Preliminary Environmental Assessment

Preliminary Environmental Assessment

Elysian Wind Farm Reference No. 30012635 Prepared for Elysian WF Pty Ltd 31 March 2020

REFERENCE NO. 30012635

i

PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Elysian Wind Farm Prepared for Elysian WF Pty Ltd

31 March 2020

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................... I

ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS ............................................................................................................................VI

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of this document ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Proponent details ..................................................................................................................................... 1

2 PROPOSAL IDENTIFICATION ................................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Location .................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Development overview ............................................................................................................................. 2 2.3 Major wind farm infrastructure components ............................................................................................ 8 2.4 Major electrical infrastructure ................................................................................................................ 11 2.5 Development phases .............................................................................................................................. 12

3 DEVELOPMENT JUSTIFICATION AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ..................................................................... 14 3.1 Global and regional agreements on emissions reduction ........................................................................ 14 3.2 Energy reform in Australia ...................................................................................................................... 14 3.3 Site selection .......................................................................................................................................... 15 3.4 Preliminary turbine layout ...................................................................................................................... 17 3.5 Alternatives considered .......................................................................................................................... 17

4 CONSULTATION ................................................................................................................................................. 19 4.1 Consultation ........................................................................................................................................... 19 4.2 Consultation activities undertaken to date ............................................................................................. 20 4.3 Stakeholder issues and interests ............................................................................................................. 21 4.4 Consultation summary ............................................................................................................................ 22 4.5 Next steps............................................................................................................................................... 23

5 PLANNING INSTRUMENTS AND CONTEXT .......................................................................................................... 25 5.1 Context for wind energy development ................................................................................................... 25 5.2 Commonwealth legislation ..................................................................................................................... 25 5.3 NSW state legislation .............................................................................................................................. 25 5.4 Environmental Planning Instruments ...................................................................................................... 28 5.5 Other policies and plans ......................................................................................................................... 30 5.6 Approvals required prior to commencement .......................................................................................... 31

6 ASSESSMENT OF KEY ISSUES .............................................................................................................................. 32 6.1 Landscape and visual assessment ........................................................................................................... 32 6.2 Noise and vibration................................................................................................................................. 54 6.3 Biodiversity ............................................................................................................................................. 62 6.4 Traffic and transport ............................................................................................................................... 73 6.5 Hazards and Risks ................................................................................................................................... 79 6.6 Aboriginal Heritage ................................................................................................................................. 87 6.7 Water and soils ....................................................................................................................................... 95 6.8 Waste ................................................................................................................................................... 102 6.9 Cumulative impacts .............................................................................................................................. 103

7 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL RISK IDENTIFICATION.................................................................................... 105

8 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................... 109

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 110

ii


31 March 2020

Appendices APPENDIX A ELEVATION PROFILE TRANSECTS

APPENDIX B COMMUNICATIONS LOG

APPENDIX C COOMA-MONARO LEP RIPARIAN LAND

APPENDIX D PRELIMINARY NOSIE LEVEL PREDICTIONS (RESONATE, 2019)

APPENDIX E ABORIGINAL HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

List of Tables Table 1-1. Proponent details ..........................................................................................................................................1

Table 2-1. Summary of key project components ............................................................................................................7

Table 3-1. Site selection criteria – preferable site conditions .......................................................................................15

Table 3-2. Site selection criteria – constraints ..............................................................................................................16

Table 3-3. Preliminary site wind data ...........................................................................................................................17

Table 3-4. Benefit summary .........................................................................................................................................18

Table 4-1. Key issues raised during preliminary consultation .......................................................................................22

Table 6-1. Summary of dwellings and key viewpoints within the visual extent .............................................................48

Table 6-2. Preliminary wind farm noise predictions - dB(A) (source: Resonate, 2019) ..................................................57

Table 6-3. Acceptable vibration dose values (m/s 1.75) for intermittent vibration (DP&E, 2006) .................................59

Table 6-4. Transient vibration guide values for minimal risk of cosmetic damage (BS7385) .........................................60

Table 6-5. PCTs predicted to occur on site as listed on the BioNet Vegetation Classification (VIS 2.1) and Vegetation Types database.............................................................................................................................................................63

Table 6-6. Threatened flora species considered to have a moderate to high likelihood of occurring within the study area ..............................................................................................................................................................................67

Table 6-7. Threatened fauna species are considered to have a moderate to high likelihood of occurring within the study area ....................................................................................................................................................................68

Table 6-8. Potential aeronautical impacts on local aerodromes (Cooma, Merimbula) ..................................................79

Table 6-9. Wind farms and human health (NHMCR, 2015) ...........................................................................................83

Table 6-10. Mean rainfall for Nimmitabel (1894-2018) ................................................................................................95

Table 6-11. Soil landscapes ..........................................................................................................................................99

Table 6-12. Indicative waste streams ......................................................................................................................... 102

Table 7-1. Preliminary environmental risk assessment............................................................................................... 105

List of Figures

iii


31 March 2020

Figure 2-1. North-south elevation profile .......................................................................................................................2

Figure 2-2. East-west elevation profile ...........................................................................................................................2

Figure 2-3. Location of proposed development..............................................................................................................4

Figure 2-4. Indicative turbine layout ..............................................................................................................................5

Figure 2-5. Proposed transmission connection ..............................................................................................................6

Figure 2-6. Standard wind turbine components (USDoE, 2018) ......................................................................................9

Figure 2-7. Turbine blade in transit to the White Rock Wind Farm near Glen Innes, NSW ..............................................9

Figure 2-8. Proposed connection to the grid ................................................................................................................13

Figure 3-1. Cumulative generation capacity entry and exit 20136-2017 (Deloitte, 2018) .............................................15

Figure 6-1. Looking south-west from the ridgeline near Turbine 23 .............................................................................33

Figure 6-2. Flat cleared area north-west of T25, grazed land with evidence of wild pigs ..............................................34

Figure 6-3. Bog located west of T19. Looking south-west looking toward T26..............................................................35

Figure 6-4. Density of trees surrounding T7, T9, and T13 .............................................................................................36

Figure 6-5. View corridor to the east of T3 ...................................................................................................................37

Figure 6-6. Typical vegetation surrounding T5, T6, and T11 .........................................................................................38

Figure 6-7. Evidence of fire and former logging practices surrounding T2 ....................................................................39

Figure 6-8. Elements within the visual catchment ........................................................................................................41

Figure 6-9. Proposed Elysian development visual magnitude assessment ....................................................................42

Figure 6-10. Residential properties and key viewpoints within 3100 m of a turbine .....................................................43

Figure 6-11. Residential dwellings or viewpoints with views of multiple turbines within an 8.0 km radius ..................45

Figure 6-12. Zone of visual influence (ZVI) ...................................................................................................................47

Figure 6-13. Conceptual diagram showing representative distances for noise objectives (DPE, 2016b)........................55

Figure 6-14. Relative assessment of noise, in comparison to noise generated by a wind turbine (GE Global Research, 2014) ............................................................................................................................................................................56

Figure 6-15. Preliminary wind turbine noise (source: Resonate, 2019) .........................................................................58

Figure 6-16. Plant community types predicted to occur within the study area .............................................................64

Figure 6-17. Potential direct or indirect impact on threatened ecological communities ...............................................71

Figure 6-18. Proposed haulage route, Port Kembla to Cooma ......................................................................................74

Figure 6-20. Polo Flat Road and Numeralla Road intersection ......................................................................................76

Figure 6-21. Monaro Highway and Snowy Mountains Highway intersection ................................................................77

Figure 6-22. Location of nearby airports relative to the Elysian Wind Farm .................................................................80

Figure 6-23. Bushfire risk .............................................................................................................................................85

Figure 6-24. AHIMS sites ..............................................................................................................................................92

Figure 6-25. Rivers, waterbodies and key fish habitat relative to the proposed development site ...............................96

Figure 6-26. Soil and geology of the proposed development site and region ...............................................................98

Figure 6-27. Location of the proposed Elysian development relative to Boco Rock wind farm ................................... 104

i


31 March 2020

Executive summary This preliminary environmental assessment (PEA) has been prepared to support a development application (DA) by Elysian WF Pty Ltd (EWF) for the Elysian Wind Farm proposal (Elysian), which meets the threshold for state significant development (SSD) under the State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011. The proposed Elysian development would comprise about 32 wind turbines and supporting ancillary infrastructure, with a generating capacity of between 180 MW and 200 MW.

This PEA presents the preliminary wind farm design, and environmental assessment and management information to assist the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) in assessing the proposal and the request for Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) that must subsequently be addressed in an environmental impact statement (EIS).

The proposed development site is on the ridgeline in the regions of Kybeyan and Tuross, approximately 22 km north-east of the village of Nimmitabel, NSW. Nimmitabel is a regional township of about 320 residents (ABS, 2016b). The surrounding areas of Kybeyan and Tuross are communities of less than 100 residents (ABS, 2016a).

The site is entirely within the Cooma-Monaro Local Government Area (LGA), is zoned as RU1- Primary Production under the Cooma-Monaro Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013 and cover an area of about 1220 ha (12.20 km2), comprising rolling farmland, woodland and forested land. The development site extends about 7 km north/south, and 3 km east/west at the widest point. The topography of the proposal site is variable. North-south elevation ranges from about 1210 m AHD to 1062 m AHD, the highest point located near Tuross Road to the north of the development site. East-west elevation ranges from about 1210 m AHD to 1030 m AHD.

The proposed Elysian development would comprise about 32 wind turbines, with a maximum energy output of between 180 MW and 200 MW. The turbines would have:

• an approximate rotor diameter between 150 m and 170 m • an approximate hub height of between 145 m and 155 m • a planned tip height maximum (ground to tip of vertical blade) of 230 m.

Each turbine would comprise three, up to 85 m blades, which would create a maximum swept area per turbine of about 22,698 m2. The turbines would be connected to each other and to the collection substation via underground transmission lines. The collection substation would be connected to the national grid via:

• the existing 22 kV Essential Energy (EE – asset manager) Nimmitabel-Kybeyan transmission line, which would need to be upgraded to 132 kV to accommodate the additional base load.

• The existing Nimmitabel to Cooma (Polo Flat) 132 kV transmission line, which is currently only strung on one side; therefore, the Project would utilise the un-strung side of this transmission line.

The proposal leverages the strategic advantages of the market and the wind resources present at the Elysian Wind Farm site. The layout of the Elysian Wind Farm will continue to be refined as the environmental and heritage constraints of the site become known and as detailed studies are undertaken to support the EIS.

EWF considered many factors and constraints during site selection, including:

• availability of a suitable wind source • the feasibility of the site accommodating enough wind turbine generators to make the development economically

viable • the available capacity of, and ease of connection to the national grid • suitable access for each wind turbine generator • local land use and proximity to residences • potential interaction with nationally and locally significant areas relating to environment, biodiversity and

Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage.

Optimisation of the turbine layout considered other constraints including radio communication links and cadastral data for adjacent state forest boundaries were addressed. Wind data is also being collected from two meteorological masts installed within the site boundary. Other environmental, geotechnical and logistical constraints may further modify a wind farm layout as the design develops.

ii


31 March 2020

As an alternative to proceeding with the proposal, EWF considered investing in renewable energy developments or operational facilities elsewhere. However, the lost opportunity to produce renewable wind energy on this site would be contrary to the current legislative context which is encouraging investment in clean energy generation to combat climate change, and to provide improved energy security.

To inform this PEA, EWF undertook a program of community and stakeholder consultation focussed on: • immediate neighbours (property boundaries) • neighbours within up to 3.1 km of the proposed wind turbines • neighbours along the proposed transmission easement corridor • key State government agencies and local Councils.

Wind energy developments in NSW are subject to various Commonwealth and state legislation, State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs), and local Environmental Plans. The PEA has considered legislative context for the proposal.

The identified environmental constraints have informed the turbine layout of the proposed development. Key issues for consideration at the scoping stage of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) are based on the standard SEARs for wind energy projects and include:

• landscape and visual impact • ecological impact • Aboriginal and cultural heritage impact • access and transport of turbines and associated infrastructure and building material to the site • noise and vibration • aviation • telecommunications • health • bushfire • blade throw • water and soil impact • waste management.

Landscape and visual

Of the 34 dwellings identified within the visual magnitude buffer (3100 m):

• 3 (~9%) dwellings would not have visibility of any turbines • 4 (~12%) dwellings would have visibility of one turbine only • 7 (~21%) dwellings would have visibility of up to two turbines • 2 (~6%) dwellings would have visibility of up to three turbines • 18 (~53%) dwellings would see four or more turbines.

Of the 17 dwellings identified between 3100 m and 8000 m from any turbine, three have views of multiple turbines within more than one 60 degree viewshed.

Noise and vibration

The noise interrogation for the proposed Elysian development concluded:

• noise modelling in accordance to the Wind Energy: Noise Assessment Bulletin was undertaken to inform the PEA • all non-stakeholder and stakeholder dwellings are located more than 500 m from any of the proposed turbines,

which accords with the WHO guidelines • the topography of and adjacent to the site in the north-east may provide natural noise attenuation to buffer noise

propagated by the turbines, especially to the receivers along Tuross Road • receivers may experience elevated noise levels during construction of the proposed Elysian development;

however, construction activities are temporary, and over a short-duration, and would be conducted in accordance to the relevant construction noise and vibration guidelines

• noise levels and perceived noise levels may fluctuate in response weather conditions, e.g., high wind speeds would result in faster turbine rotation, which may lead to higher mechanical noise levels

iii


31 March 2020

• wind speed and direction may influence affect noise levels at receiver locations • noise generated by wind turbines can often not be discriminated from noise generated by standard rural and

agricultural practices (e.g., machinery operation, farm vehicles, bores and pumps, livestock) • some vibration impacts associated with the construction of the wind farm may occur; however, the proposed

development site is relatively isolated from nearby properties, which assists in the separation of the source of any construction related vibrations from sensitive receivers

• aside from impacts during construction, operation of the proposed development is not anticipated to result in ongoing vibration impacts.

Biodiversity

The findings of the desktop biodiversity assessment determine the following potential impacts from the proposed Elysian development:

• the project will directly and indirectly impact four threatened ecological communities through the direct clearing of vegetation. Vegetation removal that may be required for the proposed works would likely contribute to loss of parts of the TECs affecting habitat and potentially resulting in further fragmentation of communities within the locality

• hollow-bearing trees provide habitat for threatened species such as forest owls, woodland and forest birds and microbats, which may occur within the study area. As such, the proposal has the potential to remove these tree hollows impacting on threatened species that may utilise them as habitat

• construction of turbines and their access roads may clear logs and debris used by threatened fauna such as the Spotted-tailed Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus) and Striped Legless Lizard (Delmar impar)

• the operation of the wind turbines has the potential to directly impact upon threatened birds and bats. Direct impact would take the form of birds and bats being struck by the turbines blades when moving within or through the wind farm

• the wind farm may create a barrier to movement along the forests of Eastern Australia. Species such as the White-throated Needle-tail (Hirundapus caudacutus) will migrate latitudinally across Australia, preferentially moving over forested areas such as Wadbilliga National Park

• the wind farm may create a barrier to movement longitudinally for some threatened bird species. The Flame Robin (Petroica phoenicea) for example, can migrate to the coastal lowlands in the winter

• priority weeds are likely to occur in parts of the study area. Continued weed invasion and encroachment could have potentially severe consequences for the habitat of flora and fauna occurring in the area

• there is also potential for vegetation within the study area to be classified as koala habitat; this includes ‘potential koala habitat’ based on identification of feed tree species in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No 44 – Koala Habitat Protection

• potential sediment, nutrient and pollutant run-off into adjacent vegetation and fauna habitat • noise and vibration disturbances to fauna • temporary light disturbance to fauna during the construction stage of the work.

Traffic and transport

The traffic and transport assessment determined that historical and existing development and commercial activities in the region include the Snowy Hydro scheme and commercial logging, which suggests that local road infrastructure would be able to accommodate turbine and other infrastructure deliveries with or only minor modification. For example, the most likely route from Cooma to the proposed Elysian development site requires a left turn from Polo Flat Road onto Numeralla Road. This intersection would likely require modification to accommodate delivery of the proposed development infrastructure.

Alternatively, goods may be transported to Nimmitabel via the existing OSOM route; however, this route would also require a sharp (90-degree) left turn from Monaro Highway onto Bombala Street. Further investigations would be required to confirm if this intersection could accommodate the delivery of the proposed development infrastructure. This intersection has established buildings and roundabout, therefore any required modification to it could be costly.

Health and safety

The health and safety assessment included aviation, telecommunications, health, bushfire, blade throw and blade glint.

iv


31 March 2020

During preparation of the EIS further consultation will be required with AirServices Australia and CASA during the preparation of the EIS due to the proximity of the proposed Elysian development to the Canberra to Mallacoota flight path. AirServices Australia and CASA require advance advice about the project, and monthly updates during construction. The CASA would, as necessary refer the project to the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Aeronautical Information Service (AIS) for inclusion of the turbines in the Tall Structures Database for Australia.

Wind farms may cause electromagnetic Interference (EMI) which can reduce signal strength and coverage of mobile phones, radio and aircraft navigation systems. Wind farm development may cause EMI in the following ways:

• near-field effects where the signals within the generator and nacelle cause interference; however, this has been mostly overcome with technological advances in turbine design

• diffraction where a turbine reflects or absorbs a signal • reflection / Scattering where the turbine obstructs the signal and causes interference or distortion (Bacon, 2002).

Exclusion zones (Fresnel zones) would be required around radio communication signals and near-field exclusion zones from radio towers.

Digital TV which has been delivered throughout Australia is not impacted by ghosting associated with wind turbines. There can be some associated reduction to service strength; however, this can be overcome by upgrading dwellings to a directional aerial which is able to disregard refracted signals from turbines. Satellite TV services (pay TV and TV delivered by the VAST service) are not impacted unless the direction of the dish antenna directly aligns with a turbine.

A specialist consultant has been engaged to prepare a report on telecommunications and EMI. This report would be used to inform the EIS.

Repeated exposure to high noise levels may cause stress, annoyance and sleep disturbance. Wind farms generally do not generate high audible noise levels, with measured levels between 30 to 45 dB(A) up to about 1500 m. Wind farms do generate infrasound and low frequency noise however exposure to this type of noise has not been shown to adversely impact health outcomes.

The current NHMRC research concludes that there may be some noise impact on residences within 1500 m of a wind farm which should be further investigated. An Acoustic Consultant will be engaged during the formal EIS process to prepare a detailed noise impact assessment to determine the impact (if any) on sensitive residential receivers within proximity of the proposed development.

An awareness of the risk of fires is important for any development in rural or regional Australia. Fires are a risk to life and property. Given the recent history of bushfires at the proposed Elysian development site, bushfires may be a threat to the project. Access to the wind farm site, and individual turbines would be improved to facilitate adequate response times for fire events should they occur. Identification of bushfire risks, consequences and likelihood of occurrence is addressed in the Snowy Monaro Bush Fire Risk Management Plan (SMBFMC, 2009), which should be referenced during subsequent deign and environmental assessment.

Aboriginal heritage

The requirements of efficient wind farm establishment are such that the locations of proposed turbines often coincide with topographic elements that have higher archaeological potential, likewise access roads often follow crest and/or level topography for ease of construction. The suite of proposed locations examined in this study fits that coincident model in large measure, and as such the majority of proposed turbine locations should be subject to a detailed field inspection prior to development occurring. This inspection should take the form of an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment, following the requisite guidelines and standards issues by the NSW Office of Heritage and Environment.

