22 January 2014 Summary of the same site visit prepared by Mr Nigel Lloyd from Acousafe. 4

9 Date of receipt Description of information 3 October 2016 Advice received via Atkins Holm Majurey, acting for NZWL, that no near field tonality assessment has been conducted in non-downwind directions. Audio data is available for some non-downwind directions that could be analysed. Wind roses for the meteorological mast based on the 2014 and minute wind speed and direction data. The raw wind speed and direction data was also provided in spreadsheet format. Qualifications and Experience 2.8 A copy of my curriculum vitae is provided in Appendix B. 2.9 I am an Associate Director at Resonate Acoustics, a company that provides professional consulting services in acoustics and vibration. The Victorian office in which I am based operates from Level 4, 10 Yarra Street, South Yarra I hold a Bachelor of Engineering (Mechatronic) with 1 st Class Honours from the University of Adelaide and I have 10 years of experience as a professional acoustic consultant. I am a Member of the Australian Acoustical Society The majority of my professional experience relates to the prediction and assessment of environmental noise and the specification of mitigation and control strategies for achieving compliance against relevant noise assessment criteria. Since commencing work in 2006, I have specialised in the measurement, prediction and assessment of wind farm noise. This involves undertaking research into wind farm noise and the publication of papers into the measurement, prediction and assessment of wind farm noise, including the assessment of tonality and amplitude modulation. 5

10 3 Site description 3.1 is located to the east of Palmerston North in the Tararua Ranges. The site consists of 65 WTGs, with the original resource consent allowing for an additional 32 WTGs that have not yet been constructed. The site is operated by New Zealand Windfarms Limited (NZWL). 3.2 Consent for the was granted by Consent Order issued by the Environment Court on 30 May The Consent Order included conditions relating to operational noise from the wind farm that are included as Appendix A. 3.3 Following issue of the Consent, Stage 1 of the wind farm was constructed in three stages: Stage 1 consisted of five WTGs. Stage 2 consisted of 28 WTGs. Stage 3 consisted of 32 WTGs including those closest to the locations from which noise complaints have been received. 3.4 To the east of, an extension to the wind farm has been constructed consisting of 32 WTGs (Te Rere Hau Extension). The Extension is located on Tararua District Council land and is therefore the subject of a separate consent. The Extension has therefore not been addressed as part of the conditions. 3.5 The WTGs at are Windflow 500 two-bladed upwind turbines. The turbines have a hub height of 30 m Above Ground Level (AGL), a rotor diameter of 33 m and a rated power of 500 kw. The cut-in wind speed for the turbines is 5.5 m/s at hub height and they reach rated power at 13.7 m/s. 3.6 The WTGs are located slightly further than 1 km from the nearest residences, which are predominantly located to the west and southwest of the wind farm site. Complaints have been received from a number of residents adjacent to the wind farm. The locations of the WTGs and complainant properties (as at 30 June 2010) are shown on the PNCC map included in Appendix C of this report. 3.7 The nearest residences to the wind farm are generally located in a Rural or Rural Residential Zone. A recent Palmerston North District Plan change decision (15A-H), made on 1 September 2016, reduced the area of the Rural Residential Zone surrounding the wind farm as shown on the relevant map included in Appendix D. The plan change 15A-H also inserted a definition that Rural Residential land was to be considered High Amenity as defined in New Zealand Standard (NZS 6808:2010) Acoustics Wind Farm Noise. This would class the following residential locations considered in this report as High Amenity: 21, 47 and 48 Ridgeview Road, Aokautere. 428 Pahiatua Aokautere Road. 6

11 3.8 I understand that this recent decision is the subject of a current appeal by NZWL. However, my report is based on the current version of the Palmerston North District Plan including plan change 15A-H. Complaints 3.9 A review of the complaints log provided by PNCC indicates that, from May 2009 until August 2016, 1722 complaints were received from a total of 32 different locations. The occupants of some locations have only lodged a relatively small number of complaints over that period, but a considerable number of complaints have been received from nine locations. Table 2 details the nine locations for which more than 40 complaints have been lodged over the period, along with a description of the conditions under which complaints predominantly occur. Note that wind directions and conditions were not recorded for all complaints and therefore the notes regarding wind direction are based only on those complaints for which those details were recorded. Table 2 Summary of repeat complaint locations Location No. of recorded complaints Summary 1009 Makomako Road 48 Ridgeview Road 428 Pahiatua Aokautere Road 47 Ridgeview Road 140 Harrison Hill Road 367 Forest Hill Road 458 Majority of complaints (~70%) occur under northwest winds, with limited occurrences under northeast winds (8%). Comments typically refer to a light, or occasionally medium strength, wind 401 Southeast winds account for approximately 40% of the recorded complaints, northwest winds for approximately 20%. Range of wind speeds at wind farm noted but generally corresponds with light wind at residence. 162 Southeast winds account for half of the recorded complaints (50%). Northwest winds also coincide with complaints at times (~15%). Range of wind speeds at wind farm noted but generally corresponds with light wind at residence. 146 Southeast winds account for over half (54%) of the recorded complaints, easterly winds for another 35%. Comments typically refer to a light, or occasionally medium strength, wind. 101 Almost half (46%) of complaints for which a wind direction was noted correspond to an easterly wind, with one quarter (25%) corresponding to a westerly wind. Comments typically refer to a light, or occasionally medium strength, wind. 98 Southerly (30%) and southeast winds (25%) account for over half of complaints when combined. Comments generally refer to light winds, or conditions where there is little or no wind at the residence. 7

12 Location No. of recorded complaints Summary 21 Ridgeview Road 96 Harrison Hill Road 696 Pahiatua Aokautere Road 71 Wide range of wind directions recorded. Westerlies (30%), southerlies (22%) and southeast (22%) winds the most common. Comments generally refer to light winds, or conditions where there is little or no wind at the residence but WTGs are operating. 50 Southeast and easterly winds account for 61% of the recorded complaints when combined. Comments generally refer to light winds, or conditions where there is little or no wind at the residence but WTGs are operating. 46 Southeast and easterly winds account for 50% of the recorded complaints when combined, northwest and westerly winds for a combined 41%. Comments generally refer to conditions where there is little or no wind at the residence but WTGs are operating The locations listed in Table 2 are shown on the complaints map in Appendix C except for the residence at 1009 Makomako Road, Pahiatua. This residence is in Tararua District Council and is positioned much closer to the Te Rere Hau Extension than itself From the summary in Table 2 it is apparent that the complaints do not necessarily relate to downwind conditions when overall noise from a wind farm would generally be expected to be loudest. For example, for the residences on Ridgeview Road and Harrisons Hill Road, located to the west of the wind farm, it was common for complaints to be recorded under southeast winds when the nearest WTGs would be expected to be offset from downwind. Complaints were also commonly recorded under westerly and northwest winds when the WTGs would be crosswind or upwind of the residences It is also apparent from Table 1 that a large proportion of the complaints have been received during light winds, with only a small number of complaints received under medium or strong winds In describing the noise, many comments listed in the complaints log refer to the level of noise referring to a loud or very loud noise from the wind farm. However, a similarly large number refer to the character of the noise, with descriptions such as grinding, whirring, whining, humming, rumbling, roaring and droning. The noise is described in some comments as: loud train noise coming from the windfarm this morning sounds like a ship or like the interislander ferry like standing next to a washing machine In my experience, descriptions of a whining, humming, rumbling, droning, loud train, ship, and washing machine suggest that tonal wind farm noise may be present at residences surrounding the site. 8

13 3.15 On 22 January 2014, a site visit was undertaken by several of the residents to the wind farm who attended in conjunction with Mr Miklin Halstead (Marshall Day Acoustics, acoustic representative for NZWL) and Mr Nigel Lloyd (Acousafe, acoustic representative for PNCC). The residents who attended the site visit identified that the sounds they heard close to the WTGs were the same sounds that they heard at their residences, and made the following comments: The whoosh-whoosh sound occurred regardless of position around the WTG and was an amplitude modulated sound. The whine, a higher pitched ringing sound, was particularly noticeable downwind of the WTG, although was audible in all directions. The grinding noise was observed for Stage 1 WTGs and described as a lower pitched mechanical sound with some modulation like a motor. The train roar sound reported at the residences at times was not observed during the site visit. One resident also referred to observing a constant droning noise that they heard regularly at their residence The complaints log maintained by PNCC relates predominantly to complaints regarding wind farm noise at the residences and immediate surrounds. However, I also understand that complaints have been received that the wind farm noise causes annoyance during recreational walks that the residents take in the area around the site. Wind conditions at the site 3.17 NZWL has provided recent wind roses for the Te Rere Hau western meteorological mast that are included in Appendix E. The wind roses are based on data collected at the 30 m and 50 m anemometers in 10-minute intervals over the 2014 and 2015 calendar years respectively. The meteorological mast is relevant as it is the reference wind data source for the compliance noise assessment that has been undertaken for the wind farm It is apparent that the two significant wind sectors at the wind farm are northwest winds, stretching from a westerly direction through to a north-northwest direction, and southeast winds, from an easterly direction through to a south-southeast direction. Any assessment would need to have regard to these primary wind directions, particularly as they appear to relate to the conditions when a high proportion of complaints occur The data provided by NZWL also provided the ability to assess the typical range of wind shear values that occur at the site. Wind shear refers to the change in wind speed with measurement height. Typically wind speeds at the WTG hub height (30 m) will be higher than those measured at lower heights but this difference is not constant. Under periods of high wind shear, the difference will be greater. 9

