• If you log in, the ads disappear in the forum and gallery. If you need help logging in or getting registered, send request to: webmaster@southernairboat.com

proposed new WI noise regs

W

wiwoodsman2003

Member
The WI DNR wants to revamp the existing laws to include airboats. Currently the law says no boat may exceed 86DB at 50 feet but does not include prop noise only engine noise.
The new proposal is still 86DB including all boat noise including the prop but for safety they want to change the distance to a minimum of 300 feet. This is the proposal if it does not get changed, if anything will change it would be the distance not the DB, that I have been told will stay at 86 DB.
My question is for those of you who know more than I do, how many boats will pass 86DB at 300 feet? I have a 215ci olds direct drive with a 60 inch wood prop. The engine has mufflers and also baffles in the pipes so it is fiarly quiet but will the prop noise be over the 86DB at that distance? Any tips would be great as I want to run the boat this summer.
 
wiwoodsman2003,

Welcome to southern airboat! There is an upcoming event scheduled in May I believe for sound testing at Loughman Lake here in Florida. There should be some really "hard' numbers come from this event. 86 @ 300 feet sounds do-able/possible.

Check out the section on "Sound Research" and you might find some numbers but probably not 300 as our legislation has been 50/100 feet.

Basketcase
 
Wisconsin, welcome to the forum ...... nice to have ya' !

I can't begin to answer your question, but there are several on here that may be able to help. Stan, Cntry and a couple of others have done a lot of testing recently.

Your post raises a couple of questions that I have though. The sound level that DNR expects you to meet, 86db @ 300' ..... is that taken on the water? Who is authorized to conduct the test .... DNR? And what are the conditions under which the test may be required?

Our position in Florida is that a sound level can only be taken on the water, not on a trailer, and for several reasons, not the least of which is Safety. The proposed standard of 90db @ 50' here is to be taken on the water, on plane, because that's how a boat is operated. We feel that on- trailer testing is dangerous at anything above idle, and not a valid operational test.

BF
 
The test would be by the DNR and on the water. Unless they change it because those who are calling for get the distance changed, those people wanted it the same as before for ALL boats, 86 at 50 feet. Iv'e been told Likely that would outlaw ALL airboats though?
If the proposal stays as presented the distance would be a minimum 300 feet for safety reasons. And the DNR is working on a proceedure for the test which they really don't have yet.
The way I understand it 86db at 300 feet would be less restrictive than 90db at 50 feet by a considerable amount. Is that true?
Any info would be helpful as it look like they are trying to rush this thru for this season and if the proposal is accepted the next step will be a few pubic informational meetings where they take public comments. As there are way more retired folks and tree huggers living on our lakes that usually means you are outnumbered badly. Some of these people just hate the idea anyone else can use "thier" water too.
 
86 dB@ 300' is very liberal. 86 @ 50 would be tough for most airboats, depending on the testing standards, of which, you need to take a look.

I hope ya'll are getting organized for a fight. If not, the Green group will regulate you out of existance.

If you can keep the 300' distance you should survive. However, as a user group, you need to become proactive in organizing and promoting safe, courteous & environmentally friendly airboating.

We have a code of ethics http://www.citrusairboat.org/codeofethics.html you may want to look at and promote. You might consider doing all you reasonablely can to quiet your boats down.

Give me a call if you have time & I can give you contact info of folks who can offer advice.

PW
President, Florida Airboat Association
813-968-6154
 
Go for the 86 db at 300' that would be equal to around 98db at 50' whish we had it that way!
 
Wiwoodsman2003 drop me a pm with your e-mail address and I will send you the things we went through here in Michigan --I would post them but I have not found out how to add attachments to this --post a reply---yet..
 
Hello all - I've been lurking here for awhile, and with this stuff coming up in my backyard, it's time I get involved.

Here is a link to what WI is proposing:

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/agenda/March 06/March 3.A.6..pdf

Bill Enfger - DNR Law Enforcement Division, is the lead on this rule order... 608-266-0859...... I haven't called him yet. Trying to gather information first.