Prior to such inspection the proponent should examine the design of the proposed development with reference to more detailed topographic information (for example, LiDAR generated contour maps) in order to determine if any proposed turbine locations and or access tracks are now on, or are able to be moved to, topography with a slope of >70, as this would place any such turbine / compound in zones of lower archaeological sensitivity.

Water

There are several ephemeral creeks and streams that transect the proposed Elysian development site, and several semi-permanent informal dams, along Tuross Road for example. Design of any crossings would need to consider potential blockages and be able to withstand overtopping without scouring across the road surface or downstream embankment.

Creek crossings will need to ensure they have capacity for significant events without creating or exacerbating erosion potential. Culvert designs will need to ensure the downstream apron is as wide and flat as possible with long-term stable

v


31 March 2020

scour protection to reduce concentrated flows and scour velocities. There is also mapped key fish habitat (KFH) within the site which would need to be considered in detail during the EIS.

There are no registered groundwater bores located within the proposed Elysian development site; however, given the history of grazing at the site, it is likely that unregistered groundwater bores occur within the proposal boundary. This would be assessed during the EIS.

Soils

Investigations undertaken to inform this PEA suggest that the potential for site contamination is low; however, it is still suggested the management methods be considered.

Waste

Given the isolated nature of the proposed Elysian development site, appropriate management, storage and disposal of waste during both construction and operation of the wind farm is an important consideration. To minimise waste generation on-site, contractors and employees would be encouraged to efficiently order construction and office waste, reuse and recycle waste where possible and appropriately dispose of waste which is unable to be reused on-site by way of regular commercial collection by licenced contractors.

Waste generated by construction and operation of the proposed development would be minimal and that the site can be appropriately managed to prioritise recycling and reuse of materials where possible and minimise impact on landfill. The proposed development is expected to generate minimal waste during operation. However, waste will be an important consideration once the Elysian development matures and must be decommissioned.

Cumulative impacts

The significant +50 km of separation between the proposed Elysian development and the closest turbine in the Boco Rock wind farm would minimise cumulative visual impact. Boco Rock Wind Farm is not visible, even in good weather, from high points on the proposed Elysian development site. Topography and vegetation between the sites provide interruption of the viewshed.

It is anticipated that the proposed Elysian development would have the following beneficial impacts on the local and regional area:

• contribution to the local economy through creating jobs for contractors during construction and ongoing employment during operation

• demand for secondary services in the local area during construction • securing additional renewable energy sources to meet electricity demand in the wider community.

vi


31 March 2020

Abbreviations and conventions ABBREVIATION/CONCEVENTION DEFINITION

AHIP Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit

Associated property Owners and occupiers of land proposed to host wind turbines or related infrastructure, owners and occupiers of land required for access during construction and/or maintenance, or landowners who have reached a financial or in-kind agreement in relation to the proposal.

ATSIHP Act Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984

BFPL Bushfire prone land

BOS Biodiversity Offsets Scheme

CASA Civil Aviation Safety Authority

DFIG Double Fed Induction Generator

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

EP&A Regs NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

EPI Environmental Planning Instruments

EPL Environment Protection License

EWF Elysian WF Pty Ltd

FM Act Fisheries Management Act 1994

GDR Great Dividing Range

GWh Gigawatt-hours

Heritage Act Heritage Act 1977

Host landholder Owners and occupiers of land proposed to host wind turbines or related infrastructure

ISEPP State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

KFH Key fish habitat

LGA Local Government Area

NIA Noise impact assessment

Non-Associated property Landowners who have not reached a financial or in-kind agreement in relation to the proposal.

NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council

NPW Act National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

NV Act Native Vegetation Act 2003

OEH Office of Environment & Heritage

vii


31 March 2020

ABBREVIATION/CONCEVENTION DEFINITION

OSOM Oversize and over mass

POEO Act Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

RFS Rural Fire Service

Roads Act Roads Act 1993

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition

SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy

SMRC Snowy Monaro Regional Council

SEPP55 State Environmental Planning Policy Remediation of Land (SEPP 55)

SSD State Significant Development

SRD SEPP State and Regional Development SEPP

STE Serrated trailing edge

T(X) Turbine number (represented by X)

Tonality Sounds which have unusually high levels of energy in a relatively narrow band of frequencies. Tonal sounds from wind turbines are generally associated with turbine maintenance issues, rather than correct turbine function.

TSC Act Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

VIA Bulletin Visual Impact Assessment Bulletin

VDV Vibrational Dose Value

WHO World Health Organisation

WMP Waste Management Plan

WTG Wind turbine generators

ZVI Zone of Visual Influence

Introduction

1


31 March 2020

1 Introduction This preliminary environmental assessment (PEA) has been prepared to support a development application (DA) by Elysian WF Pty Ltd (EWF) for the Elysian Wind Farm proposal (Elysian), which meets the threshold for state significant development (SSD) under the State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011. The proposed Elysian development would comprise about 32 wind turbines and supporting ancillary infrastructure, with a generating capacity of between 180 MW and 200 MW.

1.1 Purpose of this document This PEA presents the preliminary wind farm design, and environmental assessment and management information to assist the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) in assessing the proposal and the request for Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) that must subsequently be addressed in an environmental impact statement (EIS). This PEA provides:

• a description of the proposal including the proposed design • a description of the proposed site and surrounding environs • statutory framework relevant to securing project approvals • a preliminary environmental and social impact assessment • proposed safeguards and management measures to address potential short- and long-term impacts from the

proposal.

Some of the assessments that informed this PEA provide more detail than is typically required at the PEA stage, to more accurately portray the potential impacts associated with the development, with the intent of satisfying some of the required SEARs at an early stage of the development proposal. This more detailed approach also accommodates seasonality requirements of ecological assessments typically imposed by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH).

1.2 Proponent details EWF is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alinta Energy. Alinta Energy is the fourth largest energy retailer in Australia and is targeting to support the development of 1000 MW of renewable energy by 2020. Details of the proponent are provided in Table 1-1

Table 1-1. Proponent details

ITEM DETAILS

Proponent Elysian WF Pty Ltd

Address

c/o Alinta Energy Clean Energy Development

Level 13, Grosvenor Place

225 George Street, Sydney

ACN 625 801 078

Key contact Dan K Hansen

Telephone +61 (0) 419 707 858

Email [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Proposal identification

2


31 March 2020

2 Proposal identification 2.1 Location The proposed development site is on the ridgeline in the regions of Kybeyan and Tuross, approximately 22 km north-east of the village of Nimmitabel, NSW. Nimmitabel is a regional township of about 320 residents (ABS, 2016b). The surrounding areas of Kybeyan and Tuross are communities of less than 100 residents (ABS, 2016a).

The site is entirely within the Cooma Monaro Local Government Area (LGA), is zoned as RU1- Primary Production under the Cooma-Monaro Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013. Collectively the site covers an area of about 1220 ha (12.20 km2), comprising rolling farmland, woodland and forested land. The development site extends about 7 km north/south, and 3 km east/west at the widest point. The topography of the proposal site is variable. North-south elevation ranges from about 1210 m AHD to 1062 m AHD, the highest point located near Tuross Road to the north of the development site. East-west elevation ranges from about 1210 m AHD to 1030 m AHD. North-south and east-west elevation profiles are shown in Figure 2-1and Figure 2-2. The locations, relative to the proposed wind farm, of these transects are shown in Appendix A.

Figure 2-1. North-south elevation profile

Figure 2-2. East-west elevation profile

Site access may be possible via Tuross Road and several private tracks which intersect the proposal site at various locations. A detailed traffic and transport assessment would be completed to inform the EIS. The indicative turbine layout is provided in Figure 2-4.

2.2 Development overview The proposed Elysian development would comprise about 32 wind turbines, with a generating capacity of between 180 MW and 200 MW. The turbines would have:

• an approximate rotor diameter between 150 m and 170 m • an approximate hub height of between 145 m and 155 m


3


31 March 2020

• a planned tip height maximum (ground to tip of vertical blade) of 230 m.

Each turbine would comprise three, up to 85 m blades, which would create a maximum swept area per turbine of about 22,698 m2. The turbines would be connected to each other and to the collection substation via underground transmission lines. An indicative turbine layout is provided in Figure 2-4.

The collection substation would be connected to the national grid via the existing 22 kV Essential Energy (EE – asset manager) Nimmitabel-Kybeyan transmission line; however, this line would need to be upgraded to 132/22 kV to accommodate the additional base load. This would provide a benefit to local residents by ensuring enhance electricity supply to existing connections, and additional capacity for future connections as required. It is anticipated that the total number of masts associated with the upgraded transmission line would be reduced; however, the masts would be taller and therefore a wider easement would be required. The existing transmission easement is well defined and maintained, free of vegetation and largely follows the alignment of Kybeyan Road. It is anticipated that to accommodate a 132 kV transmission line, a 40 m wide easement would be required; however, this would need to be determined based on subsequent discussions with Essential Energy. At this stage, the approvals for the transmission line upgrades would be considered in the EIS for the project.

The Nimmitabel-Kybeyan transmission line joins to the existing 132 kV Cooma to Steeples Flat transmission line. This transmission line (97R/2) was designed as a dual circuit line (i.e., one circuit each side of the masts); however, currently, only has one circuit installed. EWF have approval in principal from Essential Energy to install a second circuit to accommodate the additional base load from the Elysian development. Due to the existing structure, installation of a second circuit would not require redesign or widening of the existing easement.

The proposed transmission connections are shown in Figure 2-5.

Yowrie

Tuross

Kybeyan

Rock Flat

Numeralla

Dangelong

Coonerang

Wadbilliga

Countegany

Carlaminda

Middle Flat

Glen Fergus

Monaro

Highw

ay

© SMEC Australia Pty Ltd 2020. All Rights Reserved

PROJECT TITLE Elysian Wind Farm

¹LEGEND

Site Boundary

NSW Local GovernmentAreas

Transmission Lines97R to EWFUnderground Option

NSW National Parks and WildlifeService (NPWS) Estates

National Park

Nature Researve

State ConservationArea

PROJECT NO. 30012635 CREATED BY FA13847 SOURCES public_NSW_Imagery: © Department of Finance,Services & Innovation 2019, Roadnet MDS 2019

FIG NO. 2-3 DATE 06/03/2020

COORDINATE SYSTEMGDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

PAGE SIZE A4

0 52.5

Km1:200,000

Location: \\AUSYFSV003\Group\projects\30018002 - Elysian Wind Farm EIS\100 DATA\GIS\Maps\PEA\30012635_PEA_Fig02_03_Location of the Proposed Development.mxd

Disclaimer: While all reasonable care has been taken toensure the information contained on this map is up to dateand accurate, this map contains data from a number ofsources - no warranty is given that the informationcontained on this map is free from error or omission. Anyreliance placed on such information shall be at the sole riskof the user. Please verify the accuracy of all information priorto using it. This map is not a design document.

FIGURE TITLE Location of the Proposed Development

Last updated by: FA13847 on 6/03/2020 at 15:07

Sydney

CanberraNowra

Albury

Griffith

Wagga WaggaMonaro

Highw

ay

Gou-Bo

mRa

ilway

SNOWY MONARO REGIONAL

BEGA VALLEY


FIGURE TITLE Propose Turbine LayoutFIG NO. 2-4

CREATED BY FA13847 SOURCES public_NSW_Imagery: © Department of Finance, Services & Innovation 2019,Roadnet MDS 2019

Location: \\AUSYFSV003\Group\projects\30018002 - Elysian Wind Farm EIS\100 DATA\GIS\Maps\PEA\30012635_PEA_Fig02_04_Proposed Turbine Layout.mxd

DATE 04/03/2020 COORDINATE SYSTEMGDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

PAGE SIZE A4

PROJECT TITLE Elysian Wind FarmPROJECT NO. 30012635

")

!H

!H

!H!H

!H !H

!H

!H !H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H!H

!H!H

!H

!H!H

!H

!H!H!H

!H

!H!H

!H!H!H

!H

!H

T 9T 8

T 7

T 6T 5

T 4T 3

T 2

T 1

T 32

T 31

T 30 T 29T 28

T 27T 26

T 25

T 24T 23 T 22

T 21

T 20T 19

T 18

T 17T 16

T 15T 14

T 13

T 12

T 11

T 10

Tuross

Ri ver

Jibolaro Cree k

Turos

s River

Tuross River

Turo ss Riv er

0 10.5

Km1:40,000

Disclaimer: While all reasonable care has been taken to ensure the information contained on this map is up to date and accurate, thismap contains data from a number of sources - no warranty is giventhat the information contained on this map is free from error or omission. Any reliance placed on such information shall be at the sole risk of the user. Please verify the accuracy of all information prior to using it. This map is not a design document.

LEGEND!H Turbines

") Substation

Access Roads

Site Boundary

Transmission Lines97R to EWFUnderground Option

¹


Myalla

Maffra

Arable

Rock Flat Dangelong

Coonerang

Bobundara

Springfield

The Brothers

Steeple Flat

Yankees Creek

MonaroHighway



¹LEGEND

97R to EWFUnderground Option

Essential Energy 22kVline STF8B1

Site Boundary

Proposed 132kVUpgrade and 40mAccess


FIG NO. 2-5 DATE 06/03/2020


PAGE SIZE A4

0 52.5

Km1:200,000

Location: \\AUSYFSV003\Group\projects\30018002 - Elysian Wind Farm EIS\100 DATA\GIS\Maps\PEA\30012635_PEA_Fig02_05_Proposed Upgrades to Existing Essential Energy 22kV Line.mxd


FIGURE TITLE Essential Energy 22kV line STF8B1


Kybeyan


7


31 March 2020

The development proposal comprises installing permanent wind farm infrastructure, access roads, and electrical connectivity, plus the establishment of temporary construction, administrative and material storage areas. This would include:

• about 32 wind turbines, mounted on tubular steel towers. The maximum tip height of the turbines would be 230 metres (from ground level to the tip of vertical blade)

• underground transmission cabling - underground transmission cables would be installed between turbines and from the turbines to the collection substation. The cable alignment would follow the road layout as far as practicable

• generator transformer – generator type has yet to be identified • collection substation – onsite, located on a platform about one-hectare in area. The substation would house key

electrical and transmission equipment • maintenance facility – to be located next to the substation. The facility would store spare parts for the turbines

and substation, and maintenance fluids • power reserve – an onsite battery storage facility covering about one hectare • construction compound and temporary construction infrastructure, potentially including concrete batching

facilities • construction of temporary and permanent access roads • connection to the National Grid via an existing EE operated Nimmitabel-Kybeyan 22 kV transmission line, which

would require upgrading to a 132 kV transmission line to accommodate the additional base load. The upgraded 132 kV transmission line would then connect to a new second circuit on the EE Nimmitabel-Cooma/Polo Flat substation (Line 97R).

All project infrastructure would be located within the Development Corridor. A detailed development area and infrastructure layout would in informed by site investigation as the assessment, planning and design stages continue. A summary of key project components is provided in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1. Summary of key project components

COMPONENT DESCRIPTION

Permanent infrastructure

Wind turbine generators, including:

• tower • nacelle • blades • blade apex

about 32 wind turbine generators, with maximum dimensions as follows:

• up to 230 m tip height • three by blades up to 85 m • rotor diameter up to 170 m • rotor hub height up to 155 m.

Maximum electricity generating capacity 180 to 200 MW

Substation area Approx. 1 ha

Transmission lines

New 33 kV underground transmission line within the site.

Upgrade of existing EE 22 kV transmission line to 132 kV.

Connect to a new second circuit on the EE Nimmitabel-Cooma/Polo Flat substation (Line 97R).

Meteorological monitoring masts 2 x 110 m high (existing)

Operations / maintenance

4 on-site staff (FT)


8


31 March 2020

COMPONENT DESCRIPTION

Temporary infrastructure

Central construction operations compound, comprising:

• concrete batching plant • site offices • vehicle and heavy machinery parking compound • works compound • laydown area • aggregate stockpiles • generators • hazardous materials storage.

A temporary operations area of approximately 5 ha would be established.

The operations area would be adjacent to the proposed substation site.

Wind turbine generator construction area:

• construction area • crane pad • transport parking area • laydown area • topsoil stockpiling area • woodchip stockpiling area.

Each turbine construction area would be approximately 1 ha.

Water abstraction pump and dam To be advised

On-site construction workforce 50 – 250 (tbc)

2.3 Major wind farm infrastructure components 2.3.1 Wind turbine (tower and blades)

Wind turbines harness the power of the wind and use it to generate electricity. This is achieved through wind turning the blades around a rotor. The rotor is connected to the main turbine shaft, which rotates a generator to create electricity. The detailed design for the proposed development has yet to be finalised and as such the turbine type has not been decided. However, both the commonly used double fed induction generator (DFIG) and the direct drive turbine would be considered. The main features of the wind turbines include:

• three variable speed blades for main shaft rotor control • upwind design (nacelle rotates into the wind) • power converter on the rotor side of the generator (power exited through slip rings and carbon brushes) for

variable speed grid synchronisation and power quality movements • Nacelle which house the main shaft, gearbox (in DFIG) and generator • blades • hub which connects the blades to the main shaft • tower section which connects the nacelle • in built step-up transformer.

The turbine blades convert kinetic energy from the wind into mechanical energy through the rotor hub and into the main turbine shaft. Blades composed of stronger composite materials allow for increased length, which in turn allows for a greater amount of wind energy to be captured, and ultimately a greater amount of electricity generated per rotation. Such advances in blade materials and technology have led to increased cost-efficiencies for wind energy developments.

The blades essentially lift and rotate when wind is blown over them, causing the rotor to spin. The blades are connected into a motor or hydraulic pitch actuator, which allows the blades to change angles and convert more, or less of the available energy depending on wind speeds. Each blade is equipped with a lightning conductor on the tip end, which channels lightning strikes to an earthing point, thus protecting the internal electrical systems. Figure 2-6 provides a


9


31 March 2020

schematic view of the inside of a typical wind turbine, its components, and their functionality (USDoE, 2018). EWF is proposing to install 85 m long blades. Figure 2-7 provides an example of a turbine blade in transit.

Figure 2-6. Standard wind turbine components (USDoE, 2018)

Figure 2-7. Turbine blade in transit to the White Rock Wind Farm near Glen Innes, NSW


10


31 March 2020

2.3.2 Nacelle

The nacelle is a housing that encloses the gearbox, generator, transformers, motors, brakes, electronic components, wiring, and hydraulic and lubricating oil systems. It is typically constructed of steel and fibreglass and has weather monitoring equipment located on top, which provides data on wind speed and direction to assist the automatic operation of the wind turbine.

2.3.3 Footings Three types of foundations may be considered for the turbines, pending the results of geotechnical investigation of ground conditions at the site. These may include:

• slab (gravity) foundations, which would involve excavating about 450 m3 of ground material to a depth of about 2 m. About 200 m3 of this material may, if suitable, be reused as fill around the turbine base. A slab foundation would involve installing shuttering and steel reinforcement, prior to pouring concrete

• slab plus rock anchor foundations, which would involve excavating about 300 m3 of ground material to a depth of about 2 m. These foundations also require shuttering and steel reinforcement, plus rock anchor piles to a depth of about 20 m. Concrete is then poured and once cured, the rock anchors are stressed and secured

• single mono-pile foundation (rock anchor), which would involve excavating about 50 m3 of ground material using a rock drill to a depth of about 10 m. About 30 m3 of this material may, if suitable, be reused as fill around the pile. Once excavated, a tubular pile with a tower flange is inserted and concrete poured in situ.

EWF would undertake detailed geotechnical investigations during pre-construction work to determine the appropriate foundation to use for the development. The geotechnical conditions of the proposed development site may warrant the use of several foundation types. Excavation areas provided are a guide only and may change depending on geotechnical conditions encountered on site.