14 3.20 One result of wind shear can be that a higher wind speed at the WTG hub height, which controls the WTG sound power level, corresponds to a lower wind speed at ground height. Therefore, periods of higher wind shear may make wind farm noise more audible at residences. The wind farm noise is not necessarily any louder than it would be at the same hub height wind speed under lower wind shear, but is often accompanied by lower background noise levels at residences that increases the perceived audibility. However, I note that the effect of wind shear, as measured at the meteorological mast at, is likely to be outweighed by the influence the topography has on the difference between wind speed at the WTGs and wind speed at the residences The Marshall Day Acoustics noise compliance report issued in reports that the 30 m height wind speed measured at the meteorological mast was approximately 1.07 times the wind speed at 10 m height. However, a review of the 2015 collected mast data indicates that the 10-minute wind shear at the site varies from this. The 95 th percentile of the multiplying factor from 13 m to 30 m based on the complete 2015 dataset is 1.21, with an average value of 1.1. Therefore, there are periods when the wind shear is greater than the value assumed in the noise compliance report. Background to this review 3.22 Following the receipt of complaints regarding the wind farm, PNCC sought to make declarations as to whether the wind farm is operating in accordance with its resource consent in matters before the Environment Court The most recent relevant decision issued by the Environment Court, [2015] NZEnvC 70, identified that, due to inaccuracies in the original Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) provided for the wind farm, PNCC was entitled to conduct a review of the conditions of the wind farm consent This report provides my recommendations as to noise-related conditions that should be applied to the wind farm consent. Importantly, the conditions are informed by existing knowledge of the noise generated by the wind farm that has been gathered since it commenced operation, including, but not limited to: The complaints, comments and observations of residents near to the wind farm. Court decisions and joint expert reports issued in matters regarding the wind farm. The compliance monitoring that has been conducted by Marshall Day Acoustics as detailed in the 2014 report. 1 Marshall Day Acoustics, 18 February 2014, Te Rere Hau Noise Compliance Noise Survey Results and Discussion, Rp008 R W. 10

15 4 Noise monitoring 4.1 The Marshall Day Acoustics noise compliance report for details the results of extensive compliance monitoring undertaken at six locations around the wind farm. Several of these locations were consistent with those from which a considerable number of complaints were received. The measurements were collected from March to May 2011, and from October 2012 to February The compliance noise measurements were undertaken to determine if the wind farm was operating in accordance with the original consent conditions. The measurements were undertaken in accordance with the Data Collection Specification (the Specification) agreed by Mr Halstead and Mr Lloyd. 4.3 The conclusion of the noise compliance monitoring was that noise emission from Te Rere Hau Wind Farm complies with the Conditions of Consent at all properties. While a 1 db exceedance was identified during ESE winds of 7 8 m/s at one residence (104 Harrison Hill Road), it is stated that this was due to more stringent measurement requirements of the Specification rather than the consent conditions. 4.4 The noise compliance monitoring also concluded that penalties for the special audible characteristics of tonality and amplitude modulation were not warranted. 4.5 My comments on the conclusions and suitability of the noise monitoring are provided below. Overall noise levels 4.6 The measurement and analysis of operational overall A-weighted noise levels in the noise compliance report is appropriate based on the consent conditions and the Specification. The analysis includes several procedures which would tend towards a more conservative assessment: Only the night time data is assessed. This will mean the assessment focusses on those periods when the WTGs are more likely to be audible and wind shear is likely to be higher. Specific, dominant, wind direction sectors are analysed separately. This means that the assessment is more likely to be repeatable as it is not subject to variations in the considered wind directions between assessments. This is important where aggregated data periods are collected. Consideration is provided to periods when more than 5 percent of the WTGs at the site were inoperable due to being switched off for general maintenance and faults. In assessing against the Specification requirements, additional consideration was given to periods when WTGs were not generating power. 11

16 4.7 In addition to operational measurements, the noise compliance report also includes the results of updated background noise measurements conducted with the wind farm shut down. I consider the collection of updated background noise data, relative to that collected in 2004 and 2006, appropriate as it provides a more direct comparison between operational and background noise levels with the differences that can occur over time reduced. The restriction of the background analysis to night-time data and specific wind directions, matching the operational directions, is also considered appropriate. 4.8 While the monitoring is considered appropriate in comparison to the conditions of consent and New Zealand Standard (NZS 6808:1998) Acoustics The Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators, which was the applicable Standard at the time of consent, I note that NZS 6808:2010 has since been released and superseded the 1998 version of the Standard. It is therefore reasonable to update the conditions of consent to refer to the 2010 version. This will have some impacts on the noise compliance assessment: Firstly, the noise compliance assessment has been based on the measured L95,10min noise levels whereas NZS 6808:2010 requires the assessment to be based on the measured L90,10min noise levels. In practice this is likely to have a relatively small impact on the outcome as the difference between L90 and L95 noise levels will be less than 1 db. Additionally, the background noise assessment will also need to be updated to assess background noise based on L90 noise levels which will marginally increase background noise levels by a similar amount. Secondly, consideration will need to be given to High Amenity areas in accordance with the Palmerston North District Plan. High Amenity areas was a concept introduced in NZS 6808:2010 that can result in more stringent noise criteria in certain cases. Finally, the noise compliance assessment is not clear as to whether the shutdowns to determine background noise were conducted with the Te Rere Hau Extension WTGs shutdown or operating. NZS 6808:1998 does not refer to an assessment methodology for separate stages of a wind farm and therefore it may not be relevant if the Extension WTGs were shutdown or not. However, Sections and of NZS 6808:2010 are clear that background noise levels should be measured in the absence of any noise from other wind farms or other stages of the assessed wind farm. Consideration may also need to be given to noise from the neighbouring Tararua Wind Farm influencing shutdown noise levels, although I note it is unlikely that this is having a measurable influence on background noise levels at the residences given the separation distances involved. Tonality 4.9 Tonality refers to a distinct pitch within a noise signal, whereby acoustic energy is concentrated within a narrow frequency range when compared to the frequencies around that concentration. When the tonal frequency has a sufficient amount of energy in comparison to the frequencies around it that could act to mask it, then that tone will become audible. The more audible a tone, the more annoying it is to the listener. To address this, both NZS 6808:1998 and NZS 6808:2010 require that a penalty is applied to wind farm noise levels that contain a tone, to reflect the difference in annoyance between a broadband (non-tonal) noise and a tonal noise. 12

17 4.10 It has been agreed the experts appointed by both NZWL and PNCC that the Windflow WTGs installed at produce audible tonality when assessed in the near field. The near field refers to testing conducted downwind at a distance of 50 m from the WTGs The noise compliance report presents the results of near field tonality testing conducted at T15 (Stage 1), T10 (Stage 2), T58 (Stage 2), T84 (Stage 3) and T104 (Stage 3). The tests were conducted in accordance with IEC (2002) Wind turbine generator systems Part 11: Acoustic noise measurement techniques and identified that tones with a tonal audibility greater than 0 db (i.e. a tone that would be at least just audible to the average listener) occurred consistently at frequencies of approximately Hz. This tone was significant, with a maximum detected tonal audibility of 12 db indicating a highly prominent tone in the near field. Audible tones were also detected at some, but not all, WTGs at frequencies of: ~325 Hz ~765 Hz ~1114 Hz ~1215 Hz ~1245 Hz ~1800 Hz ~1886 Hz ~1984 Hz The identified tonal frequencies were used to define frequency bands of interest where, if a tone was identified that fell into that band, then it was investigated to identify the source by listening to the audio signal. The use of tonal frequencies determined at the WTG to filter the tonality results at the residences is considered a reasonable approach. Analysing all data collected at the residences for tonality is a significant undertaking and it is an effective way of excluding many of the extraneous tones that will be detected at a residence The tonal analysis at the residence was carried out using the IEC procedure to determine tonal audibility for each two-minute period of the audio recordings collected during the monitoring period. Audible tones were detected and attributed to the wind farm at four of the residences but no penalty was considered applicable as the tonal audibility did not exceed 6.5 db, considered to correspond to the clearly audible tone required by NZS 6808: Significant effort has been invested in the tonality analysis in the noise compliance report. However, I have the following comments and concerns that would require further consideration especially if NZS 6808:2010 is to be adopted: The adoption of the 6.5 db threshold for a tonal penalty is consistent with the Standards that were applicable at the time that NZS 6808:1998 was released. However, the consent conditions refer to the 2002 version of the IEC standard, which provides no guidance on acceptable levels of tonality, just stating that tonal audibility values greater than -3 db are to be reported. This is still the case with later versions of the IEC standard and it is therefore necessary to determine applicable tonal penalties by making reference to different guidance. The identification of tonal frequencies that the WTGs produce appears to be based on data collected in a downwind direction only. While an IEC near field test only 13

18 requires data be analysed in a downwind direction, it is possible that tones are radiated in non-downwind directions from the turbines. It is my previous experience that tonality from WTGs is normally greater under crosswind or upwind conditions, and that this may include tonal frequencies not detected under downwind conditions. Additionally, it appears the measurements to identify tonality at the turbines are limited to 10 m AGL wind speeds of 6 10 m/s, but I note it is not uncommon for a tone to be radiated only outside this wind speed range. A broader near field test to determine the frequencies that tones are radiated from the turbines should be undertaken, to assess all wind speeds from cut in to above rated power, and for all measurement directions around the wind turbine. Given that a considerable number of complaints are received under light winds where residences do not appear to be directly downwind of the WTGs, this is important to ensure that the current procedure is not filtering out tones that are produced by the wind farm. NZS 6808:2010 includes an updated recommendation for the assessment of tonality, compared to the method provided in NZS 6808:1998. Rather than the tonal assessment methodology from IEC , NZS 6808:2010 recommends that tonal audibility should be determined in accordance with Annex C of ISO :2007 Acoustics Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise Part 2: Determination of environmental noise levels. This procedure is based on the Joint Nordic Method Version 2. Annex C of ISO :2007, and by extension NZS 6808:2010, states that the tonal penalty is equivalent to the tonal audibility less 4 db up to a maximum penalty of 6 db. The tonal penalty does not need to be an integer value. That is, the tonal penalty applied to a sample with a tonal audibility of 5.6 db would be 1.6 db. Where the tonal audibility is 4.0 db or less, no penalty is applicable. A clearer indication of the amount of tonality data (e.g. number of two-minute periods with wind speed and direction) analysed for each residence should be provided to identify that sufficient coverage of wind conditions is achieved. Amplitude modulation 4.15 Amplitude modulation refers to the modulation, or rise and fall, in wind farm noise over time. It is commonly referred to as the swish-swish or thump-thump as the blades move through the air, with the sound level being modulated at the blade pass frequency. While a level of amplitude modulation is fundamental to wind farm noise, excessive amplitude modulation may potentially increase annoyance and therefore a penalty is typically applied where the modulation in the sound exceeds a certain threshold The noise compliance assessment applied the amplitude modulation method recommended by RenewableUK to assess selected periods identified in the resident logs during the earlier 2011 monitoring periods at each residence. The software produced by RenewableUK was used to assess each period with an average amplitude modulation value determined for each 10-minute period and a maximum amplitude modulation value for the highest 10-second period in each 10-minute period. 14