I recieved this info from a friend in DNR. :wink:

Seems they want to use SAE J1970 testing procedures, but this still seems unclear.

Also, if you want to see where this originated in the Natural Resources Board meeting minutes, look here:

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/nrboard/minutes/M06/0106 minutes.pdf Go to page 8, sections 4.B.2 thru 4.B.8

I'd really appreciate if some of you who are way more informed on this subject than I could look into what is proposed and give some recommendations.
 
Just got word that the DNR Natural Resources Board in Wi has approved the 86db at 300' proposal. That does not mean that will be the rule though! What it means is they cleared the way for the proposal to go forward to several public hearings and comments on it. There will be several meetings scheduled to take comments and depending on the public input it could be modified to a lesser distance. If all they were to hear form are those opposed it could be concievable that it could be modified to meet the current status which is 50 feet. However because the DNR has expressed safety concerns with 50' it would likely be something like 100 or 200' . We can live with the 300' so I guess it all depends on who speaks out for and against it as to what we end up with.
 
Hmm, I noticed the link I posted on the proposed regulations has become inactive.

I did save it in .pdf form......... I'll try to convert it and re-post for anyone who has not seen it yet.
 
Here it is. I had to convert from .pdf, so excuse the mess. I cut some of the junk out too.

Any comments on this ?

Proposed rules are attached for the new proposed boat sound testing process. Wisconsin s. 30.62 (2)(a ) requires all boat
sound to meet the level of 86 db or less in order to be legal. Wis. s. 30.62 (2)(d)2 allows the department to promulgate
rules establishing testing procedures and Wis. S. 30.62(2)(d)3 allows the department to revise these rules. The current
tests that the department uses are designed for motor exhaust noise or they are not safe to perform on airboats or
hovercraft type boats when measuring noise other than muffler or exhaust noise. In 2005 the Department was notified of
concerns that it was not enforcing the noise requirements on airboats that were applicable to all other boats. At the
January Board meeting the Natural Resources Board heard comments from the public who were concerned about the
noise that airboats make and requests that the Department to enforce existing noise laws on the airboat type craft.
The Bureau of Law Enforcement was already in the process of drafting code changes to Administrative Code to address
this concern. The Bureau of Law Enforcement is proposing the testing process (WS-100) in order to address the concerns
of the public and to allow for a testing process that will take into consideration the safety of the operators of airboat type
craft and the safety of the public and the officers when tests for noise of these type of craft are taking place.
It is anticipated that this rule will affect approximately 500 airboat owners in the state along with approximately 50
hovercraft owners. It may also effect other fan driven type boats. It is anticipated that many such existing craft may
exceed the statutory decibel limit, which would be detected and enforced through the testing process proposed in this rule.
William Engfer
Allow the department to conduct hearings on the proposed sound testing method for boat noise
Approval to conduct hearings on new boat sound noise test