2.3.4 Monitoring masts EWF has installed 2, 110 m meteorological monitoring masts to collect additional wind and meteorological data.

2.3.5 Access roads Where required, roads would be upgraded, widened or constructed to accommodate material transportation and access to each turbine within the project area.

2.3.5.1 External roads

External roads may require upgrades or maintenance to facilitate construction traffic loads and maintenance during operations. A detailed traffic and transport assessment would be undertaken to inform the EIS, and once the Elysian design, infrastructure components, and materials and equipment entry points are better defined. Required approvals would be obtained by EWF prior to commencement of work.

2.3.5.2 Internal roads

Where possible, EWF intends to use existing internal access roads/tracks rather than establishing additional roads. Access roads in general would be 5 m wide, but some portions may be required to be up to 12 m wide during construction to allow an appropriate splay for turbine shaft and blade delivery, and construction vehicle access. The site will require connecting roads between wind turbines and hardstand areas. The site roads network would be rationalised and, where possible traverse ridgelines or plateaus. A gradient criterion would be implemented to ensure safe access for delivery of project infrastructure. The roads would be surfaced with compactable, engineered base material with suitable drainage. Materials would be sourced locally where possible and in consultation with the local councils. Material from excavation will be reused as much as possible for backfilling roads and platforms. Importing material from outside the Site will be minimised.

2.3.6 Utility requirements

2.3.6.1 Electricity

During construction, generators would provide electricity for site activities. Electricity would be used mainly in the local site offices. Generators might also be used during the pre-commissioning phase to start turbine testing prior to the grid being available at the on-site substation. The type of generator to be used was not known at the time of preparation of


11


31 March 2020

this PEA; however, EWF would aim to select a generator type that minimises emissions and use of petroleum hydrocarbons.

During operation, electricity would be taken from the grid and no additional generators would be required.

2.3.6.2 Water

A hydrological assessment would be undertaken to confirm the availability of a feasible water resource for construction and operation of the project. Further information on water resources near the proposed Elysian site is provided in Section 6.8.

2.3.6.3 Sewerage

EWF would provide potable ablutions for use on-site during construction.

2.3.7 Hardstand Each wind turbine construction area will have a temporary hardstand area of about 45 m2 adjacent to each wind turbine for cranes to use during construction. Clearing of native vegetation to construct access roads and hardstand areas would be avoided where possible. If clearing is unavoidable, EWF would appropriately manage clearing to minimise vegetation disturbance. The hardstand areas will be maintained throughout the operational life of the wind farm and used principally for the periodic maintenance of the wind turbines.

2.3.8 Temporary site compound / laydown area

A temporary construction operations area of about 5 ha would be established during the construction period. Construction machinery and turbine components may be stored in a laydown area. The laydown area would be made by levelling and temporary compaction of top surface and fencing.

2.4 Major electrical infrastructure 2.4.1 Generator transformer The wind turbine generators typically produce electricity at nominally 0.69 kV which is increased to 33 kV by the transformer located either in the nacelle, the base of the tower or close to the base of the tower on a concrete pad. The output from each of the turbines would be directed via 33 kV cables to the 33 kV / 132 kV collector substation.

The generator transformer may be oil-filled or a dry type depending on the final wind turbine design. Where oil-filled transformers are used, appropriate measures will be incorporated to prevent any oil loss reaching local water courses. The oil volume used for generator transformers would be approximately 1000 L.

2.4.2 Collection substation The onsite collection substation will be located on a one-hectare (approx.) platform and would comprise electrical equipment such as:

• 33kV/132kV transformer(s) • surge arrestors • voltage transformers • current transformers • circuit breakers • disconnectors.

The substation will be connected to an existing EE 22 kV transmission line, which will require upgrading to a 132 kV line to accommodate the additional base load. This upgrade would also provide a more reliable electricity supply for the local community.

A control building would be located next to the substation, but within the 1 ha platform described above. The control building would house all the electronic devices, e.g., the supervisory control and data acquisition, and the control and automated systems.

During construction and operation, the substation would be surrounded by a security fence to keep visitors away from electrical devices.


12


31 March 2020

2.4.3 Overhead and underground cables

Underground cables would be installed between turbines and from the turbines to the substation, to connect the turbines to the grid. The cable alignments would follow the road layout as closely as possible to avoid additional environmental disturbance.

Overhead cables would be used to connect the substation to the existing Nimmitabel-Kybeyan transmission line.

2.4.4 Maintenance facility A maintenance facility would be built next to the substation. This building would store spare parts for the turbines and substation and small quantities of diesel fuel in suitably designed storage units. The design of the maintenance facility would be finalised during the design development phase.

2.4.5 Connectivity to the grid The wind farm would be connected to the grid via the existing EE Nimmitabel-Kybeyan 22 kV transmission line, which will be upgrade to a 132/22 kV line to accommodate the additional base load. The Nimmitabel-Kybeyan transmission line enters the proposed development site at the west. The upgrade 132 kV transmission line would then be connected to the Nimmitabel-Cooma transmission line to the substation at Polo Flat. The proposed connection is shows in Figure 2-8.

EWF have commenced the Application to Connect and approval process with EE.

2.4.6 Battery storage The proposed development may include battery storage at the connection point and provide firming capability to the output of the wind profile. The battery storage facility would cover approximately one hectare of land and be located within the development boundary.

2.5 Development phases The proposed development would comprise seven stages:

1. stage 1 - detailed design and contract development 2. stage 2 – pre-construction, comprising activities such as detailed geotechnical investigations, road upgrades

required for access requirements during construction, site preparation (e.g., topsoil stripping) construction of works facility, erection of signage

3. stage 7 – construction works, likely to be about 18-24 months 4. stage 4 – commissioning, including pre-commissioning checks, collector sub-station energising, commissioning of

turbines, turbine pre-testing 5. stage 5 – operational phase, expected to be initially 25 years, with potential thereafter to repower project

infrastructure for a further 25 year operating life 6. stage 6 – servicing and maintenance 7. stage 3 - decommission – once the operational life of the wind farm has expired, the infrastructure may be

recommissioned or decommissioned, and the site rehabilitated to its current land capacity for ongoing agricultural or alternative land use.

These stages would be discussed in further detail in the EIS. The development timeframe is dependent on planning approvals; however, the proponent has indicated a preferred construction commencement date late in 2020.


FIGURE TITLE Proposed Connection to the GridFIG NO. 2-8


Location: \\AUSYFSV003\Group\projects\30018002 - Elysian Wind Farm EIS\100 DATA\GIS\Maps\PEA\30012635_PEA_Fig02_08_Proposed Connection to the Grid.mxd


PAGE SIZE A4


Cooma

Myalla

Winifred

Rock Flat

Polo Flat

Dangelong

Coonerang

Nimmitabel

Carlaminda

Springfield

Pine Valley Middle Flat

Glen Fergus

Cooma North

The Brothers

Dairymans Plains

Monaro Highway

Gou-Bom Railway

0 2 4 61

Km1:175,000


LEGENDSite Boundary

Transmission Lines97R-Cooma/Bega -Steeple Flat

Essential Energy 22kVline STF8B1


HV TransmissionLines

66kV

132kV

¹


Development justification and alternatives considered

14


31 March 2020

3 Development justification and alternatives considered 3.1 Global and regional agreements on emissions reduction The Paris Agreement, ratified 4 November 2016, was established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to minimise impacts from climate change. One of the primary objectives of the agreement was to encourage development which will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve climate resilience to halt the projected increase in global temperatures to less than 2 °C above pre-industrial levels.

As a signatory to the agreement, the Australian Government set a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 per cent below 2005 levels by or before 2030. To achieve this target, the government is encouraging technological innovation and expanding the clean energy sector (Australian Government, 2016a). Investment in the renewable energy sector is promoted by the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 and the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET). The LRET seeks to secure 23.5 per cent or 33,000 GWh of Australia’s electricity generation from renewable sources by 2020 (Australian Government, 2016b).

At the state level, the NSW Renewable Energy Action Plan (NSW Government, 2013) seeks to attract investment in the renewable energy sector to meet the national target of 20 per cent renewable energy generation by 2020. While at a regional scale, The South East and Tablelands Regional Plan 2036 aims to encourage investment in the renewable energy sector and position the region as a hub of renewable energy excellence.

The NSW Government is providing funding for programs that will help households, businesses and communities benefit from clean energy as NSW transitions to a modern and secure energy system. The State government is helping to promote reliable, clean and affordable energy supply through $30 million for regional community energy projects and increase NSW’s energy capacity by prioritising Energy Zones in the Central-West, South West and New England regions of NSW, which will become a driving force to deliver affordable energy into the future (NSW Govt, 2018).

3.2 Energy reform in Australia Nationally, there are currently 83 clean energy projects in construction or due to start construction, which will deliver over $20 billion in investment, 14,678 MW of renewable energy, and create about 13,514 direct jobs. NSW share of this is 23 project, 3485 MW of renewable energy, $4327 million in investment, and 2120 direct jobs (CEC, 2019). Reform in Australia’s energy sector over the past 5 years has been driven largely by the decarbonisation of energy supply, and the decentralisation and changing energy demand (Figure 3-1).

Wind power is currently the cheapest source of large-scale renewable energy (IRENA, 2018). Recent technological advancements in the sector mean that wind turbines are now larger, more efficient and make use of intelligent technologies (CEC, 2018a). In 2017, wind farms produced 33.8 per cent of Australia’s renewable energy, supplied 5.7 per cent of Australia's electricity and, for the first time ever, contribute almost equal the amount of electricity as hydro energy (CEC, 2018a).

The proposal leverages the strategic advantages of the market and the wind resources present at the Elysian Wind Farm site. The layout of the Elysian Wind Farm will continue to be refined as the environmental and heritage constraints of the site become known and as detailed studies are undertaken to support the EIS.


15


31 March 2020

Figure 3-1. Cumulative generation capacity entry and exit 20136-2017 (Deloitte, 2018)

3.3 Site selection EWF considered many factors and constraints during site selection, including:

• availability of a suitable wind source • the feasibility of the site accommodating enough wind turbine generators to make the development economically

viable • the available capacity of, and ease of connection to the national grid • suitable access for each wind turbine generator • local land use and proximity to residences • potential interaction with nationally and locally significant areas relating to environment, biodiversity and

Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage.

These factors are considered at a local, regional and national context to build a comprehensive understanding of the key issues as the project develops. A summary of the outcomes of this constraint’s investigation is provided in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 respectively.

Table 3-1. Site selection criteria – preferable site conditions

PREFERABLE SITE CONDITION INVESTIGATION OUTCOMES

Optimal wind resources

The NSW Department of Industry (Resources and Energy Division) has collated information from various sources to produce maps of renewable energy across the State (NSW Government, 2016). Based on a review of these maps, the proposed development site is likely to encounter winds of enough speed and constancy, particularly in elevated areas, surrounded by a smooth and gently rolling land, which promote acceleration of wind speed. The rounded, undulating hills within and adjacent to the proposed Elysian development site offer high wind speed-up due to the topography, and the wind resource map


16


31 March 2020

PREFERABLE SITE CONDITION INVESTIGATION OUTCOMES

suggests that the average wind speed around the Elysian development site is 6.3-10.2 ms-1 (NSW Government, 2016).

Suitable land Use of agricultural land located along ridgelines, providing an elevated platform to erect turbines and capture kinetic wind resources and convert to mechanical energy to integrate into the grid via an existing transmission line.

Residents

A critical consideration in site selection was the rural nature of the site and generally low population density of the region. This reduces the potential for impact disturbance particularly in relation to noise and visual impacts.

The Elysian development would introduce an additional source of revenue and industry to the area, improving regional resilience to bushfires, drought and periods of downturn in agricultural demand.

Capacity to rehabilitate The proposed development works are in keeping with the RU1 - Rural Land zoning. Following decommissioning, it is anticipated that the Elysian site would be used for agricultural purposes.

Proximity to electrical network An existing EE transmission line enters the proposed development site in the west. Connection to this would involve the installation of overhead powerlines and an associated easement.

Connection capacity

EWF have commenced consultation with EE (the asset manager) regarding the proposed connection of the Elysian proposal. At the time of finalising this PEA, EE had confirmed there is capacity available for connection. The consultation process and subsequent verification is ongoing.

Regional skills

Where possible, the development of the Elysian proposal would use existing labour resources from the Cooma Monaro region. Technicians and trade workers make up 14 per cent of the regional workforce, with a further 12 per cent identified as labourers (ABS, 2016a). These resources would also be used, where possible, during operations, servicing and maintenance.

Table 3-2. Site selection criteria – constraints

AREAS OF CONSTRAINT SITE OBSERVATION

Disturbed terrain

The landscape of the development site is disturbed. The site has a history of logging, bushfires and selective clearing for agricultural purposes. Pockets of native vegetation are likely to be impacted by the works; however, the landscape is robust with a demonstrated history of reliance and a capacity for renewal.

Potential residences

There are several dwellings within and adjacent to the proposed development area. These dwellings are comprised of rural residential homesteads, and storage and maintenance facilities associated with agriculture and grazing practices.

Waterways

The site has access to surface water at several locations.

There are mapped key fish habitat within the site, in the north near proposed turbines T7 and T9, and west near proposed turbines T16, T25, T26 and T28. Based on the design at completion of the PEA, none of proposed turbine locations are within 10 m of key fish habitat.


17


31 March 2020

AREAS OF CONSTRAINT SITE OBSERVATION

Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal heritage significance

Initial AHIMS searches (28 March 2019) indicate at least one record of Aboriginal heritage within 1 km of the proposed development site. Several heritage databases were interrogated to assess non-Aboriginal heritage values of the site. These included the State Heritage Register, S170, the Commonwealth Heritage List and the Cooma-Monaro LEP.

Residential zones There is no residential zoning within or adjacent to the proposal development site; however, there are several residential properties in proximity to the site. These properties include associated properties and host properties.

Conservation

This selection of the proposed development site considered environmental and social constraints, which have been further investigated in this PEA to optimise the proposed turbine layout. Environmental and social considerations are discussed in detail in Section 6.

3.4 Preliminary turbine layout The turbine layout is an important consideration in the planning of the site. If wind turbine generators are positioned too close together, they can adversely impact efficiency in energy production and mechanical loads. As such, optimizing wind turbine generator spacing is important so that turbulence and wake interference is minimised. Optimisation of the turbine layout considered other constraints including radio communication links and cadastral data for adjacent land areas. Wind data is also being collected from two meteorological masts installed within the site boundary. Other environmental, geotechnical and logistical constraints may further modify a wind farm layout as the design develops. Preliminary wind data from the site is provided in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3. Preliminary site wind data

VARIABLE DETAILS

Annual mean wind speed [m/s] 8.0

Weibull A 9.1

Weibull k 2.0

Annual mean temperature (°C) 10.6

Annual mean air density (kg/m3) 1.08

3.5 Alternatives considered As an alternative to proceeding with the proposal, EWF considered investing in renewable energy developments or operational facilities elsewhere. However, the lost opportunity to produce renewable wind energy on this site would be contrary to the current legislative context which is encouraging investment in clean energy generation to combat climate change, and to provide improved energy security.

Additionally, the suitability of the site to accommodate a feasible wind energy development, has been determined, and it is likely that if EWF did not invest in this opportunity, others would.

Specifically, the following conclusions justified the decision to proceed with the design development and approvals for the project:

• wind profile consistent to support a feasible wind energy development • proximity to transmission lines to facilitate connection to the grid • separation from residential properties and low regional population density • available water resources • existing access via Kybeyan Road to facilitate delivery of turbine components and construction materials


18


31 March 2020

• favourable topography.

Based on an anticipated generating capacity of between 180 and 200 MW, the local, regional and global benefits outlined in Table 3-4 can be expected.

Table 3-4. Benefit summary

BENEFIT ELYSIAN ENERGY FORECAST

Energy production The project would generate 600 GWh of renewable energy annually. This would support the initiatives developed to reach Australia’s renewable energy targets.

Carbon reduction

Australia’s energy sector is transforming to sustainably meet the electricity needs and objectives of the future. The decarbonisation of the energy sector will only be successful through the concurrent investment in renewable energy generation projects. The Elysian development proposal would provide a sustainable, renewable energy source direct to the national grid, and aligns with the principles of the Clean Energy Council and other industry bodies and guidelines.

Local jobs

Between 50 and 250 direct jobs would be generated throughout the 18-24 month construction phase of the Elysian development proposal. Ongoing employment opportunities would also arise from operation, servicing and maintenance requirements for of the project.

Economic injection The Nimmitabel region would experience economic benefit from increased local spending during construction and operation of the Elysian development proposal.

Consultation

19


31 March 2020

4 Consultation The NSW Government’s Wind Energy Guideline (the Guideline) provides the community, industry and regulators with guidance on the planning framework for the assessment of large-scale wind energy development proposals that are SSDs (DPE, December 2016). Consultation with communities and other stakeholders forms an integral part of the assessment process for SSD wind energy projects, and would be a core focus of activity, alongside detailed environmental assessment, supporting development of the Elysian development proposal.

4.1 Consultation To inform this PEA, EWF undertook a program of community and stakeholder consultation focussed on: • immediate neighbours (property boundaries) • neighbours within up to 3.1 km of the proposed wind turbines • neighbours along the proposed transmission easement corridor • key State government agencies and local Councils.

4.1.1 Communication and stakeholder engagement program EWF completed community and stakeholder communications and engagement that meets current best practice guidelines, as identified by DP&E and recent successful wind development benchmarks set in NSW. The subsequent preparation of a Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan (CSEP) and engagement activities throughout the EIS will be guided by these initial consultations, desktop research, and the SEARs. The following benchmark criteria would shape EWF continued approach:

1. early and ongoing engagement that places an emphasis on face-to-face consultation 2. on-going access to complete and clear information about the proposal and its potential impacts and benefits 3. respectful listening and understanding, including potential for landowner and community benefit sharing 4. proactive and collaborative involvement of the community and key stakeholders throughout the design

development process.

Early consultations, including engagement with DP&E and Snowy Monaro Council will be used to guide the development of the CSEP. The community and other stakeholders have been, and will continue to be, proactively informed of progress of the development at each milestone by use of communications tools such as an innovative interactive website, workshops and face-to-face meetings, printed materials, drop-in style information sessions and other events.

The CSEP would include:

• a description of the project and locality • the SEARs and project timeline • the purpose of stakeholder communication and consultation • the communication and engagement approval process • the approach to communication and consultation • mapping of stakeholder issues and interests • communication and consultation methodology • specification of communication and consultation tools and techniques • preliminary communications messaging • schedule of communication and consultation resources, activities and events. • schedule of target milestones and reporting outcomes.

Consultation would meet best practice guidelines, including the Wind Energy Guideline for State significant wind energy development (DPE, 2016c) and would be delivered across three phases of project development, as follows:

1. Phase 1, scoping consultations (underway) which has been used to inform this PEA and the preliminary design and development of the CSEP, including the SEARs and the detailed preparation of the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan (CSEP).

Consultation

20


31 March 2020

2. Phase 2, pre-EIS consultation will not commence before completion, approval and resourcing of the CSEP, including the tools and activities specified to adequately inform and enable preparation of the EIS and the meeting of critical project milestones.

3. Phase 3, EIS public exhibition represents the third and final stage of pre-approval consultations. Phase 3 will commence with preparation of the Elysian Wind Farm draft EIS and proposed design for public exhibition. Phase 3 consultation will enable the key features, benefits, impacts and mitigations of the proposal, informed by Phases 1 and 2 of consultation, to seamlessly coalesce into a shared understanding of Elysian Wind Farm.