19 4.17 While short 10-second periods were assessed to have a peak-to-trough amplitude modulation greater than 5 db, adopted as the criterion at which a penalty may be applicable for amplitude modulation, no 10-minute period exhibited a modulation exceeding 2.1 db and therefore it was concluded that no amplitude modulation is applicable I have the following comments and concerns regarding the amplitude modulation assessment conducted to date: The data analysed is limited in comparison to the tonality assessment. Given the availability of proprietary software, now available from the UK Institute of Acoustics, it is practical to assess greater datasets. Although an accepted method at the time of the noise compliance assessment, concerns have been since been raised in the UK that the RenewableUK amplitude modulation underestimates the level of peak-to-trough amplitude modulation. It has now been superseded by the UK Institute of Acoustics hybrid methodology, which is supported by significant research into appropriate methods to measure and assess amplitude modulation from wind farm noise. The adoption of a 5 db peak-to-trough criterion appears to be based on the recommendations of NZS 6808:2010 Appendix B3. However, recent research in the UK has recommended penalties commencing at a peak-to-trough variation of 3 db. This UK research is considered more relevant as the recommendation in Appendix B3 of NZS 6808:2010 is an interim test method only, and includes the following statement: This method is considered to be an adequate interim test that has been used in New Zealand. It is envisaged that appropriate objective tests for modulation special audible characteristics will be developed in future to replace B3.2 or provide a more robust objective method than B3.2. Summary 4.19 Overall, it is apparent that a significant amount of data has been collected and analysed as part of the noise compliance assessment. Generally, this data has been collected and analysed in accordance with the consent conditions and the Specification. However, I note some gaps in the current assessment, most notably: The tonality assessment was based on filtering data at the residences by tonal frequencies detected in the near field. While this is a valid approach in theory, near field tonal frequency identification has only been carried out in the downwind direction and therefore risks missing tonal frequencies that may arise in other directions. The amplitude modulation assessment adopted a now superseded methodology and the amount of data assessed for modulation should be greater I also note that the application of new consent conditions to the data will require alterations to the noise compliance assessment. Some of these changes are likely to be minor, such as adopting L90,10min noise levels rather than L95,10min noise levels, but some may involve more significant changes such as updating the tonality assessment to refer to the objective tonality criteria from NZS 6808:2010. From a technical perspective, I consider it may be possible for the existing data to be reanalysed in accordance with new consent conditions but this will need to be considered by PNCC and NZWL. 15

20 5 Noise criteria considerations 5.1 There are two primary aspects to wind farm noise at residences that require consideration for any site: Whether the overall A-weighted noise levels are at or below an appropriate limit, including consideration of the background noise if necessary. Whether the noise exhibits annoying noise character. 5.2 In New Zealand, wind farm noise is currently assessed using NZS 6808:2010. While Section 6 of the Palmerston North District Plan still refers to NZS 6808:1998 as the Standard for the assessment of wind farm noise, and the 1998 version was referred to within the original consent conditions for, I consider that NZS 6808:2010 is the more appropriate Standard to adopt. The 2010 version superseded the 1998 version of the standard and I note that the recent update of the Plan has referenced the 2010 version with respect to the Rural Residential area. 5.3 NZS 6808:2010 provides guidance on the assessment of both overall noise levels and noise character. Wind farm noise that exhibits annoying noise character is said to have Special Audible Characteristics (SACs). SACs, as defined by NZS 6808:2010, include tonality, amplitude modulation and impulsiveness. 5.4 NZS 6808:2010 notes the following regarding the noise limits recommended within the Standard: Wind farm sound may be audible at times at noise sensitive locations, and this Standard does not set limits that provide absolute protection for residents from audible wind farm sound. Guidance is provided on noise limits that are considered reasonable for protecting sleep and amenity from wind farm sound received at noise sensitive locations. 5.5 I note that noise sensitive locations in NZS 6808:2010 are identified as the location of a noise sensitive activity, associated with a habitable space or educational space in a building not on the wind farm site. Consideration may also be given to holiday cabins and camping grounds if applicable. 5.6 Based on the above, the noise limits recommended by NZS 6808:2010 should apply at any location within 20 m of existing residences around the site. 5.7 While some residents have expressed that noise from the wind farm impacts on their enjoyment of outdoor recreational walks, I note that NZS 6808:2010 does not recommend limits be applied to recreational land that does not fall into the above description. In my experience, noise limits for any sources are not generally applied to such activities unless there is a specific designation of the area as a passive recreational park or the like. 16

21 Overall noise levels 5.8 NZS 6808:2010 recommends that wind farm sound levels should not exceed 40 db(a) or the background noise level plus 5 db, whichever is the greater. Background noise levels are measured in 10-minute intervals, as L90,10min, over an extended period and correlated with wind speed to establish a relationship between wind speed and background noise level. Wind speeds are measured at hub height and are to be measured at a representative location that is consistent between background and operational monitoring. 5.9 In accordance with NZS 6808:2010 Section 5.6, it will be necessary for background noise levels at the residences to be determined in the absence of noise from neighbouring wind farms, including from the Te Rere Hau Extension. If the previous shutdown measurements were not conducted with the Extension shutdown, then the background noise level may need to be adjusted for the predicted noise level from the operational WTGs in accordance with C5.6.3 of NZS 6808: An exception to the 40 db(a) base limit occurs where a noise sensitive location is in an area defined as High Amenity in the relevant District Plan, then NZS 6808:2010 suggests that consideration be given to reducing the base limit to 35 db(a). For the High Amenity limit to apply, NZS 6808:2010 only recommends it applies at evening and night time, only for hub height wind speeds of 6 m/s and lower, unless there is good reason to change this threshold, and only where it can be shown that the average difference between the predicted wind farm noise level and measured background noise levels is 8 db or more The recent plan change to the Palmerston North District Plan clearly identifies that some residences will fall within the High Amenity Rural Residential zone and therefore consideration will need to be given to this. However, I note that the impact on the compliance assessment may be limited as the cut-in wind speed of the WTGs is 5.5 m/s and the High Amenity limit is only recommended for wind speeds of up to 6 m/s unless a change can be justified on meteorological, topographical and acoustical grounds. A review of the shutdown data in the noise compliance assessment indicates that background noise levels at residences at 48 Ridgeview Road and 428 Pahiatua Aokautere Road, within the High Amenity area, are low (less than 30 db(a)) for wind speeds up to 8 m/s. Therefore, from an acoustical perspective, it would be reasonable to apply the High Amenity test as defined in NZS 6808:2010 at these residences for wind speeds of up to 8 m/s and for directions where the background noise levels are less than 30 db(a). If the predicted or measured wind farm noise level is not more than 8 db above the measured background noise level, then the High Amenity 35 db(a) limit would not be applicable Operational wind farm noise levels in NZS 6808:2010 are measured in the same manner as the background noise levels, with the one obvious difference that the wind farm is operating at the time of the measurements. 17

22 5.13 In a similar manner to the current noise compliance assessment, I consider it appropriate to limit the wind farm noise assessment to the night-time period. This helps with the reduction of extraneous noise in the assessment and addresses the period typically considered to be the most sensitive with respect to noise. Additionally, wind shear tends to be highest at night and therefore this also assists in addressing periods of high wind shear. The original definition of night-time in the consent conditions is 1 hour after sunset to 1 hour before sunrise. However, NZS 6808:2010 refers to NZS 6802 Acoustics Environmental noise, which defines night-time as the period between 10 pm and 7 am the following day. Despite the updated definition in NZS 6808:2010, I recommend retaining the definition in the original consent conditions as it is not uncommon for bird noise to increase significantly prior to 7 am. I consider that defining night time with relation to sunset and sunrise, as per the original consent conditions, is a better methodology for reducing the influence of extraneous noise such as bird noise The recommendation of a minimum number of operating WTGs for assessment is also considered appropriate. This was adopted in the Specification that informed the noise compliance assessment. The noise compliance assessment did identify that the operational restrictions in the Specification were overly restrictive in that there were periods near cut-in where WTGs nearest to the residences were operating but those further removed, and therefore less critical, were not. Given the meteorological mast used for wind speed measurement is near to the residences, I consider that it is appropriate to consider data from 5.5 m/s and up as long as the nearest WTGs to each residence are generating. Otherwise it will be difficult to obtain any valid data at wind speeds around 5.5 m/s. I recommend that the assessment be undertaken excluding data points collected where: Less than 95 percent of the WTGs are available for operation. That is, more than 5 percent are offline for maintenance or due to failure. Less than 9 of the nearest 10 WTGs to a measurement location are generating (e.g. above cut-in wind speed). T103 or T104 are not generating (for Harrison Hill Road and Ridgeview Road measurement locations only) Additionally, the assessment of wind farm noise, and background noise, in specific wind direction sectors is considered good practice. The wind sectors referenced in the consent conditions are considered appropriate for continued adoption: WNW 270 to 315 relative to true north. NNW 315 to 360 relative to true north. SSE 135 to 180 relative to true north. ESE 90 to 135 relative to true north Lastly, NZS 6808:2010 requires a minimum 1, minute data points be collected but, given the restrictions being applied on limiting valid data points to night-time and particular wind directions, it is appropriate to relax this requirement for each wind direction sector. A minimum of 500 data points per sector would be desirable but is unlikely to be achievable given the data collected during the extensive monitoring campaign to date. Therefore, a minimum of 300 operational data points appears a reasonable compromise and should still provide a reasonable assessment given the use of only the night-time period and consideration of a narrow range of wind directions. 18