State of Wisconsin
CORRESPONDENCE/MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 1, 2006
TO: Natural Resources Board
FROM: Scott Hassett
SUBJECT: Summary of proposed Rule Agenda Action Checklist
Section NR 5.125, pertaining to LE-23-06, the promulgation of a rule that prescribes the manner
in which boat noise shall be measured to determine compliance with a statutory level of 86
decibels as it relates to prop and other none engine noise created by the operation of a boat.
Description of Policy Issues:
The proposed boat noise rule would affect and be of interest to airboat, hovercraft and other boat
operators of boats that use fans or propellers as part of their operation. This will also be of interest
to boat dealers who sell these types of boats. This rule will hold these boat operators to the 86 db
sound level that all other boats are held to. Currently airboats and hovercraft have to meet the 86
db sound level as it relates to their engine exhaust noise, but there is no test that would allow for
the safe testing of the propeller and fan noise.
The bureau of law enforcement is recommending a new testing process to address the need to
have a safe testing method for the operators of the boats, the public and the officers conducting
the tests. The Department currently has the authority to create this new rule under s. 30.62(2)(d)2,
Stats. This rule would give the department the ability to address complaints from the public on
this type of boat noise.
Airboat and hovercraft numbers have remained steady at approximately 550 for over 30 years.
People have become more sensitive to this type of noise as they venture into areas that were not
commonly used by the general public and where only airboats or hovercraft type boats could
access in the past. This has created a user conflict issue.
The change in the testing process would utilize Society of Automotive Engineers test (J1970) but
would take into consideration the safety concerns when testing propeller and fan types of
watercraft. The test contains step-by-step instructions for measuring noise from boats. The
standard requires the use of sound meters and meter calibration and checks to be performed prior
to and after the noise is measured. The new rule would require the sound tester to be a minimum
of 300 feet away from a propeller or fan air driven boat when conducting the test.
The test is a pass/fail test, such that if the measured level is at or below 86 decibels on an A scale,
the machine passes.
Statutory Authority
ss. 30.62(2)(a), 30.62(2)(d)2 and 30.62(2)(d)3.
Estimate of time Needed to Develop the Proposed Rule
Approximately 80 hours will be needed by the Department
* The "A" scale is a measuring technique that uses a sound meter to measure noise in the same
manner that a human ear interprets noise.

If the new testing procedure is passed the public will expect law enforcement agencies who do boating enforcement to enforce
this law on prop driven type boats within their jurisdiction. While this will increase the workload of these agencies, it is
anticipated that the increase workload will be minimal and can be accomplished in the daily operations of these patrols.

03/01/2006
ORDER OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD
AMENDING RULES
The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board proposes an order to amend NR 5.125 (1)(b) relating to sound
testing methods for boats.
LE-23-06
Analysis Prepared by Department of Natural Resources
1. Statutes interpreted.
Sections 30.62(2)(b), 30.62(2)(d)2 and 30.62(2)(d)3, Stats.
2. Statutory authority.
Sections 30.62(2)(d)2, Stats.
3. Explanation of agency authority to promulgate the proposed rules under the statutory
authority.
The proposed rule creates a new noise testing method for testing all noise related to boat operation which
the department is authorized to enforce ,under s. 30.62(2)(b), Stats., and which the department is
authorized to create under s. 30.62(2)(d)2, Stats. The department is required to enforce the noise statutes,
but needs to develop a testing procedure that will allow it to test boats it currently does not have the
ability to do safely under current testing methods
4. Related statute or rule.
s. 30.62(2)b), Stats., and Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 5.125
5. Plain language analysis of the proposed rule.
The proposed rule will allow the department to test airboats and other similar craft to assure that they
meet the required sound levels when operating. This will be a new method based on the methodology
established in Society of Automotive Engineers test method J 1970.
6. Summary of and preliminary comparison with existing or proposed federal regulation that is
intended to address the activities to be regulated by the proposed rule.
There are no existing or proposed federal regulations that create a test to address the testing of airboat
type craft.
7. Comparison of similar rules in adjacent states (Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Michigan)
Of the four states:
Minnesota’s sound laws apply to airboats, but they are not aware of anyone enforcing the law against
airboat prop noise.
Page 2
In Michigan they do not measure prop noise, but they do require that airboats stay a distance away from
residences and that from 11PM to 6 AM if operating within 400’ of a residence that they operate at
minimum speed to maintain forward motion.
In Iowa they do not enforce prop noise as their law was not intended for prop noise.
In Illinois they utilize the J1970 sound test, but they don’t clarify whether they test airboats.
8. Summary of the factual data and analytical methodologies that the agency used in support of
the proposed rule and how any related findings support the regulatory approach chosen for the
proposed rule.
Airboats and other air propulsion driven boats are a commonly used on shallow rivers and on some lakes
within Wisconsin. These boats create movement by either using forced air to push the boat forward or by
lifting the boat up with air pressure and then moving it forward with forced air. In looking at the safety
concerns when testing these type of craft a method needed to address the safety concerns of operating
these craft at higher rates of speed to test them without creating safety concerns for the public, the boat
operator or the testing officer. By using currently approved testing methodology and taking into
consideration the safety distances needed, the department believes that the proposed rule will address the
needs of the department in testing these boats with a safe and technically sound testing process
9. Analysis and supporting documentation that the agency used in support of the agency’s
determination of the rules effect on small businesses under s. 227.114, Stats., or that was used
when the agency prepared an economic impact report.
Wisconsin law exempts the sound requirements for commercial or nonrecreational fishing boat, ferry, or
other vessel engaged in interstate or international commerce, other than a tugboat. We believe that there
may be some airboats that are used for commercial trapping or fishing that do not involve interstate or
international commerce. These boats would most likely be illegal to operate if tested under the proposed
rule.
10. Effects on small business, including how the rule will be enforced.
The rule is anticipated to affect approximately 150+ airboats that are used for commercial trapping and
fishing. The rule would be enforced on them as long as they operate in the waters of the state. This rule
will not affect those that only operate on the frozen waters of the state as there is not statutory authority to
apply the sound law to the boats when they are operating solely on the ice.
Click to expand...
 