4.1.2 Purpose of the PEA consultations The purpose of the stakeholder communication and consultation process is to:

• identify potential impacts to drive better siting and design • provide meaningful, respectful and effective engagement across the development process • encourage benefit sharing with the community • provide greater accountability for the management of impacts over the life of the project.

4.2 Consultation activities undertaken to date The identification of neighbouring properties and dwellings for the Elysian Wind Farm was undertaken through:

• discussion with participating landholders and neighbours • desktop mapping and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) • driving of local roads.

Twenty three neighbouring (i.e., non-stakeholder) dwellings were identified within 3000 m from any of the proposed wind turbine locations. EWF has sought to identify these landholders in order to make contact and commence communication.

Identification of neighbouring landholders was undertaken through:

• discussion with participating landholders and known neighbours • identification of addresses from mailboxes • white pages telephone searches • telephone contact • other local contacts.

Additional consultation was undertaken with residences outside of the 3000 m buffer from any wind turbine. EWF has commenced a database of these stakeholders and a log of communication activities has been recorded (Appendix B).

To date, much of the stakeholder communication methodology has involved telephone calls, email, face-to-face meetings and the mailing of the first project brochure to the immediate and local properties.

EWF has contacted key state agencies and local government stakeholders, including:

• NSW Dept of Planning, Industry and Environment • National Parks and Wildlife • Snowy Monaro Regional Council.

4.2.1 Telephone

Contacting local landholders by telephone has been successful to date. Of critical importance is the fact that many landholders are often only contactable after hours due to reception issues and on-farm commitments. Landholders often discuss their preferred contact method and timing at the first contact. Many landholders do not have mobile telephones, although this is gradually changing.

The project may improve the local area mobile reception for the benefit of the local community through the provision of fibre optic communications lines to the site, with the potential to erect aerials for mobile communication and data.

Consultation

21


31 March 2020

4.2.2 Email

Email contact of many stakeholders has proven successful for state agency and local government representatives. Email is an effective method of communicating with stakeholders on project progress.

4.2.3 Face-to-Face This is the most effective, but most time-consuming method of communication and engagement with stakeholders and community. Most of the face-to-face meetings held to date have been one-to-one, so deep and effective engagement can occur with strong understanding achieved between the parties.

At the time of lodging this PEA, Willy Willy had engaged face-to-face with the following organisations:

• Lions Club, Nimmitabel • Nimmitabel Post Office • Bellz Café, Bombala Street, Cooma • Nimmitabel Advancement Group • Nimmitabel Common • Nimmitabel Chamber of Commerce • Country Women Association • Nimmitabel Men’s Shed • Federal Hotel Nimmitabel • Nimmitabel Country Club.

These organisations were provided with flyers detailing the proposed development.

EWF hosted representatives of NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, NSW Environment Protection Authority, and Snowy-Monaro Regional Council at an information session in Nimmitabel (at the Royal Arms Hotel on 30 October, 2019). EWF provided an overview of the project, including activities undertaken to date, and then showed the representatives around the proposed development site. Following the site visit, the group reconvened at the Royal Arms Hotel to de-brief and for EWF to field further specific queries.

Lately, EWF have engaged directly with up to 13 neighbouring landowners to discuss the use of their land to install temporary noise monitoring equipment and provide a general update on the project. EWF have also distributed project flyers through Cooma-Monaro Shire Council to all rate payers in the catchment area to capture non-resident land owners in the local area, and distributed posters at strategic locations in Nimmitabel.

4.2.4 Direct Mail The EWF team has utilized a preliminary information brochure to inform the local community of the project proposal. This brochure was hand-mailed to over 80 mailboxes in the local area during April 2019. Using a feedback telephone number and email, members of the community previously unknown to the team have been revealed, improving the effectiveness of the engagement process. It is expected that this technique will be utilized again due to the ease of access to property mailboxes along the local road network.

4.2.5 Communications and Engagement Log A stakeholder communications and engagement log has been developed to record contact details, records of meetings and communications, as well as information on the meeting purpose and content. Actions for next steps for each meeting are also proposed. EWF are interested to adopt a new Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system to better record meeting information and content. Investigations into the optimum system for the project are underway.

A summary of the consultation undertaken is provided in Appendix B. Addresses have been excluded for privacy.

4.3 Stakeholder issues and interests As discussed, the NSW Government supports the development of a sustainable wind energy industry. NSW is naturally endowed with valuable wind resources, by international standards, with many of the best areas located near existing electricity transmission infrastructure. Wind developments generate dependable clean energy, while stimulating regional economic activity, jobs growth and improved social and environmental outcomes. (DPE, 2016c).

Consultation

22


31 March 2020

Early scoping consultation with Snowy Monaro Regional Council has identified management of local road networks during the construction phase, transmission line corridor, vegetation management and the question of any flora and fauna impacts as primary issues of interest.

4.4 Consultation summary Three key issues were raised as a result of the consultation process:

• Visual impact of the proposed development • Potential impacts to fauna (particularly birds) • Traffic and dust on Kybeyan Road (a legacy issue)

A summary of the key issues raised is provided in Table 4-1 below.

Table 4-1. Key issues raised during preliminary consultation

KEY ISSUES RAISED

Development • What are the next steps for the project? • How can I get involved? • What are the showstoppers (if any)?

Turbines • What sort of turbines would be used? • What are the dimensions and output capacity?

Construction

• Where would the access routes be? • Where would the turbines be located? • Where would the turbines come from? • Where would the labour come from? • Will you need access to my property? • What are the other construction issues?

− Traffic? − Roads? − Dust?

• How would these issues be managed?

Grid connection

• Where would the project connect to the grid? • Would it be overhead or underground connection? • What voltage would the connection be? • What would the impact to my property be?

Visual amenity • How would the project look? • From what locations would the project be visible? • How big will the turbines be?

Sound and acoustic • Do the turbines produce noise? • From what locations / distance would I hear the

turbines?

Flora and fauna

• Will you be undertaking flora and fauna surveys? • What are the impacts of turbines to bats and

birds? • Will you be doing much clearing of vegetation?

Where will this occur?

Surveys • What other surveys are required? • Will you need access to my property?

Local community benefit • What do I get from this project?

Consultation

23


31 March 2020

KEY ISSUES RAISED

• How does the greater community benefit?

4.5 Next steps EWF will continue to adopt the fundamental methodologies of telephone, email, face-to-face and print mailer. The preference for the methodology, will be driven by individual stakeholders. In addition to these methods, it is proposed to develop further tools in increase and encourage local engagement and participation. These tools will include:

• website with project details and updates • hotline (free call number) • brochure of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) • email updates • public displays.

4.5.1 Project Website It is envisaged that the project website would comprise the following

• project background − why Kybeyan? − why wind? − what are the drivers of this project?

• project summary • project specifications

− turbine layout − capacity − emissions reduction summary

• frequently asked questions • project schedule • contact details for more information • how to support the project • request for more information [email protected].

The project website is presently under construction and expected to be installed during Quarter 3, 2019.

4.5.2 Project Hotline This avenue will be more important as the project develops more closely to construction, however it will be possible to link the hotline to the existing EWF phones for urgent community enquiries. The project hotline is expected to be installed Quarter 3, 2019.

4.5.3 Brochures and Tech Sheets It is expected that several brochures and technical sheets will be developed and released as more information is developed and the project progresses. A revised project brochure will be prepared and released when more information is confirmed in relation to expected generation and local grid capacity. A frequently asked questions brochure will also be prepared to reflect the website information and the information collected during the community engagement process.

4.5.4 Public Displays and Exhibitions EWF will conduct a minimum of 2 days of public displays and exhibitions in both the local community and potentially in the regional centre of Cooma. It is expected that the public displays will be able to show the critical elements of the wind farm impacts including:

• final project layout including turbine locations, grid connection route and access roads • visual amenity, including:

mailto:[email protected]

Consultation

24


31 March 2020

− photomontages from selected locations − flicker studies and results at target dwellings

• findings from the EIS including: − flora and fauna surveys − cultural heritage and archaeological surveys

• proposed access routes to and from site • local benefits

− commitment to local employment, education and skills-development − commitment to engaging local contractors and subcontractors − commitment to local supply and content contracting through the engineering procurement and construction

(EPC) contracts, − commitment to neighbour agreements.

The next community meetings are planned for the 4th and 5th of December, 2019. At these meetings, EWF will provide an update of the development, assessments undertaken to date and those planned to commence in the coming months. EWF will collect community feedback during these sessions and this would be detailed in the EIS.

Planning instruments and context

25


31 March 2020

5 Planning instruments and context 5.1 Context for wind energy development Wind energy developments in NSW are subject to various Commonwealth and state legislation, State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs), and local Environmental Plans. The following section details of the legislative context for the proposal.

5.2 Commonwealth legislation 5.2.1 Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) is the Australian Government’s central environmental legislation. It provides a legal framework to protect and manage nationally and internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places — defined in the EPBC Act as matters of national environmental significance.

Under the EPBC Act, a referral to the Australian Government is required for proposed actions that have the potential to significantly and adversely impact on matters of national environmental significance (MNES) or on Commonwealth land.

The EPBC Act streamlines the national environmental assessment and approvals process and promotes ecologically sustainable development through the conservation and sustainable utilisation of natural resources.

Section 6.4 (Biodiversity) provides a discussion of relevant matters protected under the EPBC Act.

5.2.2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (ATSIHP Act) assists in the preservation and protection of places, areas and objects of significance to Aboriginal Australians. The ATSIHP Act only applies to areas and objects of indigenous heritage that are of national or international significance or that are located on land owned or managed by the Commonwealth.

Unlike similar NSW legislation, the ATSIHP Act is not designed to protect areas and objects of scientific and historical interest. Instead, the ATSIHP Act can be used by the Minister in certain circumstances to override NSW planning approvals and prevent an activity from occurring by making a declaration to protect an area or object. Section [x] of this PEA summarises the heritage assessment undertaken.

Section 6.7.1 (Aboriginal Heritage) provides a summary of items relevant to the ATSIHP Act.

5.2.3 Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998

The Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 requires notification be provided to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) as wind farm infrastructure can present a hazard to low flying aircraft.

Section 6.6.1 describes how the project would comply with the CASA Regulations.

5.3 NSW state legislation 5.3.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) is the principal legislation guiding land use development in NSW, including state significant development (SSD) such as proposed development.

The primary of objective of the Act is to promote the social and economic welfare of the community, and a better environment through the proper management, development and conservation of the State’s natural resources. This includes capturing kinetic wind energy for the purposes of contributing to the state and national electricity grid. The Act also promotes the orderly economic development of land.

The Elysian development meets the threshold for SSD and is required to be assessed under Part 4 of the EP&A Act. In the case of an SSD, the consent authority would be the Independent Planning Commission (if the development is of a kind for which the Commission is declared the consent authority by an environmental planning instrument) or the Minister (if the development is not of that kind) (Division 4.2, Section 4.5 of the EP&A Act).

An application for SSD must grant consideration to the matters within Section 4.15 of the EP&A Act, including the provisions of relevant environmental planning instruments, proposed instruments that have been the subject of public


26


31 March 2020

consultation, development control plans, planning agreements and statutory regulations. Additionally, consideration must be granted to the likely impacts of the development, suitability of the site, any submissions received and the public interest.

Clause 4.41 of the EP&A Act clarifies that development consent for SSD includes authorisations under the following statutory provisions, meaning that separate planning approval processes do not apply:

• a permit under section 201, 205 or 219 of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 • an approval under Part 4, or an excavation permit under section 139, of the Heritage Act 1977 • an Aboriginal heritage impact permit under section 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 • a bush fire safety authority under section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997 • a water use approval under section 89, a water management work approval under section 90 or an activity

approval (other than an aquifer interference approval) under section 91 of the Water Management Act 2000.

5.3.2 NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 The NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regs) identifies the standard requirements for the preparation of an EIS and the factors that are required to be considered when undertaking the impact of an activity on the environment.

EWF are obliged to consider Clause 228 of the EP&A Regs regarding identifying environmental impacts. The factors specified under this clause include matters such as impacts on residential and ecological communities, impacts on the visual quality and property values of the locality, impact on protected fauna and long-term environmental impacts. Additionally, the NSW Wind Energy Guidelines for State Significant Development (2016) outlines matters for consideration in any application of this nature, including:

• strategic context (Section 3) • visual impacts (Section 6.2) • noise impacts (Section 6.3) • biodiversity (Section 6.4) • traffic and transport (Section 6.5) • hazards and risks

− aviation safety (Section 6.6.1) − telecommunications (Section 6.6.2) − health (Section 6.6.3) − bushfire hazard (Section 6.6.4) − blade throw (Section 6.6.5)

• decommissioning • cumulative impacts (Section 6.10).

5.3.3 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act) provides an integrated system for the licensing of polluting activities with the objective of protecting the environment. The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) must be notified when a ‘pollution incident’ occurs that causes or threatens ‘material harm’ to the environment. A Plan of Management for the operation of the Site will provide procedures for notification to the EPA in the event of a pollution incident.

The proposed development is a ‘scheduled activity’ under Schedule 1, 17(1) ‘electricity works (wind farms)’ and therefore requires an Environment Protection License (EPL) to be obtained under Section 48 of the POEO Act. Elysian Wind Farm would need to obtain an EPL from the NSW EPA prior to the commencement of operations.

5.3.4 Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

The Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act) and its supporting regulations commenced on 25th August 2017. The BC Act repeals the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) along with other natural resource management legislation, while retaining the TSC Act species list. The BC Act sets out the assessment framework for threatened species and ecological communities for Division 5.1 activities (amongst other types of development).


27


31 March 2020

The BC Act, together with the Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017, outlines the framework for addressing impacts on biodiversity from development and clearing. It establishes a framework to avoid, minimise and offset impacts on biodiversity from development through the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme (BOS).

Part 7.9 of the BC Act requires that the significance of the impact on threatened species, populations and endangered ecological communities listed under the BC Act or Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act), are assessed using a five-part test. Where a significant impact is likely to occur, a Species Impact Statement (SIS) or Biodiversity Assessment Report (BAR) must be prepared in accordance with the Secretary’s requirements.

5.3.5 Rural Fires Act 1997 The Rural Fires Act 1997 (Rural Fires Act) aims to prevent, mitigate and supress bush and other fires whilst protecting people, property and infrastructure from damage whilst having regard to the principles of ecological sustainable development. Under Section 63, public authorities must take all practicable steps to prevent the occurrence and spread of bushfires on or from land vested in or under its control or management.

Consultation is required to be undertaken with the Rural Fire Service (RFS) and local Fire Brigades to determine the features required to minimise the threat of fire to the Site.

Bushfires are a known hazard in the Cooma-Monaro LGA, particularly along the Great Dividing Range. The Elysian development proposal site is largely mapped as Category 1, with a few areas of Category 2. Bushfire risk would be considered in the context of the Rural Fires Act at all levels of the development process, from project design through to decommissioning.

5.3.6 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act) governs the care, control and management of national parks, nature reserves, Aboriginal areas and historic sites including areas vested with the Environment Minister. The objectives of the Act include the conservation of nature, objects, places or features such as habitats, biological diversity, landforms and places of Aboriginal, social or historical value. These objectives are achieved by applying principles of ecologically sustainable development. The management principles for national parks include promoting public awareness, making provisions for sustainable visitor use and the conservation of biodiversity, ecosystem function, natural landscape and cultural value.

An approval for SSD precludes the requirement to separately apply for an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) under Section 90 of the NPW Act; however, we anticipate such matters will be addressed in the relevant referral process during the assessment of the EIS.

The Elysian development proposal site is situated between the Wadbilliga National Park, and the Kybeyan State Conservation Area. No land within the proposed site boundary are designated NSW National Parks and Wildlife Services Estates. As such, the environmental assessment would need to consider the interactions of the wind turbine infrastructure on the amenity and function of the nearby NSW National Parks and Wildlife Services Estates.

5.3.7 Fisheries Management Act 1994 The Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) is in place to conserve fish stocks, habitats and threatened species, populations and communities, to preserve fishery resources for future generations.

In the exemptions under Section 89J(1)(b) of the EP&A Act, an approval for the proposal as SSD would negate the requirement for permits under Section 201, 205 and 219 of the FM Act. Nonetheless, the construction and operation of the proposed development may affect fish passage or cause adverse impact to threatened fish species and we anticipate a referral to the Department of Primary Industries and Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) would be required.

5.3.8 Water Management Act 2000 The objectives of the Water Management Act 2000 are to provide for the sustainable and integrated management of the State’s water sources for the benefit of both present and future generations. We note that the provisions of Section 4.41 of the EP&A Act clarify that an approval by the Minister for SSD prevails over the requirement for a water use approval under Section 89, a water management approval under Section 90 and an activity approval under Section 91 of the Water Management Act.


28


31 March 2020

5.3.9 Native Vegetation Act 2003

The Native Vegetation Act 2003 (NV Act) aims to prevent broad scale clearing, protect native vegetation of high conservation value and improve conditions of existing native vegetation.

5.3.10 Contaminated Land Management Act 1977 The Contaminated Land Management Act 1977 (CLM Act) establishes a process for investigating and (where appropriate) remediating land that the EPA considers to be contaminated significantly enough to require regulation under Division 2 of Part 3. Furthermore, under Section 60 a person whose activities have contaminated land or a landowner whose land has been contaminated is required to notify the EPA when they become aware of the contamination.

5.3.11 Roads Act 1993 The Roads Act 1993 (Roads Act) sets out rights of members of the public to pass along public roads, establishes procedures for opening and closing a public road and provides for the classification of roads. It also provides for the declaration of WCC and other public bodies as roads authorities for both classified and unclassified roads and confers certain functions (particularly function of carrying out roadwork).

5.3.12 Soil Conservation Act 1938 The Soil Conservation Act 1938 allows for conservation of soil resources and erosion management. Notices can be issued under Section 15A to control erosion or degradation.

The installation of the turbine infrastructure and roads would require cut and fill of existing soil throughout the site. Raw aggregate to make concrete would be imported to the site; however, excavated soil would remain on site for rehabilitation and re-contouring of the site.

5.3.13 Crown Lands Management Act 2016 The Crown Lands Management Act 2016 (Crown Lands Act) provides for the ownership, use and management of Crown Lands. Crown land is land that is vested by the Crown, or was acquired under the Crown Settlement Acts, and is land that is dedicated for a public purpose, such as a cemetery, or land that is sold or lawfully contracted to be sold under consideration of the Crown. The Crown Lands Act ensures that the appropriate environmental, social, cultural heritage and economic aspects be considered when decision-making about Crown lands.

The proposed Elysian Wind Farm site sits adjacent to Crown land, and there are several Crown reserves and Crown tenures within a 10 km radius of the project boundary.

5.4 Environmental Planning Instruments The following Environmental Planning Instruments (EPIs) are relevant to the proposed development according to Section 79C(1)(a)(i), as it applies to the development under Section 89H of the EP&A Act.

5.4.1 State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 Subject to Schedule 1 State significant development – general of SEPP (State and Regional Development) 2011 (SSD SEPP), electricity generating facilities are deemed SSD where they have an output of 30 MW or more and a capital investment value (CIV) of more than $30 million.

The proposed development has a maximum output of 200 MW and a CIV of more than $30 million. As such, the proposal is deemed SSD and is to be referred to the Minister, and if required, the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) for consideration.

5.4.2 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

The provisions of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP) are relevant to the proposal in providing widened zoning permissibility for the delivery of certain infrastructure. In this instance, Clause 34(1) provides prescribed zones within which a wind farm is permissible with consent.