23 5.17 The operational data points should cover the range from the cut-in wind speed (5.5 m/s) to a wind speed of 15.5 m/s in accordance with the Specification. I note that Marshall Day Acoustics proposed consideration of allowing data points outside of this wind speed range but I consider it reasonable to restrict the assessment to this wind speed range as it limits the assessment to the range more likely to be controlled by wind farm noise. Tonality 5.18 It has been agreed the experts appointed by both NZWL and PNCC that the Windflow WTGs installed at produce audible tonality when assessed in the near field. The near field refers to testing conducted downwind at a distance of 50 m from the WTGs During my site visit to the wind farm, it was apparent that tonal noise was present in the near field and occurred at a variety of directions around the WTGs NZS 6808:2010 states that wind farms should be designed so that special audible characteristics, such as tonality, are not present at noise sensitive locations, but acknowledges that SACs cannot always be predicted. The presence of tonality in the near field does not mean that those tones will necessarily be audible at residences more than one kilometre away. Masking noise at the residence may act to render a tone inaudible or a particular tone may not be simultaneously produced by all WTGs and therefore the wind farm may provide its own masking noise Despite this, the presence of tonality in the near field places the onus on NZWL to demonstrate, to a reasonable degree, that wind farm noise at the residences does not include SACs and, if it does, to determine what penalty should be applied. This is particularly important given that a number of complaints appear to describe the wind farm noise in terms that could be interpreted as referring to tonal noise For the assessment of tonality, it appears reasonable to adopt the reference test method from B2.3 of NZS 6808:2010. That is, to assess audio collected at the residences to determine tonal audibility in accordance with Annex C of ISO :2007. The advantages of using this methodology are, firstly, that it has a prescribed penalty scheme based on the determined tonal audibility of a sample and, secondly, that these penalties are supported by dose-response studies determined for the Joint Nordic Method Version 2 on which it is based The other tonal assessment methodology that could conceivably be considered for the consent conditions is that documented in the UK guideline ETSU-R-97. This procedure also has a defined tonal penalty scheme and was developed for modulating tones from wind farm noise. However, NZS 6808:2010 is clear in its recommendation of the ISO :2007 procedure and therefore it is considered the most appropriate procedure for adoption in this case Penalties for tonal noise, if the tonal audibility exceeds 4 db, should be applied in accordance with NZS 6808:2010, although I acknowledge that this is not straightforward in cases where a SAC may only be detectable at the residence on occasions and not constantly. Further details on the proposed penalty method for SACs are given below. 19

24 5.25 Importantly, the tonality assessment conducted at each residence should: Demonstrate that a reasonable amount of data has been assessed for each wind speed and each wind direction sector. Include tonality testing conducted in the near field adjacent to at least 4 WTGs to identify the frequencies of audible tones produced by the WTGs in the near field. This testing should assess consecutive two-minute periods in accordance with Annex C of ISO :2007 and should be conducted over a wide range of measurement directions and speeds consistent with the measurement directions experienced at the residences. I consider that testing is required for at least 4 WTGs given the variation in sound power level between WTGs as reported in Section 10.2 of the noise compliance assessment. Amplitude modulation 5.26 While NZS 6808:2010 provides an objective amplitude modulation assessment methodology, the Standard is clear that this is an interim methodology until further research is conducted. Therefore, I consider it reasonable to adopt the amplitude modulation assessment methodology proposed in a recent report released by the Department of Energy & Climate Change in the UK The report reviews significant recent research into amplitude modulation of wind farm noise and concludes that the UK Institute of Acoustics (IoA) hybrid metric should be adopted to determine the level of peak-to-trough amplitude modulation Under this method, individual 10-minute periods of 100 ms LAeq noise levels are analysed using the methodology, which is implemented in IoA-provided software, and the 10-minute average AM is determined. Where the peak-to-trough depth exceeds 3 db, then a penalty is recommended in accordance with Figure 1. Figure 1 Proposed amplitude modulation penalty scheme 2 WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff, August 2016, Wind Turbine AM Review: Phase 2 Report, _Wind_Turbine_AM_Review_Issue_3 FINAL_.pdf 20

25 5.29 I note that the IoA method is only recommended for WTGs with a blade pass frequency of up to 1.6 Hz and the Windflow WTGs have a typical blade pass frequency of 1.63 Hz. The limitation of the software is that the 100 ms measurement intervals required by the IoA software may not be fine enough to distinguish peaks and troughs accurately if the blade pass frequency is noticeably higher than 1.6 Hz. However, the relatively small difference at this site is considered unlikely to affect the outcome of the assessment As for tonality, there is a difficulty in determining how to apply a penalty for amplitude modulation that is detected in a single 10-minute period to a dataset that may contain hundreds of 10-minute periods. The DECC report advises that professional judgement is required in applying the proposed penalty scheme as part of a planning condition. Further details on the proposed penalty method for SACs are given below I acknowledge that the DECC report has only been recently released. However, it adopts an IoA assessment procedure that has been well-researched, tested and released by the UK professional body for acousticians. Given that the comments about the interim method proposed by NZS 6808:2010 do not inspire confidence in it, I recommend reference to the IoA methodology in the consent conditions. Impulsiveness 5.32 Impulsiveness, or impulsive sound, is mentioned by NZS 6808:2010 as a potential special audible characteristic, and is described as banging or thumping sounds as part of wind farm noise Unlike tonality and amplitude modulation, NZS 6808:2010 does not provide guidance on objective assessment methods for impulsive sound. This is consistent with other guidance provided internationally for wind farm noise, where no specific metric for impulsiveness is recommended, and neither is any guidance on impulsive environmental noise assessment provided in NZS 6802: Given the lack of objective assessment metrics for impulsiveness in NZS 6808:2010, it is difficult to recommend that a consent condition be included to address impulsive noise. While some complaints do refer to thumping, and a very small number to banging sounds, these often refer to these as repetitive sounds and are therefore likely to be better addressed by an amplitude modulation consent condition. On this basis, no consent condition for impulsiveness has been recommended. Penalties for SACs 5.35 NZS 6808:2010 appears to assume that, if a SAC occurs in wind farm noise, then it will occur constantly and a penalty can be easily applied to the measured noise level. This assumption is consistent with that adopted in most other international guidance for the assessment of wind farm noise at residences. However, in my experience, SACs at residences are likely to occur intermittently if they occur at all. This difficulty is exacerbated by the variable penalty schemes proposed for both tonality and amplitude modulation. 21

26 5.36 One potential approach is to apply the penalty for the SAC to the individual 10-minute period and then use that period, along with all the non-penalised periods, to determine the overall wind farm noise level. However, a tone which occurs 20 percent of the time and attracts a 5 db penalty for one fifth of the considered data points may only shift the overall wind farm noise level by 1 db, despite it being a fairly regular occurrence at a reasonably annoying level. On the other hand, it does not appear reasonable to apply a penalty of 5 db to the overall noise level if the tone occurs very infrequently Therefore, I propose the following methodology for applying penalties for SACs, should they be detected at residences: The following procedure shall be assessed separately for each wind direction sector and only for the night time period (10 pm to 7 am). If a tone that attracts a penalty in accordance with NZS 6808:2010 and is attributable to the wind farm is detected in any two-minute period at a residence, then the penalty shall be applied to the 10-minute data point. If multiple tones are detected in a 10-minute period, then the highest penalty shall be applied. If average amplitude modulation exceeding 3 db is detected for any 10-minute period in accordance with the UK IoA metric, then a penalty shall be applied to that 10-minute period in accordance with Figure 1. The total penalty for any 10-minute shall not exceed 6 db in accordance with NZS 6808:2010. If less than 10 percent of the data points within a 1 m/s-wide wind speed bin attract a penalty, then the 10-minute data points, including penalty adjustment, shall be included in the data for the assessment of the overall noise level. Note that where a penalty has been applied to data points in this manner, it may be necessary to undertake bin analysis rather than fitting a polynomial trendline. Refer C7.4.2 of NZS 6808:2010. If 10 percent or more of the data points within a 1 m/s-wide wind speed bin attract a penalty, then the arithmetic average penalty for those penalised data points shall be determined and applied to the overall measured wind farm noise level for that wind speed I consider that the above provides a balance between addressing very occasional tonal noise or amplitude modulation without excessively penalising the overall wind farm noise, while also protecting the amenity of rural residential areas should a SAC occur semi-regularly under particular wind conditions. I note that the penalties can also be determined for specific wind speed ranges and wind directions which will assist with mitigation options for wind farm noise, should a SAC occur that attracts a sufficient penalty to result in the wind farm being noncompliant. 22

27 6 Other considerations Peer review 6.1 It will be necessary for NZWL to engage a suitably qualified consultant to prepare a compliance assessment against the updated consent conditions. This would, at a minimum, involve reassessment of the existing data collected by Marshall Day Acoustics or the collection of additional data. The report is likely to involve a significant and technical assessment of wind farm noise and it will be necessary for it to be peer-reviewed by an independent consultant suitable to PNCC. Stage 4 construction 6.2 Any updated consent conditions are to apply to the entire site that was previously approved, including those 32 WTGs that are yet to be built (herein referred to as Stage 4). While I understand that there is no current proposal to construct those 32 WTGs, the consent conditions will need to consider the potential construction of Stage From an acoustic perspective, there is a current lack of information regarding the potential impact of Stage 4. While the AEE provided an assessment of noise generated by the site, inclusive of the Stage 4 WTGs, it is agreed by both parties that the AEE noise predictions are approximately 10 to 12 db lower than the actual wind farm noise levels. Therefore, it is not possible to rely on the AEE noise assessment when considering Stage The potential impacts of Stage 4 are increased overall noise levels and a greater potential for SACs to become sufficiently audible to attract a penalty. While it may not necessarily result in non-compliance, the presence of more WTGs on the site does increase the risk of it occurring. 6.5 The first requirement for any Stage 4 WTG to be constructed should be for NZWL to demonstrate that the existing three stages are operating in accordance with the conditions of consent. If Stages 1 to 3 are not operating in compliance, then Stage 4 WTGs should not be installed. 6.6 If compliance is demonstrated for Stages 1 to 3, then a noise assessment report should be submitted to PNCC for review and consideration prior to the construction of any Stage 4 WTGs. The report should: Detail noise predictions at all residences within two kilometres of the wind farm with the Stage 4 WTGs. The accuracy of the predictions should be validated through comparison of the predicted and measured wind farm noise levels for Stages 1 to 3. Provide specific evidence for the sound power levels assumed for the Stage 4 WTGs, with reference to measured sound power levels for installed WTGs from earlier stages. The comparable WTGs should have equivalent characteristics to the proposed Stage 4 WTGs including gearboxes and the like. Provide justification as to why the addition of the Stage 4 WTGs would not result in Special Audible Characteristics at residences that would attract a penalty. This should have reference to measurement results from the first three stages. 23