Gollonbait .... first, welcome to SAO. It's very nice to have y'all on the site. Wisconsin is a truly beautiful State.

You folks need to get active and involved in this whole process right away, otherwise rules and regulations are going to be written (that you'll have to live with) by people who couldn't tell you one end of an airboat from the other. Honest. It will probably get rediculous before it gets better.

The first thing that I would suggest getting changed in this proposal, and this might sound silly but it's important, is to get ALL the language changed from 'noise' to 'sound'. Noise is something no one likes, and is a subjective quantity. Sound on the other hand is a quantity that can be measured scientifically, discussed, modified, and regulated.

This change alone will help level the playing field for you. We'll stay tuned .... keep us informed, and if we need to write letters one day to defend you there are a bunch of us on here who will.

BF
 
Figured I'd post the letter I sent to DNR. Haven't had a response yet.

If I don't my Monday, I'll be rattling some cages.

William Engfer
Bureau of Law Enforcement
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources


Mr. Engfer-


I am writing you with our concerns with the proposed airboat sound requirements being considered by DNR.


First off, when and where will the public hearings for comment be held ?? I have not as of yet noticed anything published.


I'm not totally clear on the testing procedure proposed, and would like to know more. As I understand it, the boat would have to be under 86 db at 300' distance ?


As an owner of an airboat used for commercial purposes, you can understand my concern with a change in policy in regulating airboat sound. Using an airboat in my business is crucial, no two ways about it. I do agree that an overly loud airboat is a public nuisance, and should be regulated. I understand there has been complaints from WI residents on the disturbances from some airboats. Like anything else, a few bad examples make it hard on the rest. We put on many hours each year with our boat, in residential areas, and sometimes at night I might add, and to the best of my knowledge, have never had any complaints. Unfortunately, not all airboaters are as considerate with their conduct or choice of equipment.


We have literally spent over $10,000.00 in equipment on our airboat with the sole purpose of reducing the sound, including things like gear reductions, counter-rotating props, low rpm carbon fiber blades, full stainless steel exhaust system with eight, yes eight, muffler type devices. With this, we've found that the normal extreme sound found with airboats can be reduced significantly, with not as much cost as we've incurred.


At this time, we have not ever actually tested our airboat's sound, but would assume it falls under the proposed regulations. This spring I hope to test our boat with the help of our local DNR Warden, who is familiar with our boat and has offered to help.


What worries me is IF our boat does not meet the requirements, the new sound limits would effectively ban airboat use in Wisconsin. That would be unacceptable.


Wisconsin DNR should look closely at Florida and what is being done there to regulate sound. As you can imaging the number of airboats, elderly residents, and higher population densities in Florida makes this an even bigger issue for them. There has been a huge effort in Florida to research airboat sound reduction, and a large testing session is being conducted in mid May. I would at least hope there is enough time for us to use this upcoming information to help make effective yet obtainable sound limits for WI.