An electricity generating facility is not defined within the ISEPP, so the relevant definition is within the Standard Instrument – Principal Local Environmental Plan as follows:


29


31 March 2020

““electricity generating works means a building or place used for the purpose of making or generating electricity”.

The Elysian development site is zoned as RU1- Primary Production under the Cooma-Monaro LEP 2013. The proposed development is contained within the RU1 zone, the assessment buffer area captures E1 zoned land.

In relation to Clause 34(1) of the ISEPP, the RU1 zones are defined as ‘prescribed rural zones’, permitting the proposed electricity generating facility (wind farm) on the Site as development with consent. The widened permissibility of the ISEPP prevails beyond the relevant LEP controls and is to be relied upon for the proposed development.

5.4.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008 The purpose of SEPP (Rural Lands) 2008 is to facilitate the orderly and economic use and development of rural lands and to implement measures to reduce land use conflicts. The proposed development meets the rural planning principles of Clause 7 of SEPP (Rural Lands) 2008 as it presents an opportunity to introduce a sustainable economic activity to the site and wider locality.

The Rural Planning Principles also require consistency with applicable regional strategies, including the South East and Tablelands Regional Plan, prepared by the DP&E. The proposal is consistent with this regional plan which aims to grow the regional economy and jobs by encouraging investment in various sectors including renewable energy and indicates that renewable energy is a “priority growth sector” for the region. The proposal is also consistent with the NSW Renewable Energy Action Plan (2013) which seeks to attract investment in renewable energy to meet the national target of 20 per cent energy generation by 2020.

5.4.4 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

SEPP No. 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) requires the consent authority to consider whether the land is contaminated, and if the land is contaminated whether it is suitable in its contaminated state or following remediation works.

5.4.5 Local Environmental Plans

5.4.5.1 Cooma-Monaro Local Environmental Plan 2013

The proposed Elysian development site is wholly located within the Cooma-Monaro LEP area. As discussed, the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of relevant land zoning under this LEP. The objectives of relevance to the proposed development encourage sustainable primary industry production and a diversity in primary industry enterprises, whilst minimising impacts on adjoining land uses. The wind farm will provide a new and sustainable renewable industry which will diversify the types of economic activity offered within the area and will allow the land beneath the turbines to continue to be used for traditional farming purposes, if desired.

The objectives of RU1 zoning include to:

• encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base. • encourage diversity in primary industry enterprises and systems appropriate for the area. • minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands. • minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones. • encourage land uses that are unlikely to generate significant additional traffic relative to the capacity and safety

of a road or create or increase a condition of ribbon development on any road. • encourage land uses that are unlikely to create unreasonable or uneconomic demands for the provision or

extension of public amenities or services. • protect the water quality of receiving watercourses and groundwater systems. • protect the visual landscape values of the rural area.

The proposed development is not prohibited in the RU-1 land use zone and are permitted with consent, indicating that the proposal would be compatible with this land zoning. During the construction stage of the works, clearing and excavation would be required for turbine footing, hardstand areas access tracks, substations and control buildings. These activities would be temporary, and cleared or modified land would be rehabilitated at the end of the proposed developments operational life. The impact footprint of the proposal would allow for dispersed agricultural activities to continue concurrently to wind farm operational.


30


31 March 2020

The proposed development site is about 2.5 km from land zoned as E1- National parks and Nature Reserves. The objectives of this zone are to:

• enable the management and appropriate use of land that is reserved under the NPW Act or that is acquired under Part 11 of that Act.

• enable uses authorised under the NPW Act • identify land that is to be reserved under the NPW Act and to protect the environmental significance of that land

The only activities permitted in this zone are those authorised under the NPW Act. the proposed development would not impact land within the E-1 National Parks and Nature Reserves land zone.

The proposal does not contain heritage items identified under Schedule 5 – Environmental Heritage of the Cooma Monaro LEP 2013. A due diligence Aboriginal heritage assessment has been completed for the EWF and concludes that further investigation is required to confirm the former use of the site by Aboriginal people and the possible presence of archaeological deposits or scatters.

The indicative turbine layout is shown in Figure 2-4. Once the selection of wind turbine locations has been finalised, the earthworks required for site preparation, foundations and road construction would be assessed in accordance with Clause 6.1 – Earthworks of the Cooma Monaro LEP 2013 to minimise impacts on the environment, neighbouring uses and items of cultural and heritage significance.

Clause 6.3 – Terrestrial Biodiversity of the Cooma Monaro LEP 2013 relates to the conservation and protection of native flora, fauna and associated ecological processes. This clause is relevant to the proposal which is mapped in the Cooma Monaro LEP 2013 as possibly containing ecologically diverse habitat. A preliminary biodiversity review of the site has been undertaken in Section 6.2 of this report.

The Site also contains mapped areas of identified Riparian Land (Appendix C) and, accordingly, the provisions of Clause 6.6 – Riparian Land and Watercourses are applicable to the development. Clause 6.6 requires the consent authority to consider the impact of the proposal on:

• the water quality and flows within the watercourse • species, habitats and ecosystems of the watercourse • stability of the bed and banks of the watercourse • the free passage of fish and other aquatic organisms • any future rehabilitation of the watercourse and riparian areas.

The proposed development may adversely impact waterways and riparian areas. EWF would undertake further assessment to avoid, minimise and manage adverse impacts associated with the development.

The site includes areas mapped under Clause 6.8 of the Cooma Monaro LEP 2013 as having potential landslide risk due to the topography of the site. A geotechnical assessment would accompany the EIS to ensure the wind turbines and associated infrastructure are designed and sited to avoid or minimise environmental impact.

In principle, the proposal satisfies the relevant provisions of the Cooma Monaro LEP 2013 and overarching aims of the plan which promote environmental sustainability and the orderly and economic use of land.

5.5 Other policies and plans The matters to be addressed in the EIS are specified in the SEARs. In addition to the SEARs, key reference documents setting out planning criteria for wind farm projects include:

• NSW Government (2016) Wind Energy: Assessment Policy. Department of Planning and Environment, NSW Government, Sydney, New South Wales

• NSW Government (2016) Wind Energy: Visual Impact Assessment Bulletin. Department of Planning and Environment, NSW Government, Sydney, New South Wales

• NSW Government (2016) Wind Energy: Noise Assessment Bulletin. Department of Planning and Environment, NSW Government, Sydney, New South Wales

• Clean Energy Council (2013) Best practice guidelines for implementation of wind energy projects in Australia. Clean Energy Council, Melbourne, Victoria.

• Environment Protection and Heritage Council (Draft 2010) National wind farm development guidelines. Environment Protection and Heritage Council, Adelaide, South Australia.


31


31 March 2020

These documents have informed the assessments within this PEA, particularly the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposal.

5.6 Approvals required prior to commencement The EP&A Act states that various approvals and authorisations which would ordinarily apply to the development are not required for SSD. Aside from these exemptions, EWF would be required to obtain the following approvals prior to the commencement of the works:

• referral of proposed Controlled Action under Section 133 of the EPBC Act • reporting of tall structures to AirServices Australia, CASA and RAAF under the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 • consent from Department of Lands • environmental Protection Licence from the EPA under Section 48 of the POEO Act • dangerous goods transportation licences for vehicles and drivers (if more than 500 L or 500 kg of dangerous goods

are required to be delivered to the Site) • over size over mass (OSOM) approvals for the transport of turbines and associated infrastructure to the site • an approval under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 to permit the construction of roadway connection to public

roads • water use approval under the Water Management Act 2000 to take water from the spring dam for concrete

batching and for construction activities occurring within 40 m of a waterway.

Assessment of key issues

32


31 March 2020

6 Assessment of key issues The purpose of this section is to identify potential environmental impacts specific to the context of the proposed Elysian development. The identified environmental constraints have informed the turbine layout of the proposed development. Key issues for consideration at the scoping stage of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) are based on the standard SEARs for wind energy projects and include:

• landscape and visual impact • ecological impact • Aboriginal and cultural heritage impact • access and transport of turbines and associated infrastructure and building material to the site • noise and vibration • aviation • telecommunications • health • bushfire • blade throw • water and soil impact • waste management.

Each of these key issues have been addressed in the following sections.

6.1 Landscape and visual assessment The Wind Energy: Visual Impact Assessment Bulletin (DPE, 2016) (VIA Bulletin) provides a guideline for consideration of visual impacts of a proposed wind farm. Visual impacts are an important consideration due to the colour, height, and typical location of wind farms within expansive rural areas, which are ordinarily characterised by open rural landscapes.

The VIA Bulletin suggests that the visual impact of turbines is relative to the characteristics and value of the existing landscape, the extent to which the landscape is to be changed and the perception by the community. Visual impact is predominately a qualitative assessment, which is difficult to numerically measure; however, studies of visual impact are typically based on a maximum visual extent of 8 km, beyond which turbines recede into the background (Sullivan et al., 2012; Bishop, 2000; Shang and Bishop, 1999).

To assist with determining viewpoints that should be considered for detailed visual assessment in the EIS, the VIA Bulletin relies on two preliminary assessment tools which measure visual magnitude, and cumulative impacts arising when multiple turbines are visible from a single receiver. This section provides consideration of these preliminary assessment tools to develop an understanding of the landscape within which the proposed Elysian development is to be located.

6.1.1 Landscape context

6.1.1.1 Topography & Local Context

The proposed development site follows a ridgeline of the Great Dividing Range, near Wadbilliga National Park (2.5 km to the east) and the Dangelong Nature Reserve (2.5 km to the west). The topography of the site is variable. North-south elevation ranges from about 1210 m AHD to 1062 m AHD, the highest point located near Tuross Road to the north of the development site. East-west elevation ranges from about 1210 m AHD to 1030 m AHD.

The proposed development site covers an area of about 1220 ha and is zoned RU1- Primary Production under the Cooma-Monaro LEP 2013. Much of the site is disturbed, with evidence of logging, clearing for agricultural practices and recent fire scars. The local area is predominantly used for agricultural purposes, specifically cattle and sheep grazing, with dwellings mostly clustered to the north and north-east of the proposed Elysian development site.

6.1.1.2 Vegetation cover

The proposed development site comprises several vegetation types at varying densities, ranging from rocky areas with limited canopy, dense areas with a 10-15 m tree canopy, flat cleared landscapes, boggy areas and regenerating areas that have been previously logged or have evidence of fire.


33


31 March 2020

Figure 6-1 shows the vegetation type near proposed turbine T23.

Figure 6-2 shows the vegetation type new proposed turbine T25.


Figure 6-4 shows the vegetation type new proposed turbines T7, T9, and T13.


Figure 6-6 shows the vegetation type new proposed turbine T5, T6, and T11.


Figure 6-1. Looking south-west from the ridgeline near Turbine 23


34


31 March 2020

Figure 6-2. Flat cleared area north-west of T25, grazed land with evidence of wild pigs


35


31 March 2020

Figure 6-3. Bog located west of T19. Looking south-west looking toward T26


36


31 March 2020

Figure 6-4. Density of trees surrounding T7, T9, and T13


37


31 March 2020

Figure 6-5. View corridor to the east of T3


38


31 March 2020

Figure 6-6. Typical vegetation surrounding T5, T6, and T11


39


31 March 2020

Figure 6-7. Evidence of fire and former logging practices surrounding T2

6.1.2 Assessment Requirements

The VIA Bulletin requires the following assessment to be undertaken as part of the PEA:

• community consultation to determine key landscape features and viewpoints within the area • mapping of key landscape features • outcomes of the application of the preliminary screening tools provided by the VIA Bulletin, which comprise:

− visual magnitude: consideration of the proposed height of turbines and distance from viewpoints where a turbine is located within the visual magnitude buffer, detailed consideration of the visual

impact is required for the proposed 230 m high turbines, a visual magnitude of 3100 m applies identification of host/stakeholder dwellings and non-associated neighbouring dwellings within 3100 m

of any turbine − multiple wind turbine tool - consideration of the cumulative visual impact of existing, proposed and approved

wind turbines as 60-degree segments within a 360-degree, 8.0 km radius from a viewpoint.

The VIA Bulletin also encourages the use of GIS software to develop a zone of visual influence, taking into consideration turbine location and local topography. This has also been included in our assessment.

6.1.3 Preliminary Consultation Outcomes The VIA Bulletin emphasises the importance of early consultation to:

• establish the key landscape features, areas of scenic quality and key public viewpoints valued by the community • allow the community to rank those features and scenic quality to high, moderate or low visual significance


40


31 March 2020

• inform landholders about the proposed development area, likely corridors, preliminary turbine layouts and access routes

• inform the community about the proposed project, listen to community’s concerns and suggestions for alternative siting and location designs, and discus potential visual impacts.

The proponent has consulted with Cooma Monaro Shire Council to gain an understanding of valued local viewpoints and scenic quality. During a briefing meeting held with senior Council representatives on 22 January 2019, the following matters were discussed:

• wind energy development in the area can be divisive and Council/Councillors tend to field many queries about proposed developments from residents

• important to consult regularly with Council and keep elected representatives informed • Council representatives identified no notable public viewpoints in the proposed development area • residents of Numeralla should also be considered in consultation (along with those of Nimmitabel, Kybeyan and

Tuross).

Following preliminary consultation, a high-level map detailing key landscape features was developed. Figure 6-8 identifies the following key elements within the visual catchment:

• important public view points within the landscape • host dwellings • non-host dwellings • land zonings under Cooma Monaro LEP • Tuross Falls Lookout • Wadbilliga National Park • Kybeyan State Conservation Area • NSW State Forest Logging Area • public roads • transmission lines.

6.1.4 Preliminary Visual Assessment

6.1.4.1 Visual Magnitude Assessment

The visual magnitude is determined by a ratio of turbine height and distance. This assessment establishes the visual extent of turbines relative to dwellings and key public view points and is useful in identifying which viewpoints may require further assessment in the EIS.

Figure 6-9 shows the visual magnitude assessment based on a maximum wind turbine generator tip height of 230 m, creating a visual magnitude or extent of 3100 m. Dwellings and viewpoints within this 3100 m magnitude buffer required further consideration and assessment. The Tuross Falls Lookout ad Wadbilliga National Park and the Kybeyan State Conservation Area – Picnic Area are within the 8 km visual catchment.

")

")")

")

")")

")")

")")")")") ")")

")")

") ")")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")")")

")") ")

")

")")

") ")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")")")

")

XW

XW

!H

!H

!H!H

!H !H!H

!H !H

!H!H

!H

!H!H!H

!H!H!H

!H!H!H

!H!H!H!H

!H!H

!H!H!H!H

!H

Kybe yan StateConse rvation Are aPicnic Are as

Tu ross Falls Lookou t– Wadbillig a National Park

9

643

1

45

43

42

32

28

25

23

17

1413

87

52

52

51

48

46

4441 36

34

31

30

29

27

26

24

22

21

20 1918

16

1511

Tuross

Numeralla

Countegany

50

47

33

12

49

4039

38

37

35

10

© SMEC Au stralia Pty Ltd 2020. All R ig h ts R e se rve d

FIGURE TITLE Ele m e nts with in th e Visu al Catch m e ntFIG NO. 6-8

CREATED BY FA13847 SOURCES pu blic_NSW_Im ag e ry: © De partm e nt of Finance , Se rvice s & Innovation 2019,R oadne t MDS 2019

Location: \\AUSYFSV003\Group\projects\30018002 - Elysian Wind Farm EIS\100 DATA\GIS\Maps\PEA\30012635_PEA_Fig06_08_Elements within the Visual Catchment.mxd


PAGE SIZE A4


0 1 2 3 40.5Km1:125,000

Disclaim e r: Wh ile all re asonable care h as be e n take n to e nsu re th e inform ation containe d on th is m ap is u p to date and accu rate , th ism ap contains data from a nu m be r of sou rce s - no warranty is g ive nth at th e inform ation containe d on th is m ap is fre e from e rror or om ission. Any re liance place d on su ch inform ation sh all be at th e sole risk of th e u se r. Ple ase ve rify th e accu racy of all inform ation prior to u sing it. Th is m ap is not a de sig n docu m e nt.

LEGEND!H Tu rbine s

XW Pu blic Vie wpoints

")Non-h ost Dwe lling swith in 3.1 km Bu ffe r

")Non-h ost Dwe lling swith in 8.0 km Bu ffe rState Fore sts

Bu ffe r - 3.1 km

Bu ffe r - 8.0 kmTransmission Lines

Esse ntial Ene rg y 22kVline STF8B197R to EWFUnde rg rou nd Option

Host DwellingsCowling

Dawson

Land Zoning (LZN)E1 National Parks andNatu re R e se rve sR U1 Prim aryProdu ctionR U3 Fore stry

¹



42


31 March 2020

Figure 6-9. Proposed Elysian development visual magnitude assessment

An assessment of residential dwellings within the 3100 m visual magnitude buffer was undertaken using high resolution aerial photography. Figure 6-10 shows:

• residential properties that were identified within the visual magnitude buffer • host/stakeholder dwellings associated with the proposed development • key public viewpoints within the visual magnitude buffer.

A complete list of viewpoints and residential properties is provided in the assessment summary and recommendations in Section 6.2.6.


FIGURE TITLE Residential Properties within 3.1 km Visual Magnitude BufferFIG NO. 6-10


Location: \\AUSYFSV003\Group\projects\30018002 - Elysian Wind Farm EIS\100 DATA\GIS\Maps\PEA\30012635_PEA_Fig06_10_Residential Properties within 3.1 km Visual Magnitude Buffer.mxd


PAGE SIZE A4


")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")")

")

")

") ")")

")

")

") ")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")")

")

!H

!H

!H!H

!H !H!H

!H !H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H!H!H

!H

!H

!H!H

!H!H!H

!H!H

!H!H

!H!H!H

!H

!H

9

6

4

3

1

50

47

45

43

42

17

1413

12

8

7

5

2

52

49 48

46

44

36

35

34

22

21

201918

16

15

11

10

28

23

51

40

39

27

24

T 9T 8T 7

T 6T 5

T 4 T 3

T 2

T 1

T 32

T 31T 30 T 29

T 28

T 27T 26

T 25T 24

T 23 T 22T 21

T 20T 19

T 18

T 17T 16

T 15 T 14

T 13

T 12

T 11

T 10

Tuross

Tur oss

River

Jibolaro Creek

Kybey

a nRiv

er

Back River

Turos

s Rive

r

Kybeyan River

Kybeyan River

Kybeyan River

TurossRiver

Tuross River

0 1 20.5

Km1:60,000


LEGEND!H Turbines

")Non-host Dwellingswithin 3.1 km Buffer

")Non-host Dwellingsoutside 3.1 Buffer

Site Boundary

Buffer - 3.1 km

Proposed 132kVUpgrade and 40mAccess

Transmission LinesEssential Energy 22kVline STF8B1


¹



44


31 March 2020

6.1.4.2 Multiple Turbine Assessment

An assessment was undertaken to consider the cumulative impact on residential dwelling or key viewpoints where multiple wind turbines may be visible. This assessment was undertaken for all dwellings within 8.0 km of the proposed development, as per the VIA Bulletin.

Figure 6-11 shows residential properties and viewpoints within 8.0 km of a turbine for the proposed Elysian development. Note, that at the time of preparation of this PEA there were no other wind energy developments within 8.0 km of these dwellings. As such, the cumulative assessment only considered the turbines associated with the proposed Elysian development.