28 6.7 Compliance noise monitoring would need to be conducted following the construction of the Stage 4 WTGs to demonstrate that compliance is still achieved with the consent conditions. Other changes to the wind farm 6.8 We understand that, from time-to-time, works have been undertaken on the Te Rere Hau WTGs. During the site visit we were advised that one of the nearest WTGs to the residence had had a replacement gearbox installed. These changes have the potential to alter noise emissions from the wind farm. In particular, changes to mechanical components are of concern as they could potentially alter the nature and level of tonal noise emissions from the WTGs. 6.9 Based on the site visit, I also understand that blades are changed on occasion between WTGs, with a spare set of blades available at the site for such changes. However, replacing blades with blades with the same profile is unlikely to result in a consequential change in noise emissions at residences. Similarly, blade repair works are typically of less concern as they would generally be expected to reduce high frequency tonal noise. However, if any blades were to ever be replaced with blades with new profiles, this could theoretically alter the noise emissions Given the potential for changes to mechanical components on the WTGs to alter SACs, in particular the near field tonality which is acknowledged by both parties, it is considered prudent for NZWL to submit proposed changes to WTGs to PNCC for review. Where PNCC is concerned about potential changes in noise emission from WTGs as a result of the changes, it may request an acoustic report to be submitted and/or subsequent sound power testing to be undertaken to check that no consequential change in noise emission has occurred. Such changes would involve: replacement of major items, such as a gearbox or generator alterations within the nacelle that could change the vibration isolation between the gearbox/generator and the WTG structure replacement of blades with new profiles, if this were to ever occur. 24

29 7 Recommended conditions 7.1 Based on my review of the information relating to noise emission from the Te Rere Hau Wind Farm, I recommend application of the following wind farm noise-related conditions: Condition Recommendation 1 For residences in the Rural Residential zone as defined by the Palmerston North District Plan, the wind farm shall operate such that wind farm noise does not exceed the greater of: a) 35 db(a) where the High Amenity condition as defined by NZS 6808:2010 is met or 40 db(a) where it is not OR b) the background noise level plus 5 db(a). For the purposes of this condition, the applicability of the High Amenity condition is to be assessed up to a hub height wind speed of 8 m/s. 2 For all other residences, the wind farm shall operate such that wind farm noise does not exceed the greater of: a) 40 db(a) OR b) the background noise level plus 5 db(a). 3 For the purposes of Condition 1 and Condition 2, the background noise level used to establish noise limits should not be influenced by noise from the Te Rere Hau Extension or any other wind farm. 4 Wind farm noise is to be measured and assessed in accordance with NZS 6808:2010 with the following specific requirements: a) Noise levels are to be assessed over the 30 m height wind speed range from 5.5 m/s to 15.5 m/s. b) The operational and background noise levels are to be assessed for the night time period only. Night time is defined as the period from 1 hour after sunset to 1 hour before sunrise. c) The operational and background noise levels are to be individually assessed for each of the following wind sectors: i. WNW 270 to 315 relative to true north. ii. NNW 315 to 360 relative to true north. iii. SSE 135 to 180 relative to true north. iv. ESE 90 to 135 relative to true north. d) Any data points collected under any of the following circumstances are to be excluded from the assessment: i. Less than 95 percent of the WTGs are available for operation. That is, more than 5 percent are offline for maintenance or due to failure. ii. Less than 9 of the nearest 10 WTGs to a measurement location are generating. iii. T103 or T104 are not generating (for Harrison Hill Road and Ridgeview Road measurement locations only). 25

30 Condition Recommendation e) At least 300 valid data points are to be collected for each wind direction sector unless this is not reasonably practical, at the discretion of PNCC, due to the wind characteristics of the site. 5 The following procedure shall be assessed separately for each wind direction sector and only for the night time period (1 hour after sunset to 1 hour before sunrise). a) If a tone that attracts a penalty in accordance with NZS 6808:2010 and is attributable to the wind farm is detected in any two-minute period at a residence, then the penalty shall be applied to the 10-minute data point. If multiple tones are detected in a 10-minute period, then the highest penalty shall be applied. b) If average amplitude modulation exceeding 3 db is detected for any 10-minute period in accordance with the UK Institute of Acoustics amplitude modulation metric, then a penalty shall be applied to that 10-minute period in accordance with the penalty scheme detailed in the UK Department of Environment and Climate Change Wind Turbine AM Review Phase 2 Report dated August c) The total penalty for any 10-minute shall not exceed 6 db in accordance with NZS 6808:2010. d) If less than 10 percent of the data points within a 1 m/s-wide wind speed bin attract a penalty, then the 10-minute data points, including penalty, shall be included in the data for the assessment of the overall noise level. Note that where a penalty has been applied to data points in this manner, it may be necessary to undertake bin analysis rather than fitting a polynomial trendline. Refer C7.4.2 of NZS 6808:2010. e) If 10 percent or more of the data points within a 1 m/s-wide wind speed bin attract a penalty, then the arithmetic average penalty for those penalised data points shall be determined and applied to the overall measured wind farm noise level for that wind speed. 6 For the purposes of any background or operational noise monitoring, all noise data is to be referenced to 30 m height wind speeds, and 28 m height wind directions, as measured at the western meteorological mast. 7 A post-construction compliance noise monitoring report shall be submitted to PNCC that details: a) The results of the noise monitoring conducted at, as a minimum, the following 6 locations: i. 104 Harrison Hill Road. ii. 428 Pahiatua-Aokautre Road. iii. 48 Ridgeview Road. iv. 38 Ridgeview Road v. 367 Forest Hill Road vi. 662 Pahiatua-Aokautere Road. b) Objective tonality and amplitude modulation assessments conducted over the range of wind speeds and wind directions defined in Condition 4. 26

31 Condition Recommendation c) Where near field tonality assessments are used to support the tonality assessment at the residence, the near field tonality assessments shall also consider the wind speeds and wind directions defined in Condition 4. d) A conclusion as to the compliance, or otherwise, of the wind farm. e) The identification of any mitigation measures required to achieve compliance and evidence that they have been implemented. f) All other information as required by NZS 6808: The post-construction noise compliance assessment is to be independently peer reviewed by an acoustic expert acceptable to PNCC. 9 Prior to the installation of any new WTG at the site beyond the 65 already constructed: a) Compliance must have been demonstrated to have been achieved for the 65 installed WTGs at the site in accordance with Conditions 1 to 8. b) An acoustic assessment of the proposed additional WTGs must be submitted to PNCC for approval prior to construction demonstrating that predicted noise levels for all stages, including the Extension, achieve compliance with the consent conditions. c) The acoustic assessment should, at a minimum: i. Provide predicted wind farm noise levels from all WTGs at the site, including the Extension WTGs. The predictions should be validated on the basis of measurements taken adjacent to the existing installation. ii. Provide evidence supporting the assumed sound power levels for the WTGs. This should include sound power test data for the WTGs already installed and evidence that the new WTGs are equivalent to those already installed. iii. Provide justification as to why the addition of the new WTGs would not result in Special Audible Characteristics at residences that would attract a penalty. This should have reference to measurement results from the currently installed WTGs. d) Following the installation of the additional WTGs, compliance monitoring should be conducted again and the compliance monitoring report referred to in Condition 7 should be re-submitted to PNCC. e) Should the additional WTGs be installed in multiple stages, then compliance monitoring must be undertaken following each stage. 10 If any alterations are made to any WTG at that may have the potential to alter noise emissions, either by increasing noise levels or by changing/introducing a special audible characteristic, then PNCC is to be notified of the change prior to the alteration taking place. PNCC may, at its discretion, request an acoustic assessment of the proposed change be submitted, conducted by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant. Changes that are to be notified to PNCC include, as a minimum, replacements of gearboxes and/or generators, replacement of blades with new blade profiles and changes to the isolation between gearboxes and/or generators and the turbine structure. 27

32 7.2 I note that my recommended conditions refer to wind farm noise only and that conditions should also be considered to address noise associated with decommissioning activities and noise associated with non-wtg sources such as transformers. Conditions 2 and 3 of the existing consent conditions may be able to be retained for this purpose, or updated to reflect current New Zealand Standards for current and environmental noise assessment procedures if appropriate. 28

33 8 Conclusion 8.1 PNCC is undertaking a process to determine appropriate consent conditions relating to noise emissions from the. I have been appointed by PNCC, with the agreement of NZWL, to review available information relating to noise emissions from the site and to recommend noise-related conditions for the wind farm. 8.2 Since the wind farm commenced operation, PNCC has received numerous complaints regarding noise emissions. The complaints have been received from multiple residents and do not necessarily refer to the loudness of the noise, often focussing on the character instead, and do not necessarily correspond to downwind conditions. It is agreed between all parties that the WTGs at the wind farm produce Special Audible Characteristics (specifically tonality) in the near field but, to date, it has not been demonstrated that Special Audible Characteristics occur at residences, at least in a form that would attract a penalty. 8.3 NZWL engaged Marshall Day Acoustics to undertake a significant noise compliance monitoring exercise to assess compliance with the original consent conditions for the site. The conclusions of the noise compliance assessment were that the wind farm was operating in compliance with the original consent conditions and no penalties for Special Audible Characteristics were applicable. Generally, I consider the noise compliance report to detail an appropriate assessment of overall noise levels in accordance with the original consent conditions, but note that I have some concerns with respect to the assessment of Special Audible Characteristics. Additionally, it is clear that new consent conditions would need to refer to updated guidance on wind turbine noise, primarily NZS 6808:2010, and therefore, at a minimum, reassessment of the compliance monitoring data will be required. 8.4 Based on my review, I have proposed recommended consent conditions for noise emissions from the as documented in Section 7. The conditions address the measurement and assessment of overall noise levels, the measurement and assessment of tonality and amplitude modulation, and the application of penalties for Special Audible Characteristics, should they be detected at the residences. 29

34 Appendix A Original consent conditions 30

35 This is the document marked "D" referred to in the annexed affidavit of Rebecca Jane BIyth sworn at Palmerston North on che Jay^ctober 2010, befóme^ ^ ^ 315 Solicitor A SolidtOfofthe High Court of New Z e a l & l " "!riiton North C c

36 Té" fi %S MI fi/mwm* ghwibttr&ftf aw &t ü*&/y 316 m THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 Ó 0(aS AND ORIGINAL TO ACTION COPYTO 2005 IN THE MATTER two appeals under section 120 of the Resource Management Act BETWEEN AOKAUTERE GUARDIANS INCORPERATED (ENVW 0039/05) Appellant AND NEW ZEALAND WINDEARMS LIMITED (ENVW 0041/05) Applicant AND THE PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL Respondent BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT Environment Judge C J Thompson sitting alone pursuant to section 279 of the Act IN CHAMBERS CONSENT ORDER HAVING CONSIDERED the appeals and the memorandum of the parties THIS COURT HEREBY ORDERS BY CONSENT that the appeals are allowed to the extent that (a) turbines 81, 82,98, 99,100, 101 and 102 are deleted fromthe consent The turbines are shown in the application in the plan showing track routes across thewindfarm at page 41 of the Assessment of Environmental Effects dated 9 September 2004; and (b) the conditions of consent shall be those contained in the attached Schedule. The appeal is otherwise dismissed. There is no order as to costs. C J Thompson Environment Judge LINGTONthis c^-> \%\ ' : '*w SEAL 3>X day of May 2005 envw0039 & doc