If you noticed in this letter, I have not used the word "noise". Noise is something no one likes, and is a subjective quantity. Sound on the other hand is a quantity that can be measured scientifically, discussed, modified, and regulated. It would be nice to see DNR have the same opinion, and with future publishing, address it as such to be fair with all involved.


I would very much like to be "kept in the loop" on this issue, and am more than willing to help with any questions you or DNR may have.


Sincerely,


Benjamin C. Gollon



Benjamin C. Gollon
Gollon Brothers Wholesale Live Bait, Inc.
2450 Torun Road
Stevens Point, WI 54481
715.344.9843
715.344.9846 FAX
http://www.gollonbait.com
Click to expand...
 
VERY nice letter, Ben. Keep us posted on the response, and if we're needed there are quite a few who would be happy to write letters from down here also. When an out-of-State airboater writes to a Legislator about an issue they realize that they're messin' with something a LOT bigger than they might have thought at first.

What affects some of us, affects us all .....

BF
 
gollonbait,

Yes, welcome to Southern Airboat. any people here with many resources for help.

Agreed with BF, good letter with good points. Some good ammo for your fight might be obtained from the 500 airboats registered there in Wisconsin.

Maybe "private message" either Swampjet or Gatorstick to see how those people could be reached through DMV records. I'm sure they would also be pissed to learn of the "secret" meetings behind thier back with no notification of time/date/location.

Just a brain fart of mine :banghead:

Basketcase
 
Thanks for the advice. And thanks BF for the "noise to sound" quote.

I'm still trying to gather some info on what exactly is going on before I try mobilizing the other airboaters.

Luckily, when we register our boats, there is a box to be checked for propulsion type (air powered)....... so the DNR does have a database of airboat/hovercraft owners. But in the past few years, there has also been a option to keep your info private when registering. If the DNR does not what to give me the list, I'm sure I can demand they notify all airboat owners in WI.

Hopefully I"ll know more this week.
 
Ben, you have as much authority as you take. Refuse to be discarded and not heard. You have as much right to operate your airboat as anyone in Wisconsin has to operate any other watercraft.

Consider getting a list of all the registered airboaters in your State, and organize a WAA .... Wisconsin Airboaters Association. Make the Legislators have to recognize you as a distinct group who is willing to make necessary concessions where sound is concerned, but who expect to be treated equally and be able to operate regardless.

They'll admire you for it.

Feather
 
If DNR does not want to help with an address list, contact your state House/Senate rep, explain the situation and ask THEM to interceed on your behalf and the behalf of sportsmen. They work for all of us, not just the bums.
 
:x :x It's not like I have enough to worry about !! :lol:

I realize I'll have to take this issue by the horns. Good thing is, I'm fairly experienced in this sort of stuff.

I am very involved with two similar "groups"....... the Wisconsin Aquaculture Association (WAA), and the Wisconsin Fish and Bait Dealers Association (WFBDA), and was a delegate on the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, which deals with many issues like this. By similar, I mean a small minority of citizens, fighting for issues that effect them, but may not always be popular with the public.

The Conservation Congress will not be any help.... I know how the public is here........ they wanted to ban PWC's a few years ago. But I do understand the system and the POLITICS.

Even as we speak, I've been working with the Legislature on some fish issues, so I do have contacts.

What I'm worried about is being to verbal...... stirring up a hornets nest so to speak. If it gets too much attention, and the general public are well aware of the issue, we might be fighting all the tree huggers.

I'm really not that worried about getting the list of airboaters.....there is a way if need be.

But what I really need to know is can we work with what they are proposing ??
 
Yes you can .... your proposed sound requirement is easier than the one we face in several counties in Florida because of the distance factor. Watch for updates on here for new developements in sound reduction, and hang in there. You're OK for now.

Feather
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top