© SMEC Au stralia Pty Ltd 2020. All R ig h ts R e se rve d

FIGURE TITLE R e side ntial Prope rtie s with in 8.0 km Visu al Mag nitu de Bu ffe rFIG NO. 6-11

CREATED BY FA13847 SOURCES pu blic_NSW_Im ag e ry: © De partm e nt of Finance , Se rvice s & Innovation 2019,R oadne t MDS 2019

Location: \\AUSYFSV003\Group\projects\30018002 - Elysian Wind Farm EIS\100 DATA\GIS\Maps\PEA\30012635_PEA_Fig06_11_Residential Properties within 8 km Visual Magnitude Buffer.mxd


PAGE SIZE A4


")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")")

")")

")")")")") ")")

")")

") ")")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")")")

")

")

XW

XW

!H

!H

!H!H!H !H!H!H !H!H

!H!H

!H!H!H

!H!H!H

!H!H!H

!H!H!H!H

!H!H

!H!H!H!H

!H

Kybe yan StateConse rvation Are aPicnic Are as

Tu ross Falls Lookou t– Wadbillig a National Park

9

643

1

45

43

42

32

28

25

23

17

1413

87

52

52

51

48

46

4441 36

34

31

30

29

27

26

24

22

21

20 1918

16

1511

Tuross

Countegany

50

47

33

12

49

4039

38

37

35

10

0 2 41Km1:120,000

Disclaim e r: Wh ile all re asonable care h as be e n take n to e nsu re th e inform ation containe d on th is m ap is u p to date and accu rate , th ism ap contains data from a nu m be r of sou rce s - no warranty is g ive nth at th e inform ation containe d on th is m ap is fre e from e rror or om ission. Any re liance place d on su ch inform ation sh all be at th e sole risk of th e u se r. Ple ase ve rify th e accu racy of all inform ation prior to u sing it. Th is m ap is not a de sig n docu m e nt.

LEGEND!H Tu rbine s

XW Pu blic Vie wpoints

")Non-h ost Dwe lling swith in 8.0 km Bu ffe r

")Non-h ost Dwe lling sou tside 8.0 km Bu ffe rSite Bou ndary

Bu ffe r - 8.0 kmPropose d 132kVUpg rade and 40mAcce ss

Transmission LinesEsse ntial Ene rg y 22kVline STF8B197R to EWFUnde rg rou nd Option

¹



46


31 March 2020

6.1.4.3 Zone of Visual Influence

A preliminary zone of visual influence was established based on the maximum wind turbine tip height of 230 m and basic local topography. The result of this assessment is provided in Figure 6-12. Note, this assessment does not consider screening by vegetation and only uses publicly available, 10 m topographical contours rather than confirmed survey data. Therefore, it is likely to be an overestimate. Nonetheless, due to the surrounding topography and ridgelines, this assessment confirms that wind turbines are unlikely to be visible from the dwellings closest to the wind farm, particularly along the northern extent of the proposed development site.

With reference to the Bulletin, sensitive land designations include:

• World Heritage Areas • National park • National Reserve System reserves • Coast Zone (under Coastal Protection Act 1979) • Marine estate (under Marine Estate Management Act 2014) • Commonwealth Heritage List Sites • State Heritage Register Sites • The following land use zones:

− RU5 Village − R1 General Residential − R2 Low Density Residential − R3 Medium Density Residential − R4 High Density Residential − R5 Large Lot Residential − SP3 Tourist − RE1 Public Recreation − RE2 Private Recreation − E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves − E2 Environmental Conservation − E3 Environmental Management − E4 Environmental Living − W1 Natural Waterways − W2 Recreational Waterways

No residences in the localities relevant to the proposed development are considered to be within sensitive lands as described in the Bulletin. The Tuross Falls Lookout at Wadbilliga National Park and the Kybeyan State Conservation Area – Picnic Area are within the 8km visual catchment and are considered to be sensitive lands. However, as outlined in the previous section, it is unlikely that the turbine would be visible from these locations due to aspect, topography, elevation and screening from vegetation.


FIGURE TITLE Zone of Visual InfluenceFIG NO. 6-12


Location: \\AUSYFSV003\Group\projects\30018002 - Elysian Wind Farm EIS\100 DATA\GIS\Maps\PEA\30012635_PEA_Fig06_12_Zone of Visual Influence.mxd


PAGE SIZE A4


")

")")

")

")")

")")

")")")")") ")")

")")

") ")")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")")")

")

")

!H

!H

!H!H!H !H!H!H !H!H

!H!H

!H!H!H

!H!H!H

!H!H!H

!H!H!H!H

!H!H

!H!H!H!H

!H

9

64

31

45

43

42

3332

28

25

23

17

1413

87

52

52

51

48

46

44

41

40

39

38

37

36

34

31

30

29

26

24

22

21

201918

16

1511

Tuross

Kybeyan

Countegany

50

47

12

49

35

27

10

0 2 41

Km1:120,000


LEGEND!H Turbine Layout

")Non-host Dwellingswithin 8.0 km Buffer

Site Boundary

Visible from Non-hostDwellings within 8.0kmBuffer

¹



48


31 March 2020

6.1.5 Summary of Findings

Table 6-1 provides a list of the dwellings and viewpoints within the Visual Magnitude (3100 m) and within the multiple turbine assessment buffer (8.0 km), as well as stakeholder dwellings.

Table 6-1. Summary of dwellings and key viewpoints within the visual extent

REF. UTM CO-ORDINATES (55H) APPROX. DISTANCE

TO NEAREST TURBINE (km)/TURBINE NO.

TURBINES VISIBLE IN MULTIPLE 60° SECTORS?

COMMENT POTENTIAL VISUAL IMPACT EASTING NORTHING

DWELLINGS WITHIN 3100 M OF A WIND TURBINE

1 721427.909 5981752.917 1.79 / T1 Yes. WTG visible in 2 60° sectors. Potentially 6 WTG visible at min. 1.79 km from dwelling. High

2 723018.942 5982520.821 1.25 / T1 No EWF likely not visible from dwelling due to topography/terrain. Low



5 725312.988 5982941.849 2.73 / T1 No. Potentially 2 WTG visible at approx. 2.73 km from dwelling. Natural screening, terrain should reduce impact.

Medium

6 725259.997 5982756.058 2.58 / T1 No. Potentially 2 WTG visible at approx. 2.58 km from dwelling. Natural screening, terrain should reduce impact.

Medium

7 724493.962 5982287.002 1.69 / T1 No. Potentially 2 WTG visible at min. 1.69 km from dwelling. Natural screening, terrain should reduce impact. Medium


9 724055.100 5981189.071 0.91 / T1 No. Potentially 2 WTG visible at 0.91 km from dwelling. Natural screening, terrain should reduce impact. Medium


49


31 March 2020






11 724170.055 5980729.013 1.08 / T2 Yes. WTG visible in 2 60° sectors.

Potentially 5 WTG visible at min. 1.08 km from dwelling. Natural screening, terrain should reduce impact. Medium






16 726041.551 5977715.744 2.51 / T9 No. Potentially 3 WTG visible at min. 2.51 km from dwelling. Medium


18 724299.066 5975994.077 1.78 / T32 Yes. WTG visible in two 60° sectors.




20 723457.883 5975847.140 1.12 / T25 Yes. WTG visible in two 60° sectors. Potentially 6 WTG visible at min 1.12 km from dwelling. High




50


31 March 2020








Potentially 6 WTG visible at min. 2.26 km from dwelling. Natural screening, terrain should reduce impact. High








44 723505.000 5974831.000 0.51 / T32 No. Potentially 1 WTG visible at min. 0.51 km from dwelling. Natural screening, terrain should reduce impact. Low








51


31 March 2020







DWELLINGS WITHIN BETWEEN 3100 AND 8000 M FROM A TURBINE


Potentially 7 WTG visible at min. 3.43 km from dwelling. Distance, terrain should reduce impact. High


Potentially 7 WTG visible at min. 3.42 km from dwelling. Distance, terrain should reduce impact. High


Potentially 3 WTG visible at min. 7.17 km from dwelling. Distance, terrain should reduce impact. Medium

26 722445.130 5967972.135 7.43 / T28 No. Potentially 1 WTG visible at min. 7.43 km from dwelling. Distance, terrain should reduce impact. Low

27 717498.000 5973825.000 3.67 / T31 No. Potentially 4 WTG visible at min. 3.67 km from dwelling. Distance, terrain should reduce impact. Medium



30 720374.247 5987135.820 6.48 / T1 No. Potentially 1 WTG visible at min. 6.48 km from dwelling. Distance, terrain should reduce impact. Low

31 718140.110 5969829.809 6.39 /T30 No. Potentially 4 WTG visible at min. 6.39 km from dwelling. Distance, terrain should reduce impact. Medium



52


31 March 2020








39 717533.899 5974591.768 3.27 / T31 No. Potentially 5 WTG visible at min. 3.27 km from dwelling. Distance, terrain should reduce impact. High

40 717409.303 5974097.472 3.60 / T31 No. Potentially 5 WTG visible at min. 3.60 km from dwelling. Distance, terrain should reduce impact. High



KEY PUBLIC VIEWPOINTS (LAT/LONG)

i 36°13'31.3"S 149°31'17.1"E 7.62 Nil No, views extend north and east. Views do not extend to Elysian Wind Farm. Low

ii 36°21'41.6"S 149°25'22.6"E 4.13 Yes. WTG visible in two 60° sectors Three WTG visible at min. 4.1 km from intersection. Low

HOST DWELLINGS

50 723236.660 5977631.560 0.55 / T11 N/A


53


31 March 2020

6.1.6 Conclusions and need for further assessment

Of the 34 dwellings identified within the visual magnitude buffer (3100 m):

• 3 (~9%) dwellings would not have visibility of any turbines • 4 (~12%) dwellings would have visibility of one turbine only • 7 (~21%) dwellings would have visibility of up to two turbines • 2 (~6%) dwellings would have visibility of up to three turbines • 18 (~53%) dwellings would see four or more turbines.

Of the 17 dwellings identified between 3100 m and 8000 m from any turbine, three have views of multiple turbines within more than one 60 degree viewshed.

Further detailed assessment of landscape and visual impacts to these and other relevant dwellings and public viewpoints would be undertaken for the EIS.


54


31 March 2020

6.2 Noise and vibration Establishing wind energy developments is a key component of the NSW Government’s initiative to increase renewable energy generation across the state. Wind energy generation requires reliable wind resource, but areas that support this are often quiet, rural areas.

Research has shown that wind energy operations in Australia typically have limited impact on the ambient noise environment within a locality. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Information Paper: Evidence on Wind Farms and Human Health (2015) concluded that:

“There is consistent evidence that noise from wind turbines―whether estimated in models or using distance as a proxy―is associated with annoyance, and reasonable consistency that it is associated with sleep disturbance and poorer sleep quality and quality of life. However, it is unclear whether the observed associations are due to wind turbine noise or plausible confounders.”

EWF acknowledge that the DP&E Wind Energy: Noise Assessment Bulletin requires a noise impact assessment (NIA) to be provided to determine the extent of noise impact for a wind energy development proposal. This would be undertaken by a specialist noise and vibration consultant during preparation of the EIS.

6.2.1 Applicable legislation

The following legislation and guidelines are applicable to the consideration of noise impacts associated with the proposed development:

• Wind Energy: Noise Assessment Bulletin (2016), NSW DP&E • Noise Policy for Industry (2017), NSW EPA • Interim Construction Noise Guidelines (2009), NSW DECC • Road Noise Policy (2011), DECCW • Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms (2009) South Australian EPA • Guidelines for Community Noise (1999) World Health Organisation • Assessing vibration: a technical guideline (2006), NSW Government.

The South Australian EPA Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms 2009 (SA EPA Guidelines) have been adopted by the DP&E in the Wind Energy: Noise Assessment Bulletin (DPE, 2016b). These documents set a base noise criterion of 35 dB(A) and allow for more elevated criteria in circumstances of higher background noise.

6.2.2 Existing environment Wind turbines create aerodynamic noise and mechanical noise. Aerodynamic noise is generated by airflow around the rotating blades of the turbine, creating a swishing sound. Mechanical noise is associated with gearbox and transmission paths within the nacelle housing. There may also be humming and other operational noises from substations.

Noise criteria defined in the Wind Energy: Noise Assessment Bulletin (DP&E, 2016) include:

“The predicted equivalent noise level (LAeq, 10 minute), adjusted for tonality and low frequency noise in accordance to these guidelines, should not exceed 35 dB(A) or the background noise (LA90, 10 minute) by more than 5 dB(A), whichever is the greater, at all relevant receivers for wind speed from cut-ins to rates power of the wind turbine generator and each integer wind speed in between.”

Minimum noise criteria defined in the Wind Energy: Noise Assessment Bulletin (DP&E, 2016) are:

• 35 dB(A) for non-stakeholder dwelling • 45 dB(A) for stakeholder dwellings.

In NSW, the criteria for acceptable noise levels (35 dB(A)) is generally achieved through setback distances between 800 m and 1500 m (NSW, 2016b). These recommendations do not account for specific site conditions, such as landscape features, topography and aspect. Figure 6-13 shows the average distances at which compliance with different noise standards would be achieved.


55


31 March 2020

Figure 6-13. Conceptual diagram showing representative distances for noise objectives (DPE, 2016b)

The Wind Energy: Noise Assessment Bulletin (DP&E, 2016) recommends that the NIA include noise modelling at each receiver location, including stakeholder and non-stakeholder dwellings. As the ultimate turbine locations for the proposed Elysian development have yet to be determined, noise modelling cannot be undertaken, and therefore has not been included in this PEA. As such, the Guidelines for Community Noise (WHO, 1999) were deemed the most appropriate to apply to the PEA.

The WHO guidelines permit:

• a night-time noise level of up to 45 dB(A) • a noise level of up to 5 dB(A) over background noise, for residences which have entered into an agreement with

the wind farm developer/operator.

Notably, the criteria are not intended to restrict wind farm noise to inaudible levels but rather provide indicative distances to achieve acceptable noise levels for environmental and personal health.

There is often a perception that noise generated by wind turbines can be discriminated from noise generated by standard rural and agricultural practices (e.g., from farm machinery operation, farm vehicles, bores and pumps, livestock). Figure 6-14 provides a simplified schematic of the noise impact associated with wind turbine infrastructure, including a comparison with other types of noise generated in a rural environment. Given that the nearest dwellings are more than 500 m from the proposed Elysian turbine locations, the noise impact to dwellings from the proposed development is anticipated to be below the WHO 45dB(A) guideline value.


56


31 March 2020

Figure 6-14. Relative assessment of noise, in comparison to noise generated by a wind turbine (GE Global Research, 2014)

Figure 6-10 and Figure 6-11 presented dwelling within 3100 m and 8000 m, respectively. The closest non-stakeholder dwelling is 510 m from the nearest turbine. The nearest stakeholder dwelling is 550 m from the nearest turbine.

A preliminary noise assessment was prepared to predict the potential noise levels of the proposed development site at nearby sensitivity receptors within 12 km of a proposed turbine location. the preliminary noise assessment can be found at Appendix D.

The purpose of the preliminary assessment the potential operational noise levels of the proposed WTGs at nearby sensitive receptor locations. The information from preliminary noise assessment be used to inform future planning assessment of the proposed wind energy farm.

A conservative sound power level of 109 dB(A) was used for the preliminary calculations, as it is common for new WTGs installed in Australia to be fitted with serrated trailing edges (STEs), which assist in reducing sound power levels. The predictions are based on the WTGs operating at rated power and for the receptor being downwind of the wind farm. Lower noise levels would generally be expected for lower wind speeds and for situations where the receptor is not downwind of the wind farm.

A summary of the preliminary noise predictions is provided in Table 6-2. The highest predicted noise levels were 41 dB(A) which occurred at two locations. These predictions are within the Wind Energy: Noise Assessment Bulletin and WHO guidelines. A preliminary noise contour map is provided in Figure 6-15. Please note that this assessment has not taken into consideration background noise levels and noise dissipation that would occur through environmental interactions.


57


31 March 2020

Table 6-2. Preliminary wind farm noise predictions - dB(A) (source: Resonate, 2019)

Property ID Predicted Noise Level



1 31 18 35 35 34

2 30 19 32 36 31

3 33 20 37 37 20

4 29 21 29 38 21

5 27 22 35 39 25

6 28 23 26 40 24

7 30 24 26 41 23

8 33 25 19 42 37

9 35 26 16 43 34

10 36 27 24 44 38

11 36 28 22 45 28

12 36 29 21 46 28

13 35 30 28 47 41

14 31 31 20 48 35

15 31 32 20 49 39

16 29 33 18 501 42

17 34 34 30 51 24

52 29

1Associated receptor/stakeholder dwelling. A criterion of 45 dB(A) applies to this dwelling.


58


31 March 2020

Figure 6-15. Preliminary wind turbine noise (source: Resonate, 2019)


59


31 March 2020

The applicable construction noise goals for the wind farm are provided within the NSW Interim Construction Noise Guideline. This guideline states that ameliorative measures may be required during construction to protect the acoustic amenity of residents where construction is to commence for an extended period, or in circumstances where noise sensitivity may be greater.

Construction of the proposed Elysian development is anticipated to take 18-24 months. Intensive construction works would be centred on small areas near the base of each turbine, therefore construction noise is unlikely to continually impact any one residential property.

Construction will generally be undertaken during daytime hours; however, some OSOM deliveries may need to occur at night to minimise traffic impact. Night deliveries will be restricted to single, isolated events and the only dwellings likely to be adversely affected are the stakeholders. As these are stakeholder dwellings, they should reasonably expect some disturbance during construction of the proposed development.

Rock crushing may also be required to create raw aggregate for construction or improvements to internal roads within the proposed development site. If required, this will be undertaken in the concrete batching area located near turbine 30 and would only occur during daytime hours.

Construction (and decommissioning) activities are temporary, therefore noise associated with these works will neither be extensive, nor cause ongoing nuisance to residents. Moreover, the separation between the proposed turbine locations and the nearest non-stakeholder residences, provides a buffer between the proposed development site and residential properties to maintain appropriate noise levels during construction works.

Vibration

Activities such as truck deliveries, blasting and rock crushing may cause some temporary and local vibration; however, these activities would be temporary and of short-duration. The specifics are yet to be determined and as such would be assessed during the EIS. It is assumed that a small number of dwellings (both stakeholder and non-stakeholder) would experience limited, temporary vibration impacts during construction and decommissioning.

The Assessing vibration: a technical guideline (DP&E, 2006) provides guideline values for continuous, transient and intermittent vibration events that are based on a vibration dose value (VDV) rather than a continuous vibration level. The VDV is dependent upon the level and duration of the short-term vibration event and the number of events occurring during the daytime or night-time period. Table 6-3 presents recommended VDVs for vibration of an intermittent nature (i.e., construction works where more than three distinct vibration events occur).

Table 6-3. Acceptable vibration dose values (m/s 1.75) for intermittent vibration (DP&E, 2006)

LOCATION DAYTIME1 PREFERRED

DAYTIME1 MAXIMUM

NIGHT TIME1 PREFERRED

NIGHT TIME1 MAXIMUM

Critical areas2 0.10 0.20 0.10 0.20

Residences 0.20 0.40 0.13 0.26

Offices, schools, educational institutions, and places of worship

0.40 0.80 0.40 0.80

Workshops 0.80 1.60 0.80 1.60 1 Daytime is 0700 to 2200 and night time is 2200 to 0700. 2 Examples include hospital operating theatres and precision laboratories where sensitive operations are occurring, none of which are located within the predicted area of disturbance.

Structural damage vibration limits are based on Australian Standard AS 2187: Part 2-2006 Explosives – Storage and use - Part 2: Use of Explosives and British Standard BS 7385 Part 2-1993 Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings Part 2. These standards provide frequency-dependent vibration limits related to cosmetic damage, noting that cosmetic damage is very minor in nature, is readily repairable and does not affect a building’s structural integrity. The recommended vibration limits from BS7385 for transient vibration for minimal risk of cosmetic damage to residential and industrial buildings is shown in Table 6-4.