37 317 13/05/20B5 11: EECA PASE 04/14 ', rromîcqoper RAPLEY (PalmNth) /05/200509:35 #053P.0Q4/O14 SCHEDULE 1 General 1. The proposed be constructed and operated generally io. accordance with, all the information, site plans and drawings accompanyiag l&e application or submitted as additional infismatioa. Bach, turbine shall be located within, a 20m radius of its nornmated comdiaates as outlined in the Application (contained on, M e No: N21/FLN - Plans drawn.by Cornell Wagner drawingnmrsber 101E, 3A.)- Advice Note; (a) the ability to alter the specific location of each tabine within a 20m. radius is to provide for Ifibäy movement related to detailed design layout and the recommendations made in me Applicatifs ecologisfs report; and (b) nan-ieflectrve finishes shall be used and be maintained in snch a manner to prevent blade ghat and to assist in reducing the prominence of me turbines when viewed irom a distance. Noise 2. Noise irom all oonstniction and de^^ (a) site works; (b)'-windturbin.e generator (WTG) foundation construction; (c) WTG assembly sndplacenient; (d) WTG removal; (e) foundatipn demolition and removal; and (f) land reinstatement shall be measured, assessed and controlled using NZS6803:1999 Acoustics - Cansîructîon Noise. Tie noise lisais shall be those set out in Table 2 of NZS6803:1999 &r works of a l o n g term" duration. 3. Noise ftom all other activities (other toan WTG operation and construction, activities) shall not exceed the following limits at or yúüáa the boundary of any land (at-hsc than. ffee wind ôrm site or a road): 7.00am to 10.00pm Í 0-OOprjQ to 7.00am 5QdBA.L10 40dBA LÍO and 70dBA Lmax Sound levels shall be measured in accordance -with New Zealand Standard ^ NZS6801:1999 Acoustics - Measurement qf Ermrcmmerácu. Sound and assessed in û^gccaxdansewiiïxkzs6802:1991 -Assessment of Environmental SouncL ^Ttadftnn Comiitäcras

38 18/05/ : EECA PASE 05/14.", From:CGOPER RAPLEY (Palm Nth) /05/ :36 #053 P.005/ WTG sound lévela shell not exceed: - the best fit regression curve of the A-weighted background sound level (LSS) plus SSB; and - 40dBA Whichever iß the higher. 5. The sound levels shall be measured and controlled using $236808:1998 Ácottsiics - The Assessment and Measurement qfsoundßam Wind Turbine Generators but with the following additional requirements to be met, a) The 10 nràrate background sound levels (L95,10) shaft be measured at the notioaal boundary of me dwelling existait at fee date of Ms consent on Lot 2 DP 3Ö764Q (being the nearest dwelling to the wind turbines other than the dwellings on Lot 1 DP (130 Harrison Road), Lot 2 DP (629 Pahiatua Track) and Lot 1 DP S5413 (631 FaWatua Track)), the principle being that if the WTG noise was excesdve, then me largest difference between the post-installation noise level and the acceptable limit would be obtained b) The 10 minute average wind speeds shall he measured at a height of 10 metres, and 30 metres along with the wind direction and these measurements shall be made si the same time as the 10 minute background 1,95,10 measurement (and called data pairs). c) The wind speed and wind direction, measurements shall be made near to where the wind turbines are located 3h any case these axe not to be taken at a distance further ten IJkco fram the measurement point d) Background sound level L95,l0 shall be correlated with wind speed, and wind direction and time of day. e) TJiesizeofeachclaœrneachparanietOTshaEnotbemorsihan: - wind speed- lm/sbins - wind direction - 45 arc - tune of day ~ night-time (1 hour after sunset to 1 hour before sunrise) and daytime The four predominant wind direction arcs are: :' ^ñi^'vn - WNW - 270" - 315* relative to true north (typically 37% frequency) winotean Conditions S^f & w

39 19/85/ : EECA PAGE 06/14 ' / From:COÛPER RAPLEY (Palm Nth) /05/ :36 #053 P.006/ NNW - 315* - 360' relative to trae north (typically 28% frequency) - SSE -135* - ISO' relative to true north (typically 19% frequency) - ESE - 90" -135 relative to true north (typically 8% tequency) The total number of data points obtained across all wind spaeds and directions shall not be less than la respect of each of fee &nrï»redo:auhant 45 wind dhectioa arcs, the total number of data points obtained for background sound or compliance testing shall (unless exceptional wind conditioris preclude it) be not less than 200 (but not less than 350 for arcs SSE and BSE) and shall be sufsdcoi to cover the range of wind speeds set out in NZS 6808: h respect of the other four 45" wind dhectfraa arcs, there shall be no mingantn number of data points for any at all wind speed bins. f) The following effects shall be excluded from the analysis: - seasonal sounds (eg of seasonal cicadas, crickets and frogs etc); - other identifiable noise sources (eg tractor of precipitation, etc) g) Sufficient data shall be gathered such that accurate best-fit régression curves can be obtained. h) Post-mstaUauon compliance testing shall be carried out at the same location as the background sound morotormg as soon as reasonably practicable over a 6 month period after completion of the wind farm. If the wind farm is installed in stages then compliance testmg shall bo uudcrtakca as soon as reasonably practicable over a S month period after each stage or annually if there is more man one stage installed per year. The applicant shah notify Council when a stage is completed i) The same parameters as r e a t a d feto be measured for post- iustallation compliance testing. The cut-in operation times of the "WTG snail also be recorded and this shall be indicated cm the results. j) The best fît régression curve shall be provided for: - the times "WTGs are operating above cut-in; - wind speeds up to I4ra/s at 10m height; - wind directions mclüdíag adequate samples for t h e 45 arc from the nearest *7.;.~. wind turbines to the measurement location; and WfndSmtCwiattloni 3 sr -Co

40 ie/35/ : EECA PAGE 87/14 -' ' From:OQOPER RftPLEY (Palm Nth) /05/ :36 #053 P.007/ day and night k) The best fit régression curve of the L95,10 of the WTCs is not to exceed the noise limit under the same wind speed, wind direction and thne of day. 1) If noise is judged to he tonal then the tonal conecöon as contained in NZS680S:1998 shall be apphed except the assessment technique is that contained in 3EC (2002) Wind Turbines - Part II- Acoustics ~ Noise Measurement Technique, No correction is to be applied to a measured aoise level for the additive affect of tiasbackgroundnoise. m) Where reasonable doubt exists regarding compliance at any other dwelling (at the notional boundary) existing at the date of this consent (other than the dwcuinga on Lot 1 DP (130 Hœrisan Road), Lot 2 DP (629 Pafexaiua Track:) and Lot 1 DP S5413 (631 Fahtatua Track), then monitoring: shall be repeated at that location. a.) Sound monitoring equipment shall confonu to tho following requirements: - the concern meamimientarm analysis m to tixb requirements of NZS6808:1998 and the Standards referred to by WZS6S08, aad - microphones shall be fitted vâsx a wind shield such that the noise generated by wind on the wind shield is, to the BXteutpiEorioable, at least lodba below the noise being measured. o) All results shall be provided in a timely manner to the Principal Planner, City Contacts Unit, PatasstonTTorih City Council. p) All sound monitoring shall be carried out by suitably qualified and padeaoed persons. q) The consent holder shall provide all necessary data required to carry out the compk^etostmgmuding: ' WindSom Condition: - wind speeds at lorn and 30m and direction daring periods of compliance testing; - the tirnss at which individual wind turbines are operating above the cut-in wind speed; - any other information required by the Principal Planner, City Contacte Unit, Pahnerston North City Council. sf V

41 18/05/ : EECA PAGE. From:CO0PER RAPLEY (Palm Nth) /05/ :36 Ä053 P.008/ The operator of the wind turbines shall pay all costs associated with compliance testing. s) "Where compliance is not achieved then the consent holder shall propose and implemerrfc remedies wimin three months. If the sound levels have not been remedied within, that time then the consent holder shah cease operation of the WTC?s until modifications are made to reduce the noise. Further operation of WTCr operation shall only be for sound measurement checks as specifically agreed with Council's Principal Planner to demonstrate compliance. 6. The post-installation testing required under Condition 5(h) must include a tntotrmirn period of 3 months' operation of the Stage 1 tutbine(s). ""Operation* means toe actual operation of the tarbine(s) on a munmiim of 60 days that wolves at least 240 hones over a 3-month period at times when me wind is above the utrbiae's cut-in speed. "Actual operation" means operation of the wind farm with all installed turbines made operable as they would be for normal operation, regardless of the winds on any given day. À 'day* means a single 24 hour period. AdvicB Nate: at the hearing the AppHcajot raa4e it clear that the proposed wind fkxm would be constructed in stages, with Stage 1 mvolving 5 turbines. TJtis condition ia directed toward ensuring that the installed turbines have a 'history' of reliable Operation- If a valid testing of tiib Stage 1 turbines does not eventuate wr&úh the 6 montais retened lo in Condition SÇh), then any subsequent stages shall not proceed (refer Condition. 28). The requirement for a minimitm of three monfes' actual operation is to establish and verify the In-tiie-field track record' of the Wkdflow 500 tswb»e s Reading and Traffic 7- Prior to any construction works commencing, the Consent Holder shau submit and have approved by Council's Roading Manager, a TraáKc Management Plan iackding a construction timetable, detailing vehicle movements to and from the site and which includes consideration of traffic mauagemeait practices at times that the Manawaru George Road fe closed Advice Note; The PJan is to be prepared in accordance with the PNCC Traffic Management Guidelines (2000) and should provide for safe and practical access to and from the site during toe construction phase of the wind fenu. S. The Consent Holder shall submit engineering plans íbr approval by Council's Roading Manager, for the required ripgradmg of North Range Road in accordance with ARRB Unsealed Roads Manual, Guidelines to Good Practices (August 2000) or similar standard. Such plans shall include a minimum carriageway width of 4 metres, appropriate passing opportunities and a sealed ingress/egress area at the intersection of ; WiidËnnCondîtionadoc <$ 1ST

42 18/35/ :31 +B EEGA PA6E 09/14 /. From:COOPER RAPLEY (Palm Nth) /05/ :36 #053 P.009/ Pahiatua-Aokautere Road tor a length of no less than 30 metres to prevent gravel overspill onto the adjcánjbag carriageway. 9. The Consent Holder shall compete the roading works reouíred and specified in the approved engineering plans (condition 8) prior to the conrmencemeot of ihe construction works on the wind farm 10. Following Sic completion of the required loading upgrade wotics (Condition 9) the Consent Holder shall regularly carry out sufficient roading manitenanoe works to maintain the length of North Range Road from. Pahiataa-Aokautgre Road to the wind farm site to the same standard (or better). The maintenance works aie to be carried out until all construction works for the wind farm have been ajrnpleted, at which tima the maintenance liability will revert back to the Council- Ecological 11. The Consent Holder shall record any birds found Mlled or injured resulting from the opération of ihe wind farm. This record shall include the time, location, date and species of any birds found dead on the site. This recording should include coverage of all turbine areas and shall he undertaken as part of the regalar duties of "the staff. This recording shall be undertaken from the installation of the first tarhine and continued for a period of five years. Once every 12 montos for to» duration of the specified period of recording, the information, shall be forwarded to the Principal Planner, City Contact Unit, Palmerston North City Council. A copy of the record is also to ba forwarded to the Department of Conservation Area Office in Palmerston Norm. Advice Note: la developing the recording approach it is understood that the Consent Holder will consult with toe Department of Conservation. The Consent Holder will cooperate w i t h any other party that may want to undertake a monitoring strategy of bird life. 3f any dead native bird species are found on tos site, then these birds shall be placed in a freezer as soon as practicable and the Department of Conservation informed. Where injured birds are found the Veterinary Department at Massey University should be contacted. 12. The Consent Holder or its nominated agent shall ensure that there is ongoing pest control of magpies, rabbit and hare within the application, site; and. of cats, possums and mustelids within the QEH covenanted area. Advice Note: The Consent Holder should contact horizons - Regional Council for advice on appropriate methods of pest control. Landscaping and Earthworks Winâûim Conditions <3

43 19/05/ : B,. " - FKomíCQOPER RAPLEV (Palm Nth) EECA PAGE /05/ :37 #053 P.010/ , The Consent Holder shall sttonut for approval to Council's Senior Landscape Architect detailed landscape contour plans for all cut and fill earthworks. These plans must identify 1he disposal sites tor fill. Explanation Nats; Approval of these plans is based on the integration of the cut and fill earthworks mat are visually prominent with the surromding Iandfbrms, and on disposal sites fer fill not beïagrâ visually prominent locations. 14. The Consent Holder must ensure mat all out end fill earthworks and disposal of ful is undertaken in accordance with the approved landscape and contour plans required by Condition The horizons - Regional Council shall be notified prior to any on-site earärworks being undertaken to ensure compliance with the relevant regional plan provisions. 16. The consent holder shah ensure that toe proposed development of toe access tracks and rehabilitation of this system after construction is completed (whhin ihe first planting season following each stage of the construction works) iachxding topsoflmg and appropriate frydro-seedmg of the areas around all concrete foundations flush to all outer edges of the concrete foundations, and the topsoumg and grassing of toe secondary tracks, farm tracks and temporary tracks be nndertakea in accordance with the detail outlined hi tue application. 17. The Consent Holder shall submit tor approval to Council's Senior Landscape Architect a landscape plan dsfaahng proposed lasdscaptog around fee site office bxalctiugs and associated outdoor yards to provide visual screening such that the works integrate the buildings with the she when viewed from tile west and south west of the site. 18. The Consent Holder shall complete toe landscaping works proposed to plans certified pursuant to Condition 17 within the first planting season after initial occupation and use oftoebuadings. Salíanse Radar Station 19. The Consent Holder shall prepare a report which: (a) Takes into account the experimental work done by New Zealand Wmdftrrns Ltd and Airways Corporation of N Z Lui (Airways) on 10 November 2004 and involves further experimental work following tos installation and operation of the first mrbine situated on the skyline in the line of site of the Ballanee Radar Station. Wfodûnn Condujo«(è ï,16y

44 18/35/ :31 +G EECA PASE 11/14 -. ' FromiCSÛPER RAPLEY [Palm Nth) /05/ :37 #053 P.Ol 1/ (b) Identifies and assesses potential and actual adverse effects of the wind farm development an l b& operation of Airways' Ballance Radar Station and any other navigational sites and facilities which ara deemed by Airways to be poteraialry affected by the wind farm, as defined at the time t h e report is prepared (c) Includes measures as necessary to avoid, remedy and/or mitigate any such adverse effects to ensure the safe and efficient operation of toe air transport network other than remove or relocate any turbine which is SOOm (or mora) away from, the Ballance Radar Station or not in direct line of sight of toe flight path into pahnerston North Airport when viewed from the Ballance Radar Station. 20. The report required under Condition 19 shall be preparad, by Airways or a company expert in radar systems and shall be provided to the Wnegjal Planner, City Contacts liait, Palmerston North City Council tor approval witom ö Tnontos fram the date of insfcûlatiort of die first tufbiae in line of sight of the Ballance Radar Station 21, The Consent Holder shall as a precaution, install toe first sis. turbines in such a way that toe towers are either clearly separate or completely aligned radially (ie fully overlapping) as seen by toe Ballance Radar Station 22. The Consent Holder shall implement the xortigatiou measures detailed in toe report prepared in accordance with Condition 19 within 1 month of the report being provided to the Principal Planner, City Contacts Unit, Palmerston North City Council. Turhtoe numbers 1 to 6 may have been installed prior to toe completion of the report in which case toe Consent Holder shall not be required to remove or relocate any of these 6 turbines, unless there is evidence to indicate that their operation is resulting iu actual adverse effects to the safe and efficient operation of the air transport network and other xnitigatior measures have not proved tobe effective. 23- Within 12 months of the date of conunencemeüí of this consent andwitom 3 montos of fee first, second, fifth, and eight anniversary of the ccrnmencement of this consent, the Palmerston North City Council may, in accordance with sections 128 and 129 of the Resource Management Act 1991, serve notice of its intention to review the conditions of consent if there is documented evidence that adverse effects on the safe and efficient operation of toe ^r transport network beyond toe Smits contemplated by the granting of this consent have been generated by the activities on the site, or that (he measures fmpíeraented to avoid, remedy and/or mingare any such adverse effects have not been effective (se Note 1 below). Note 1: The operation, of this consent relies on toe adoption of measures to ensure any adverse effects on the Baílanos Radar Station and any other navigational sites and - ^ facilrties which are deemed by Airways (as defined at the time the report required by -^. ';>..Condition 19 is prepared) to. be potentially affected by the wind farm are avoided,

45 18/05/ : EECA PAGE 12/14.. ' FrcraEQOPER RAPLEY (Palm Nth) / : P.012/ remedied and/or mitigated As the riming of toe ccnarmssioning of toe entire wind farm is to be progressive, actual effects may not be identified until some time after the granting of the consent. Consent has been granted on the basis that the potential effects of toe wind farm on the Ballance Radar Station will be able to be identified and avoided, remedied, and/or mitigated. In the event that the actual effects differ from those contemplated by the granting of this consent, adjusimôufs in the conditions to address such adverse effects could include, amongst orner things, a reonnernent for toe removal of any turbines triai are within 5Û0m of the Ballance Radar Station to ensure that toose adverse effects are adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated. (... Crdtoral 24. Jf at any time dnring toe site excavations authorised by this Consent potential historic artefacts or cultural rernñins or koiwi items aie discovered) toen all work shall stop and toe Consent Holder shall muneáiateíy advise the Palmerston North City Council's Principal Planner and Tanenuiarangi Manawam Inc. The Consent Holder shall also call its archaeological advisor to-the säe to verify whether or not the objects form arohaeologieal evidence. Further excavation work at the site shah be suspended should Tanenuiarangi Manawatn too wish to carry nut -their procedures and tikanga for removing taonga. Work at toe site shah not recommence until approval to do so has beau givm by the Palmerston North City Council's Principal Planner. Advice Note: The Consent Holder is reminded of its obligations under toe Historic Places Act Í x In the event that any artefact or any object which may be of Maori or historic Significance is uncovered or distorbed during the course of the earlhwcîdis, the contractor, supervising engineer, or Consent Holder shall humediatßly cease work and inform die Palmerston North City Council's Principal Planner and contact the New Zealand Historic Places Trust to determine whether an archaeological authority is reauired. to. the interim toe contractor, supervisi»g en.gm.eer or Consent Holder shall secure the site until approval to proceed has bean granted. If an archaeological authority is reonired, work may only recommence once toe written approval of the New Zealand ' Historic Places Tmst has been obtained and a copy provided to the Prthqpal Planner. :.:-%i 0**ï. 25, "Where Rangftane o Manawatu have norninatsd that sites of significance eadst in relation to mis site, the Consent Holder shall invite Rangitane o Manawatu as represented by Tanennirangi Manawatu Ino, Ngatt Hmeaute Hapu Anfhoriry and Te Rangimarie Marae to be present at times excavations are being undertaken in these nominated sites, in order mat they may observe the excavations to identify if any historical artefacts or cultural remains or koiwi are uncovered..,' ^ íwíaáferó Conditions <&P