60


31 March 2020

Table 6-4. Transient vibration guide values for minimal risk of cosmetic damage (BS7385)

LINE TYPE OF BUILDING

PEAK COMPONENT PARTICLE VELOCITY IN FREQUENCY RANGE OF PREDOMINANT PULSE

4 Hz to 15 Hz >15 Hz

1 Reinforced or framed structures Industrial and heavy commercial buildings

50 mm/s at 4 Hz and above -

2

Unreinforced or light framed structures

Residential or light commercial type buildings

15 mm/s at 4 Hz increasing to 20 mm/s at 15 Hz

20 mm/s at 15 Hz increasing to 50 mm/s at 40 Hz and above

6.2.3 Summary of findings and potential impacts

The PEA noise interrogation for the proposed Elysian development is summarised as:

• the layout of the proposed Elysian development has yet to be determined, and as such noise modelling in accordance to the Wind Energy: Noise Assessment Bulletin could not be undertaken to inform the PEA. Modelling would be undertaken to inform the EIS once the turbine layout has been finalised

• all non-stakeholder and stakeholder dwellings are located more than 500 m from any of the proposed turbines, which accords with the WHO guidelines

• the topography of and adjacent to the site in the north-east may provide natural noise attenuation to buffer noise propagated by the turbines, especially to the receivers along Tuross Road

• receivers may experience elevated noise levels during construction of the proposed Elysian development; however, construction activities are temporary, and over a short-duration, and would be conducted in accordance to the relevant construction noise and vibration guidelines

• noise levels and perceived noise levels may fluctuate in response weather conditions, e.g., high wind speeds would result in faster turbine rotation, which may lead to higher mechanical noise levels

• wind speed and direction may influence affect noise levels at receiver locations • noise generated by wind turbines can often not be discriminated from noise generated by standard rural and

agricultural practices (e.g., machinery operation, farm vehicles, bores and pumps, livestock) • some vibration impacts associated with the construction of the wind farm may occur; however, the proposed

development site is relatively isolated from nearby properties, which assists in the separation of the source of any construction related vibrations from sensitive receivers

• aside from impacts during construction, operation of the proposed development is not anticipated to result in ongoing vibration impacts.

6.2.4 Recommendations and further assessment Based on the findings of the noise assessment presented in this PEA, key recommendations for the next stage of environmental assessment include:

• ongoing community engagement with stakeholder and non-stakeholder dwellings • characterisation and refinement of background noise landscape through input assumptions, e.g., wind turbine

sound power level, ground terrain, topography, hardness, etc. • baseline noise monitoring at relevant receptors to quantify the existing ambient noise environment, including wind

speed regression • the proponent should investigate noise optimised operation of the wind turbines • targeted baseline noise assessment and modelling at receiver sites to fully understand the environmental risks and

impacts that may arise from the proposed Elysian development • the wind farm noise predictions should be updated to in accordance with the finalised layout and WTG selections


61


31 March 2020

• carry out background noise monitoring at the nearest receptors to establish a baseline against which future operational monitoring can be undertaken to verify compliance

• develop and implement appropriate noise agreements are in place with associated receptors • construction and decommissioning timetables should schedule work within standard hours to limit noise and

vibration impacts.


62


31 March 2020

6.3 Biodiversity An ecological investigation into the proposed Elysian development was prepared by SMEC Australia in 2019 and included preliminary fauna and habitat assessments. A summary of key findings is presented below.

6.3.1 Applicable legislation and literature review The biodiversity component of the PEA is being assessed under the following legislation:

• Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) • Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) • Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act) • OEH (2013). Compilation map: Biometric vegetation types and endangered ecological communities of the

Shoalhaven, Eurobodalla and Bega Valley local government areas. A living map. Version 2.0. Technical Report. NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Queanbeyan.

• Tozer et al. (2010) Native vegetation of southeast NSW: A revised classification and map for the coast and eastern tablelands. Cunninghamia 11(3): 359-406.

6.3.2 Existing environment

6.3.2.1 Desktop review

The likelihood of occurrence for threatened plant and animal species, populations and ecological communities was determined for a 10 km radius around each of the proposed wind turbines. The ecological records were obtained from the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) Atlas of NSW Wildlife database and the Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Energy (DOEE) Protected Matters Search Tool. These records and an assessment of the habitat within the study area were used to determine the likelihood that any listed threatened species, populations, ecological communities, or their habitats could occur.

A review of the existing vegetation mapping was also conducted to determine the vegetation communities predicted to occur around the proposed wind farm. Two broad-scale mapping sources were reviewed:

• Native vegetation of south-east NSW: a revised classification map for the coast and eastern tablelands. Version 1.0. (Tozer et al., 2010)

• OEH’s Compilation Map: Biometric Vegetation Types and Endangered Ecological Communities of the Shoalhaven, Eurobodalla and Bega Valley Local Government Areas (OEH, 2013).

Vegetation communities described in the broad-scale vegetation mapping were cross referenced with potential PCT determinations using OEH’s BioNet Vegetation Classification (VIS 2.1) and Vegetation Types database.

6.3.2.2 Site inspection

An initial inspection of the proposed development site was undertaken by two SMEC ecologists on the 12 December 2018. The purpose of the inspection was to gain a basic understanding of the biodiversity features of the study area to inform the detailed design of future surveys. A rapid assessment of broad vegetation types, patterns, and conditions present onsite was also carried out.

The site inspection revealed that some of the proposed wind farm site is recovering from a fire, resulting in dense epicormic growth on the larger eucalyptus trees. Recent logging of timber has also occurred in this area.

A second site inspection was carried out in May 2019. This inspection identified two areas of vegetation clearing in the areas that the proponent had installed the meteorological monitoring masts. The vegetation clearing near the southern mast involved the removal of several large canopy trees. The clearing near the northern mast comprised an area of about 1 hectare and cleared all vegetation community strata. The vegetation cleared near the northern mast appears to conform to the scientific determination of Tablelands Basalt Forest EEC; however, a full assessment was not undertaken.

Neither the installation of the meteorological masts, nor the clearing associated with these areas, were assessed as part of this PEA. The proponent has advised SMEC that they had the legal right to clear these areas. The proponent also advised SMEC that the main host landowner is planning on returning overgrown and neglected areas of their land to grazing land/pasture, which would involve clearing of regrowth, trees and shrubs. These activities are independent of the wind farm development and have not been considered by SMEC.


63


31 March 2020

6.3.2.3 Plant communities

A desktop review of the Native vegetation of south-east NSW: a revised classification map for the coast and eastern tablelands. Version 1.0. (Tozer et al., 2010) and OEH’s Compilation Map: Biometric Vegetation Types and Endangered Ecological Communities of the Shoalhaven, Eurobodalla and Bega Valley Local Government Areas (OEH, 2013) identified 10 plant community types (PCTs) predicted to occur within the study area (Figure 6-16). A list of the ten PCTs identified on site is provided in Table 6-5.

Table 6-5. PCTs predicted to occur on site as listed on the BioNet Vegetation Classification (VIS 2.1) and Vegetation Types database

PCT NAME EEC PCT 742: Brown Barrel - Mountain Grey Gum - Blanket Bush moist very tall open forest of the southern escarpment ranges, South Eastern Highlands and South East Corner

Tablelands Basalt Forest in the Sydney Basin and South Eastern Highlands Bioregions

PCT 744: Brown Barrel - Narrow-leaved Peppermint moist tall open forest on escarpment ranges, southern South Eastern Highlands Bioregion


PCT 817: Dwarf She-oak closed heathland of escarpment ranges, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion -

PCT 1377: Kangaroo Grass - Snowgrass tussock grassland on slopes and ridges of the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands

Natural Temperate Grassland on the South Eastern Highlands

PCT 939: Montane wet heath and bog of the eastern tablelands, South Eastern Highlands Bioregion

Montane Peatlands and Swamps of the New England Tableland, NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin, South East Corner, South East Highlands and Australian Alps Bioregions

PCT 952: Mountain Gum - Narrow-leaved Peppermint - Snow Gum dry shrubby open forest on undulating tablelands, southern South Eastern Highlands


PCT 1101: Ribbon Gum - Snow Gum grassy open forest on flats and undulating hills of the eastern tableland, South Eastern Highlands

Tablelands Basalt Forest in the Sydney Basin and South Eastern Highlands Bioregions, and Tablelands Snow Gum, Black Sallee, Candlebark and Ribbon Gum Grassy Woodland in the South Eastern Highlands, Sydney Basin, South East Corner and NWS South Western Slopes Bioregions

PCT 1110: River Tussock - Tall Sedge – Kangaroo Grass moist grasslands of the South Eastern Highlands

Natural Temperate Grassland on the South Eastern Highlands, and Tablelands Snow Gum, Black Sallee, Candlebark and Ribbon Gum Grassy Woodland in the South Eastern Highlands, Sydney Basin, South East Corner and NWS South Western Slopes Bioregions

PCT 1149: Silvertop Ash - Blue-leaved Stringybark shrubby open forest on hinterland hills, far southern South East Corner

-

PCT 1376: Wallaby Grass - Redleg Grass low grassland of the South Eastern Highlands

Natural Temperate Grassland on the South Eastern Highlands


FIGURE TITLE Plant Community Types Predicted to Occur within the Study AreaFIG NO. 6-16


Location: \\AUSYFSV003\Group\projects\30018002 - Elysian Wind Farm EIS\100 DATA\GIS\Maps\PEA\30012635_PEA_Fig06_15_PCTs.mxd


PAGE SIZE A4


")

!H

!H

!H!H

!H !H

!H

!H !H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H!H

!H!H

!H

!H!H

!H

!H!H!H

!H

!H!H

!H!H!H

!H

!H

T 9T 8

T 7

T 6T 5

T 4T 3

T 2

T 1

T 32

T 31

T 30 T 29T 28

T 27T 26

T 25

T 24T 23 T 22

T 21

T 20T 19

T 18

T 17T 16

T 15T 14

T 13

T 12

T 11

T 10

Jibolaro Creek

Turos

s Rive

r

0 10.5

Km1:35,000



") Substation

Access Roads

Transmission LinesEssential Energy 22kV lineSTF8B1

97R to EWF UndergroundOption

Plant Community TypesBrown Barrel - MountainGrey Gum - Blanket Bushmoist very tall open forestof the southern escarpmentranges, South EasternHighlands and South EastCorner

Brown Barrel - Narrow-leaved Peppermint moisttall open forest onescarpment ranges,southern South EasternHighlands Bioregion

Kangaroo Grass -Snowgrass tussockgrassland on slopes andridges of the tablelands,South Eastern Highlands

Montane wet heath andbog of the easterntablelands, South EasternHighlands Bioregion

Mountain Gum - Narrow-leaved Peppermint - SnowGum dry shrubby openforest on undulatingtablelands, southern SouthEastern Highlands

Ribbon Gum - Snow Gumgrassy open forest on flatsand undulating hills of theeastern tableland, SouthEastern Highlands

River Tussock - Tall Sedge- Kangaroo Grass moistgrasslands of the SouthEastern Highlands

Silvertop Ash - Blue-leavedStringybark shrubby openforest on hinterland hills,far southern South EastCorner

Speargrass grassland ofthe South EasternHighlands

Wallaby Grass - RedlegGrass low grassland of theSouth Eastern Highlands

¹



65


31 March 2020

6.3.2.4 Threatened ecological communities

The desktop assessment identified seven threatened ecological communities predicted to occur within 10 kilometres of the proposed Elysian development. A brief description of each threatened community and its status under the EPBC and BC Acts has been provided below.

1. Montane Peatlands and Swamps of the New England Tableland, NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin, South East Corner, South East Highlands and Australian Alps Bioregions Conservation status: Endangered under both the EPBC and BC Acts

The Montane Peatlands community with sediments that are peaty or have a large amount of organic sediments. These sediments usually occur in poorly drained areas or in the headwaters of streams and creeks. This community is comprised of a variable layer of shrubs with soft-leaved sedges, grasses and forbs. Unusually for a wetland, this community may contain more than trace-amounts of the hummock peat-forming mosses, Sphagnum spp.

Common shrub species include - Baeckea gunniana, B. utilis, Callistemon pityoides, Leptospermum juniperinum, L. lanigerum, L. myrtifolium, L. obovatum, L. polygalifolium, Epacris breviflora, E. microphylla and E. paludosa.

Common sedges and grasses include - Carex appressa, C. fascicularis, C. gaudichaudiana, Poa costiniana and P. labillardieri.

Other forbs and herbs that have been recorded in this community include - Drosera spp., Geranium neglectum, Gratiola spp., Mitrasacme serpyllifolia and Ranunculus spp.

2. Natural Temperate Grassland of the South Eastern Highlands Conservation status: Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act This community is confined to the Southern Tablelands where it has been recorded at a range of topographical positions, on a variety of substrates and at various altitudes (anywhere from 500 m to 1200 m above sea level). The community is often found with cold air inversions that inhibit the growth of trees.

Natural Temperate Grassland is a grassland community dominated by a range of perennial grasses such as Poa sieberiana (Snowgrass), Themeda triandra (Kangaroo Grass) and River Tussock species. In highly intact sites, this community can contain a large range of herbaceous species from many plant families, including daisies (Asteraceae), peas (Fabaceae), lilies (Liliaceae)and orchids (Orchidaceae).

3. Tableland Basalt Forest in the Sydney Basin and South East Highlands Bioregions Conservation status: Endangered under the BC Act Tablelands Basalt Forest has been recorded on loam or clay soils associated with basalt or less frequently, alluviums and fine-grained sediments and granites that produce fertile soils. This community is found at altitudes between 600 m and 900 m above sea level, on hilly and undulating terrain with mean annual rainfall varying between 750 mm and 1100 mm.

Tableland Basalt Forest is an open eucalypt forest with a variety of canopy species including - Eucalyptus viminalis, E. radiata, E. dalrympleana subsp. dalrympleana and E. pauciflora. The shrub layer is sparse consisting of species such as Acacia melanoxylon, A. dealbata and the smaller Rubus parvifolius. The ground cover varies considerably because of past disturbances such as agricultural clearing, grazing and fires.

4. Tablelands Snow Gum, Black Sallee, Candlebark and Ribbon Gum Grassy Woodland in the South Eastern Highlands, Sydney Basin, South East Corner and NWS South Western Slopes Bioregions Conservation status: Endangered under the BC Act This community occurs as an open forest or woodland, or as a derived grassland where the trees have been removed but the ground layer has remained intact. The community has commonly been recorded on valley floors, the margins of frost hollows and on the foot slopes and undulating hills. It occurs on a variety of substrates, including basalt, granite, colluvium and alluvium.

As the name suggests the main tree species are Eucalyptus pauciflora (Snow Gum), E. rubida (Candlebark), E. stellulata (Back Sallee) and E. viminalis (Ribbon Gum) which can occur either alone or as a mixed assemblage. A shrub layer is often present including species such as Melicytus sp. 'Snowfileds' (Gruggly-bush) and Melichrus urceolatus (Urn Heath). A grassy ground-cover is common in this community consisting of Themeda australis (Kangaroo Grass), Poa spp. (snow-grasses), Austrostipa spp. (spear-grasses) and Rytidosperma spp. (wallaby-grasses). Other herb and forbs such as Leptorhynchos squamatus (Scaly-buttons), Chrysocephalum apiculatum (Common Everlastings) and Asperula conferta (Native Woodruff) occur in this community.


66


31 March 2020

5. Araluen Scarp Grassy Forest in the South East Corner Bioregion Conservation status: Endangered under the BC Act This community occurs on sandy loams derived from granite, usually on steep slopes between 200 and 700 metres in altitude. Mean rainfall is approximately between 890 and 1000 mm annually. The structure of the community varies depending on land management practises; the overstory and/or mid-storey may be absent. Araluen Scarp Grassy Forest in the South East Corner Bioregion an open forest or grassy woodland dominated by Maiden's Gum (Eucalyptus maidenii), Yellow Box (E. melliodora) and Forest Red Gum (E. tereticornis) in the canopy. Rough-barked Apple (Angophora floribunda), White Stringybark (E. globoidea) and Black Wattle (Acacia mearnsii) are common associated overstorey species. An open shrub layer may contain Tree Violet (Hymenanthera dentata), Sweet Pittosporum (Pittosporum undulatum) and various vines and climbers. The grassy ground-layer is generally sparse and may contain species such as Weeping Grass (Microlaena stipoides), Common Tick-trefoil (Desmodium varians), Creeping Beard Grass (Oplismenus imbecillis), Sickle Fern (Pellaea falcata) and Prickly Starwort (Stellaria pungens). Many other plant species are likely to occur, as outlined in the scientific determination.

6. Upland Wetlands of the New England Tablelands (New England Tableland Bioregion) and the Monaro Plateau (South Eastern Highlands Bioregion) Conservation status: Endangered under the EPBC Act This community occurs on basaltic, occasionally granitoid or silcrete derived soils in the New England and Monaro Tableland regions, as their name suggests. The wetlands occur in natural depressions ranging from semi-permanent to ephemeral. Persistence depends on hydrological variations in the catchment, rainfall and disturbances. The community structure ranges from closed to medium-dense sedge land and grasslands, occurring on the shores of open water, or extending across shallow or dry wetlands. Plant diversity ranges depending on persistence of the wetland. No trees or shrubs occur in this community.

7. White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland Conservation status: Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act and Endangered under the BC Act This community is found on relatively fertile soils of the tablelands and western slopes of NSW. The community occurs between altitudes of 170 m and 1200 m and receives between 400 and 800 mm of rain annually. This community is structured as a woodland, and occasionally a forest formation. Eucalyptus albens, E. melliodora and E. blakelyi characterise the over storey. Intact sites contain a high diversity of plant species at all strata levels, particularly grasses and a very high diversity of herbs. Most common understory species include Kangaroo Grass (Themeda australis), Poa Tussock (Poa sieberiana), wallaby grasses (Austrodanthonia spp.), spear-grasses (Austrostipa spp.), Common Everlasting (Chrysocephalum apiculatum), Scrambled Eggs (Goodenia pinnatifida), Small St John's Wort (Hypericum gramineum), Narrow-leafed New Holland Daisy (Vittadinia muelleri) and blue-bells (Wahlenbergia spp.).

6.3.2.5 Soil landscapes

The soils occurring within the project boundary are from the Anembo, Round Hill, Duck Hole Creek, Upper Tuross and Celeys Creek soil landscapes. A description of each landscape in context of the wider locality has been provided.

Anembo

The Anembo soil landscape occurs on undulating rises, plains and broad valley flats on the granitics of the Upper Kybeyan River and Kydra Creek, the Jibolaro Creek-Guinea Creek area, Boggy Plain and the Upper Cowra Creek – Celeys Creek area. Shallow soils (<50 cm) are well-drained Earthy sands while moderately deep soils (50 – 150 cm) are well-drained Red Podzolic Soils and Red Earths on crest and upper slopes. Yellow Soloths, poorly drained Brown Podzolic soils and Gleyed Podzolic soils can occur between 50 and 150 cm on mid-slopes and lower slopes. Deeper soils occur as poorly to very poorly drained Alluvial soils and Brown clays, especially on alluvial flats and drainage depressions (OEH, 2019).