46 y 1S/B5/ : EECA PASE 13/14.,. ". From:G90PER RAPLEV (Palm Nth) /05/ :37 #053 P.013/ Note: Any discnssioa regarding ràmbursement for representatives of Rangitane o Manawatu being present on site is a matter that is between the Applicant and Rangfrane O Manawatu Implementing Consent 26. Upon completion of the work required by conditions 5,1, 8,9,13 and 17 above and prior to the operation of the wind fem, ihe Consent Holder shall give written notice to the Principal Planner, City Contacts Unit, Pahnerston North dry Council, or their nominee, that fire conditions that have besa complied with. On receipt ofthat notice the Principal Planner or their nominee will carry out an inspection of toe she, if necessary, to ensure that toe conditions have been complied with. Once toe conditions have been fully met a performance certificate will be issued and the operation of the wind farm may be commenced. 27- This consent shall lapse eight years arter toe date of commencement, unless the consent is- father given effect to before that lapsing date, or unless the Palmerston North City Council fixes a longer period pursuant to section 125 of toe Resource Management Act Staging 28, Stage 2 and any subsequent stages of the construction programme «Ml only proceed upon successful operation of Stage 1, which sha! mean Stage 1 schieving compliance with the noise levels prescribed in Condition 4, having besa tested and operated in accordance wife. Condition 5(h) and Condition 6. Advice Note: toe coastruction programme is as outlined in the evidence of Mr Chds Freear, Chief Executive NZ Windfarms Ltd, being Stage 1 (5 torbines), Stage 2 (28 turbines), Stage 3 (30 ttnmnes) and Stage 4 (34 turbines). Wind Farm Decorrunissianmg 29. Within 12 montos of the wind farm ceasing to operate all structures associated with the operation of toe wind farm (including all turbine structures, and accessory bnildings) shall be removed completely horn toe site by toe Consent Holder. Consent Monitoring 30. A monitoring fee of $ (GST iaclusive) shall be paid at the time the resource >. consent is granted to cover the cost of monitoring compliance with the above 1 '^.conditions. This fee covers tour monitoring visits. /) P^ 3Wh#an7iCcniääans I l~\ - 10 M

47 lg/05/ :31 +S ,.' - PromïOQOPER RAPLEY (Palm Nth) EEGA /05/ :37 #053 P.014/ PAGE 14/14 (i) A fee will be payable by the Consent Holder if any non-cornpliance with the conditions of this consent sre discovered as a result of monitoring. This fee is set in accordance with Section 36(l)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 and Section 690À of the Local Government Act yots: Cmrootiy Ihe racaritoring f e e is $ (GST»elusive) per inspection. This amount may alter in fiie totere if fees are reviewed The monitoring fee charged whl be the fee applicable at toe time of rnanrtarm& and wih be charged on each inspection necessary until full corapkance with the consent conditions is achieved. r "Wjná&nn Conditions ly 3 /? 4 JbT

48 Appendix B CV 31

49 Resonate Acoustics Level 4, 10 Yarra Street, South Yarra VIC 3141 Australia p Tom Evans Associate Director Qualifications Bachelor of Mechatronic Engineering (First Class Honours) Bachelor of Economics Affiliations Member of the Australian Acoustical Society Committee of the Victorian Division of Australian Acoustical Society Awards 2013 Australian Acoustical Society Award for Excellence in Acoustics: Development of a method for Tonality assessment at a wind farm 2011 SA Engineering Excellence Awards Commendation Northern Expressway (Acoustics) Career History Tom has 10 years of experience in the assessment of noise and vibration on a wide range of projects in the environmental, wind energy, transport, mining and architectural sectors. Tom s strengths are his ability to combine his strong technical understanding with excellent communication skills as well as to understand the different technical, social and environmental constraints on a project. Specialist Areas of Expertise Tom has been involved in the measurement, prediction and assessment of noise from wind farm projects through all stages of the planning and development processes. He has undertaken assessments for both existing and future sites in South Australia, Victoria, Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia, New Zealand and South East Asia. Contact details m tom.evans@resonateacoustics.com 1

50 Publications and Technical Papers A comparison of tonal noise regulations in Australia, Acoustics 2015, Hunter Valley, November T. Evans and J. Cooper. Analysis of wind turbine low frequency noise prediction accuracy, Internoise 2014, Melbourne, November 16-19, T. Evans, J. Cooper and V. Alamshah. Influence of non-standard atmospheric conditions on turbine noise levels near wind farms Internoise 2014, Melbourne, November 16-19, J. Cooper and T. Evans. Low frequency noise near wind farms and in other environments, SA EPA and Resonate Acoustics, April 2013, T. Evans, J. Cooper and V. Lenchine. Infrasound levels near windfarms and in other environments, SA EPA and Resonate Acoustics, January 2013, T. Evans, J. Cooper and V. Lenchine. Comparison of predicted and measured wind farm noise levels and implications for assessments of new wind farms, Evans T & Cooper J, 2012, Acoustics Australia, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp Comparison of compliance results obtained from the various wind farm standards used in Australia, Cooper J, Evans T & Najera L, Acoustics Australia, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp Effect of a 35 db(a) minimum criterion on a wind farm development, Cook A, Evans T & Brown R, Acoustics Australia, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp Effects of different meteorological conditions on wind turbine noise, Acoustics 2013, Victor Harbor, November T. Evans and J. Cooper. Automated detection and analysis of amplitude modulation at a residence and wind turbine, Acoustics 2013, Victor Harbor, November J. Cooper and T. Evans. Influence of wind direction on noise emission and propagation from wind turbines, Proceedings of Acoustics 2012, Fremantle, November 2012, T. Evans and J. Cooper. Tonality assessment at a residence near a wind farm, Proceedings of 5 th International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise, Denver, August 2013, J. Cooper, T. Evans and D. Petersen Accuracy of noise predictions for wind farms, Proceedings of 5 th International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise, Denver, August 2013, J. Cooper and T. Evans 2

51 Project Experience Some examples of Tom s wind farm project experience are included below: Macarthur Wind Farm (Vic) amplitude modulation, tonality, low frequency noise and infrasound assessments at residences around the wind farm assessed against relevant standards. The infrasound and low frequency noise monitoring was conducted before and after construction to assess whether compliance was achieved with relevant criteria. Macarthur Wind Farm (Vic) noise modelling of proposed turbine layouts for the Macarthur Wind Farm as part of Vestas Australia s submission. The Wind Farm will comprise MW turbines and noise represented a key constraint on the site layout, with the modelling allowing Vestas to optimise their tender design. Vestas were awarded the contract for the wind farm in August 2010 and Tom was also involved in conducting background noise monitoring at 27 properties to establish appropriate noise criteria. Hallett Hill Wind Farm (Hallett 2) (SA) Measurement of sound power levels and tonality from turbines using IEC to check compliance with guaranteed levels, compliance noise measurements at the residences using the 2009 Wind Farms Noise Guidelines, and detailed assessment of tonality at residences. Oaklands Hill Wind Farm (Vic) undertook a compliance assessment of the Oaklands Hill Wind Farm once operational. In addition to the standard compliance assessment, we undertook a special audible characteristics assessment, involving measurement and assessment of infrasound, low frequency noise, tonality and amplitude modulation at two locations adjacent to the wind farm. Also determined appropriate assessment criteria for the special audible characteristics in consultation with the Vic EPA. 3

52 Burgos Wind Farm (Philippines) noise modelling and compliance noise monitoring for the 50-turbine site in the northern Philippines. Gunning Wind Farm (NSW) assessment of compliance at residences near the site. Particularly challenging project as there was no reliable background noise data and a 35 db(a) lower noise limit at the sites. Due diligence reviews engaged to undertake due diligence reviews for the purchase of two wind farms, assessing acoustic issues that may alter the future value of the site. North Brown Hill Wind Farm (SA) analysis of background noise measurements to determine existing noise levels at nearby residences, and therefore environmental noise criteria. Compliance monitoring once the wind farm was operational. Coopers Gap Wind Farm (QLD) Assisted with the preparation of an environmental impact statement for submission to regulatory authorities regarding one of the first major wind farm project in Queensland. Also prepared responses to regulatory authorities and to the community regarding the proposed wind farm. The Bluff Wind Farm (SA) prediction of environmental noise levels at residential locations surrounding the proposed wind farm site. Conducted a compliance assessment and tonality analysis once the wind farm was operational against the environmental noise criteria. Starfish Hill Wind Farm (SA) provided technical assistance for research being undertaken by the SA EPA, which included the measurement of turbine sound power levels and modelling of resultant environmental noise emissions from the Starfish Hill wind farm using various calculation algorithms, to allow comparison with measured noise levels. Wind Farms Noise Guidelines testing (SA) undertook testing of the compliance measurement section in the last draft (May 2009) of the Wind Farms Noise Guidelines for the SA EPA. This testing involved the analysis of measurement results obtained using alternative compliance measurement methods. Naroghid Wind Farm, The Sisters Wind Farm, Drysdale Wind Farm and Woolsthorpe Wind Farm (Vic) analysis of background noise measurement data to determine environmental noise criteria for the site in accordance with NZS 6808:1998. Myponga Wind Farm (SA) conducted assessment of environmental noise impact from the proposed Myponga Wind Farm, included analysis of background noise data to determine noise criteria, prediction of environmental noise levels at the adjacent residences for alternative turbines, and development of a noise mitigation plan. Tender designs - Modelling and mitigation advice for tender designs at a number of proposed sites for a turbine supplier during tender design. The sites included locations in South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania, New Zealand and South East Asia, and the assessments had to be conducted against a variety of different planning conditions. Tonality assessments for two turbine suppliers Detailed assessment of tonal noise emissions from two turbines which identified conditions under which tonality occurs and directivity of emissions. Peer review of post construction noise assessment engaged to undertake a peer review for a turbine operator of a post-construction noise assessment conducted for the site owner. This peer review included review of sound power measurements of the turbine, development of a separate environmental noise model and review of compliance monitoring results. 4

53 Appendix C Map showing wind farm and complaint locations 32

54 Banks^Wa Ellinqham uiàn ni ÊÊ\ùÊsmkM mmêêk p ^ > clljdil ALL QMPL^OTl W1 )'WE3DM _ Irvi mmñ Olsson ' ±ai M&m) NSET mmmeflm saz IN0EABM i@ «Legend Complainant & Affidavit Properties Complainant Properties 30 m Wind Mast Monitoring Site (104 Harrison Hill Road) (97 Turbines Consented) Stage 1 (5 Turbines) Stage 2 (28 Turbines) Stage 3 (32 Turbines) Not Yet Installed (32 Turbines) Te Rere Hau Extension (56 Turbines Consented) Not Yet Constructed (56 Turbines) l nks.-wallatj EINngha rtridge Banana ordon ÍS3 TE REREWH» (56JÍWRBINE Note: The Isochrone boundaries were created using the locations of installed turbines only. MAME SURNAME i ISTANCE (km Dane vtoon '.lice _ Devwd jt-?i~kd swrd tere Rd tiüsm ' 2 lt*r* -.: Nicola Partridge Partridoe 12) ' 'ji 1 "' uhnstodher Anderson Annarçnn t 91»1 Mnrth Wanna DH jtere Rd *ESa3 33 >, ^ CITYCOUNCII ap version 2 - July 2010