Round Hill

The Round Hill soil landscape occurs on moderately inclined to steep hills overlaying various granitics. This soil landscape has been recorded downstream of Boggy Plain near the Kybeyan Trig area with isolated examples in upper Kydra Creek, the Kybeyan River, the Numeralla River and near Peak View. Soils less than 15 cm from the surface have been recorded


67


31 March 2020

as rapidly drained Lithosols. Slightly deeper soils (30 – 90 cm) change to rapidly to well-drained Earthy Sands and well-drained Yellow Earths. Soils deeper than 80 cm occur as Red Podzolic Soils or as Yellow Podzolic soils on moderately steep slopes (OEH, 2019).

Duck Hole Creek

The Duck Hole Creek soil landscape occurs on undulating hills and the rises of the Adaminaby Group sediments and metasediments. Example locations include the hills between Waratah and Duck Hole Creek, and the area between upper Greens Creek and Mowitts Swamp. Shallow soils (<70 cm) consist of moderately well-drained Red Earths, Brown Earths, and as structured Red Earths on crests and upper slopes. Moderately deep soils (>80 cm) occur as moderately drained Red Earths and Yellow Soloths on the mid-slopes of hills. On lower slopes and drainage depressions, moderately deep soils occur as imperfectly drained Yellow Soloths and Gleyed Yellow Duplex Soils (OEH 2019).

Upper Tuross

Adaminaby Group sediments and metasediments occurring as part of rolling low hills and hills underlie the Upper Tuross soil landscape. This soil landscape has been mapped on the Kybeyan Range from upper Greenlands Swamp to the upper reaches of the Kybeyan River. Shallow and moderately deep soils are characterised by moderately well-drained stony Brown Earths with Red Earths occurring on crests and upper slopes. The moderately well drained Brown Earths extend into depressions and drainage lines (OEH, 2019).

Celeys Creek

The Celeys Creek soil landscape occurs on low hills supported by the granitics of the Celeys Creek area, the upper Numeralla River, Kybeyan, Big Badja River and Kydra Creek area. Well-drained Earthy Sands, Lithosols and Massive Brown Earths occur within 30 cm of the surface. Well-drained Yellow Podzolic Soils can also be found within 100 cm of the surface on crest and upper slopes. Moderately deep to deep (>100 cm) soils comprise of poorly drained Black Earths with Alluvial Soils occurring on flats and drainage lines (OEH, 2019).

6.3.2.6 Threatened flora

No threatened flora species were recorded during the site inspection. However, 13 threatened flora species are considered to have a moderate to high likelihood of occurring within the study area (Table 6-6).

Table 6-6. Threatened flora species considered to have a moderate to high likelihood of occurring within the study area

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME BC ACT* EPBC ACT*

Mauve Burr-daisy Calotis glandulosa V V

Kydra Dampiera Dampiera fusca E -

Michelago Parrot Pea Dillwynia glaucula E -

Pale Golden Moths Diuris ochroma E V

Black Gum Eucalyptus aggregate V V

Small-leaved Gum Eucalyptus parvula E V

Silver-leafed Gum Eucalyptus pulverulenta V V

Hoary Sunray Leucochrysum albicans var. tricolor - E

Trailing Monotoca Monotoca rotundifolia E -

Lacy Pomaderris Pomaderris elachophylla E -

Pale Pomaderris Pomaderris pallida V V

Parris' Pomaderris Pomaderris parrisiae V V


68


31 March 2020


Parris' Bush-Pea Pultenaea parrisiae V V

Monaro Golden Daisy Rutidosis leiolepis V V

Austral Toadflax Thesium australe V V

Swamp Everlasting Xerochrysum palustre - V

Lemon Zieria Zieria citriodora E V

*CE = critically endangered ; E = endangered; V = vulnerable.

6.3.2.7 Threatened fauna

Suitable habitat for threatened fauna including birds, mammals, and amphibians was recorded on the wind farm during the site inspection. Furthermore, the desktop assessment indicates that 21 threatened or/and migratory fauna species are considered to have a moderate to high likelihood of occurring within the study area (Table 6-7).

Table 6-7. Threatened fauna species are considered to have a moderate to high likelihood of occurring within the study area


Birds

Regent Honeyeater Anthochaera phrygia CE CE

Fork-tailed Swift Apus pacificus - Mi/Ma

Great Egret Ardea alba - Mi/Ma

Cattle Egret Ardea ibis - Mi/Ma

Dusky Woodswallow Artamus cyanopterus V -

Australasian Bittern Botaurus poiciloptilus E E

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos - Mi/Ma

Gang-Gang Cockatoo Callocephalon fimbriatum V -

Glossy Black-Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami V -

Brown Treecreeper (Eastern Subspecies) Climacteris picumnus victoriae V -

Varied Sittella Daphoenositta chrysoptera V -

Lathams's snipe Gallinago hardwickii - Mi/Ma

Little Eagle Hieraaetus morphnoides V -

White-throated Needletail Hirundapus caudactus Mi/Ma

Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor E CE, Mi/Ma

Hooded Robin (South Eastern Form) Melanodryas cucullata V -

Rainbow Bee-eater Merops ornatus - Ma

Black-faced Monarch Monarcha melanopsis - Mi/Ma

Satin Flycatcher Myiagra cyanoleuca - Mi/Ma

Turquoise Parrot Neophema pulchella V -

Powerful Owl Ninox strenua V -

Scarlet Robin Petroica boodang V -

Flame Robin Petroica phoenicea V -


69


31 March 2020


Australian Painted-snipe Rostratula australis E E

Rufous Fantail Rhipidura rufifrons - Mi/Ma

Diamond Firetail Stagonopleura guttata V -

Sooty Owl Tyto tenebricosa V -

Amphibians

Great Burrowing Frog Heleioporus australiacus V V

Yellow-spotted Tree Frog Litoria castanea CE E

Littlejohn's Tree Frog Litoria littlejohni V

Alpine Tree Frog Litoria verreauxii alpina E V

Stuttering Frog Mixophyes balbus E V

Mammals

Eastern Pygmy-possum Cercartetus nanus V -

Large-eared Pied Bat Chalinolobus dwyeri V V

Spotted-tail Quoll Dasyurus maculatus V E

Eastern False Pipistrelle Falsistrellus tasmaniensis V -

Eastern Bentwing-bat Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis V -

Greater Glider Petauroides volans - V

Yellow-bellied Glider Petaurus australis V -

Koala Phascolarctos cinereus V V

Long-nosed Potoroo Potorous tridactylus V V

Smoky Mouse Pseudomys fumeus CE E

Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus V V

Reptiles

Pink-tailed Worm-lizard Aprasia parapulchella V -

Striped Legless Lizard Delma impar V V

Fish

Murray Cod Maccullochella peelii - V

Macquarie Perch Macquaria australasica E E

*CE = critically endangered; E = endangered; V = vulnerable; Mi/Ma = migratory / marine.

No NSW-listed vulnerable fauna species or federal listed species were recorded during the site visit. However, large hollow-bearing trees were identified within the proposed development site. These may serve as habitat for threatened species. There is also potential for vegetation within the study area to be classified as koala habitat; this includes ‘potential koala habitat’ based on identification of feed tree species in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No 44 – Koala Habitat Protection.


70


31 March 2020

6.3.3 Potential impacts

Based on the findings of the desktop assessment and site inspection, the potential impacts to biodiversity from the proposed Elysian development may include:

• the project will directly and indirectly impact four threatened ecological communities through the direct clearing of vegetation (Figure 6-17). Vegetation removal that may be required for the proposed works would likely contribute to loss of parts of the TECs affecting habitat and potentially resulting in further fragmentation of communities within the locality

• hollow-bearing trees provide habitat for threatened species such as forest owls, woodland and forest birds and microbats, which may occur within the study area. As such, the proposal has the potential to remove these tree hollows impacting on threatened species that may utilise them as habitat

• construction of turbines and their access roads may clear logs and debris used by threatened flora such as the Spotted-tailed Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus) and Striped Legless Lizard (Delmar impar)

• the operation of the wind turbines has the potential to directly impact upon threatened birds and bats. Direct impact would take the form of birds and bats being struck by the turbines blades when moving within or through the wind farm

• the wind farm may create a barrier to movement along the forests of Eastern Australia. Species such as the White-throated Needle-tail (Hirundapus caudacutus) will migrate latitudinally across Australia, preferentially moving over forested areas such as Wadbilliga National Park

• the wind farm may create a barrier to movement longitudinally for some threatened bird species. The Flame Robin (Petroica phoenicea) for example, can migrate to the coastal lowlands in the winter

• priority weeds are likely to occur in parts of the study area. Continued weed invasion and encroachment could have potentially severe consequences for the habitat of flora and fauna occurring in the area

• there is also potential for vegetation within the study area to be classified as koala habitat; this includes ‘potential koala habitat’ based on identification of feed tree species in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No 44 – Koala Habitat Protection

• potential sediment, nutrient and pollutant run-off into adjacent vegetation and fauna habitat • noise and vibration disturbances to fauna • temporary light disturbance to fauna during the construction stage of the work.


FIGURE TITLE Potential Direct or Indirect Impact on Threatened Ecological CommunitiesFIG NO. 6-17


Location: \\AUSYFSV003\Group\projects\30018002 - Elysian Wind Farm EIS\100 DATA\GIS\Maps\PEA\30012635_PEA_Fig06_16_Threatened Ecological Communities.mxd


PAGE SIZE A4


")

!H

!H

!H!H

!H !H

!H

!H !H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H!H

!H!H

!H

!H!H

!H

!H!H!H

!H

!H!H

!H!H!H

!H

!H

T 9T 8

T 7

T 6T 5

T 4T 3

T 2

T 1

T 32

T 31

T 30 T 29T 28

T 27T 26

T 25

T 24T 23 T 22

T 21

T 20T 19

T 18

T 17T 16

T 15T 14

T 13

T 12

T 11

T 10

Jibolaro Creek

Turos

s Rive

r

0 10.5

Km1:35,000



") Substation

Access Roads

Transmission LinesEssential Energy 22kV lineSTF8B1

97R to EWF UndergroundOption

EECN/A

Montane Peatlands andSwamps of the NewEngland Tableland, NSWNorth Coast, SydneyBasin, South East Corner,South Eastern Highlandsand Australian Alpsbioregions

Tableland Basalt Forest inthe Sydney Basin andSouth Eastern HighlandsBioregions

Tablelands Snow Gum,Black Sallee, Candlebarkand Ribbon Gum GrassyWoodland in the SouthEastern Highlands, SydneyBasin, South East Cornerand NSW South WesternSlopes Bioregions

¹



72


31 March 2020

6.3.4 Recommendations

Impacts to biodiversity is considered a key issue for the SEARs and a detailed biodiversity impact assessment would accompany all stages of the design and EIS. Biodiversity impacts related to the proposal would be assessed in accordance with section 7.9 of the BC Act, the Biodiversity Assessment Method (BAM) and documented in a Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR). The BDAR must include information in the form detailed in the BC Act (s6.12), Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017 (s6.8) and BAM, unless OEH and the Department of Environment and Planning determine that the proposed development is not likely to have any significant impacts on biodiversity values. A referral to the Department of Environment and Energy may be required to satisfy assessment obligations under the EPBC Act.

Further assessment of the proposed Elysian development’s impacts on biodiversity would include:

• a detailed impact assessment as required under the BC Act and the EPBC Act for any threatened species, populations and ecological communities considered likely to be present in the study area. It is important to note that there is currently no bilateral agreement for biodiversity assessments that meet the requirements under both the BC Act and EPBC Act. As such, a separate assessment to satisfy EPBC assessment requirements may be needed.

• investigations as to potential for design to avoid impacts on TECs and any other threatened biota (or their habitat), as far as practicable.

• identification of PCTs requiring offsetting. • measures of the impact to ecosystem credits and species credits of the project on biodiversity values at the

development site • credit profiles for ecosystem credits and species credits at the development site. • a credit price for payment to the Biodiversity Conservation Trust (BCT) as an indication of offset costs. • level 1 bird and bat strike assessment (at a minimum).


73


31 March 2020

6.4 Traffic and transport The standard SEARs for wind energy development require the consideration of traffic and transport impacts associated with the construction and operation of any wind farm. The ensuing EIS would be accompanied by a detailed traffic and transport study, including assessment of type and number of vehicle movements, impacts on road network functionality, and identification of required road upgrades and modifications.

As the proposed Elysian development is still in the preliminary design phase, the receival port and haulage route for delivery of wind turbines and associated infrastructure to the proposed development site has not yet been confirmed. However, it is anticipated that large components likely to be manufactured overseas, such as the wind turbine generators, would enter Australia at Port Kembla. The Port of Eden may be used as an alternate entry point; however, while the route from Eden to the development site has been assessed (albeit for smaller length blades) storage at the Port of Eden is limited. As such, the Port of Eden is not being considered at this time.

Similarly, the source and location of materials such as sand, that would be used for construction purposes, is not yet known. Noting these limitations, this section of the PEA will provide a high-level overview of the information that would be prepared and submitted with the EIS for the Elysian Wind Farm.

6.4.1 Applicable legislation

The relevant statutory framework for the consideration of traffic and transport impacts of the proposed development include: • Roads Act 1993 • Dangerous Good (Road and Rail Transport) Act 2008 • Road Transport (Mass, Loading and Access) Regulation 2005 • NSW Road Noise Policy.

6.4.2 Existing environment It is anticipated that the wind turbine infrastructure for the proposed Elysian development would be received through Port Kembla and transported to the site via a feasible route capable of accommodating oversize and over-mass (OSOM) vehicles. The selected transportation route would be confirmed in consultation with the haulage contractor, NSW Roads and Maritime Service, and Snowy Monaro Regional Council.

There is an approved OSOM transport route from Port Kembla to Cooma, via the Hume Highway, Federal Highway, Sutton Road and Monaro Highway. Arrangements would need to be made with Snowy Monaro Regional Council for the transit of goods on local roads from Cooma to the proposed Elysian development site.

The route would likely comprise: Tom Thumb Road, Springhill Road, Masters Road, Southern Freeway, Mt Ousley Road, Picton-Wilton Road, Hume Highway, Federal Highway, Majura Road, Monaro Highway, Polo Flat Road, Snowy Mountains Highway, Steeple Flat Road, Old Bega Road, Kybeyan Road. This route is shown in Figure 6-18.

Other wind energy developments that were proposed in proximity to Elysian have assessed this route for suitability of delivering of wind turbine components to the project site. These developments were proposing blades slightly smaller than those proposed for Elysian, but as an indication the route assessment highlighted that several intersections would require upgrades to allow clearance for blades of this length. These intersections were primarily on exit from Port Kembla through Mount Ousley Road, and entry to the site along through Cooma, Steeple Flat and Old Bega Road. Once the wind turbine components have been selected and exact dimensions of all equipment is known, a detailed route study and road survey would be undertaken.


FIGURE TITLE Proposed Haulage Route - Port Kembla to SiteFIG NO. 6-18


Location: \\AUCBFSV002\Operations\Projects\30012635 Elysian Wind Farm\09 GIS\Maps\PEA\30012635_PEA_FigXX_Route from Port Kembla to Cooma.mxd


PAGE SIZE A4


Canberra

Nowra

KiamaGoulburn

Wollongong

Sutherland

Queanbeyan

Shellharbour

Campbelltown

Yass

Wayo

Page

MogoKain

Boro

Boco

Avon

Yaouk

Wheeo

Werai

Urila

Touga Parma

Monga

Kenyu Garie

Cooma

Coila

Bunga

Bigga

Badja

Yowrie

Oolong

Nattai

Morton

Laggan

Hadley

Gerroa

Corang

Bullio

Bredbo

Bombay

Beloka

Tallong

Narooma

Conjola

Boorowa

Bemboka

Komungla

GundarooCurrarong

Mount Werong

0 10 20 305

Km1:1,250,000


LEGENDTransport Route from Port Kembla to Cooma

Transport Route - from Cooma to Site

Development Site


Access along Hume Highway

Access along Monaro Highway

Access along Old Bega Roadand Kybeyan Road

Access along Illawarra Highway

Access along Federal Highway

Access via Sutton Road, Yass Road, Kings Highway, and Lanyon Drive

Access viaMajura Road and Monaro Highway

Access along Southern FreewayFive Islands Road

Port Kembla


75


31 March 2020

6.4.3 Potential impacts Historical and existing development and commercial activities in the region include the Snowy Hydro scheme and commercial logging, which suggests that local road infrastructure would be able to accommodate turbine and other infrastructure deliveries with or only minor modification. For example, the most likely route from Cooma to the proposed Elysian development site requires a left turn from Polo Flat Road onto Numeralla Road (Figure 6-20). This intersection would likely require modification to accommodate delivery of the proposed development infrastructure.

Alternatively, goods may be transported to Nimmitabel via the existing OSOM route; however, this route would also require a sharp (90-degree) left turn from Monaro Highway onto Bombala Street (Figure 6-21). Further investigations would be required to confirm if this intersection could accommodate the delivery of the proposed development infrastructure. This intersection has established buildings and round-a-bout, therefore any required modification to it could be costly.

The remainder of the likely haulage route does not appear to have any obstructions. Some minor modifications would be required at the site entry points from Kybeyan Road. There may also be requirements for culvert and bridge upgrades along the proposed route. These would be discussed with Council or the relevant authority once identified.

,,

,,

,,,,

,,

,,

,,

,,,,,,,,

,,

,,

,,

,,,

,,

,,

,,

,,

,,

,,

,,

,,

,,

,,

,,,,,,,

,,

,,

,,

,,

,,

,,

,,

,,

,,

,,

,,

,,

,,

,,

,,

,

Gou-Bom Railway

Monaro Highway

Mona

ro Highwa

y

Monaro Highway

Walla Street Warra Street

Yareen RoadWaggun StreetWonga Street

Woolalla Street

Numeralla Road

Ina Place

Wangie Street

Polo Fla

t Road

Yamba Crescent

Walga

rra Stre

et

Windar

ra Plac

e

Wooran Street

Polo F

lat Ro

ad

Yareen Road

Yareen Road

Yareen Road

Yamba Cresce nt

Numeralla Road

Wangie Street

Wangie Street

Wangie Street

Yareen Road

Polo F

lat Ro

ad

Waggun Street

W oolalla Street



¹LEGEND, , Transit along Polo Flat Road

, , Transit along Numeralla Road

Site Boundary


FIG NO. 6-19 DATE 09/03/2020


PAGE SIZE A4

0 100 20050

Metres1:10,000

Location: \\AUSYFSV003\Group\projects\30018002 - Elysian Wind Farm EIS\100 DATA\GIS\Maps\PEA\30012635_PEA_Fig06_17_Polo Flat Road and Numeralla Road Intersection.mxd


FIGURE TITLE Polo Flat Road and Numeralla Road Intersection


CoomaTuross

Myalla

Bunyan

KybeyanRock Flat

Numeralla Countegany

Carlaminda


FIGURE TITLE Monaro Highway and Snowy Mountains Highway IntersectionFIG NO. 6-20


Location: \\AUSYFSV003\Group\projects\30018002 - Elysian Wind Farm EIS\100 DATA\GIS\Maps\PEA\30012635_PEA_Fig06_18_Monaro Highway and Snowy Mountains Highway Intersection.mxd


PAGE SIZE A4


,

, ,

,,

,,

,,

,,

,

,,

,,

,,

,,

,,

,,

,

,,

,,

,,,,,,,

,,

,

,,

,,,,,,

,,

,,,,,

,

,,

,

,,

,,

,,

,

,,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,,

,Snowy Mountains Highway

Snowy Mountains

Highway

Monaro

Highw

ay

Mon

aro

Hig

hway

0 5 102.5

Km1:300,000


LEGEND

, , Transit along SnowyMountains Highway

, , Transit along MonaroHighway

Site Boundary

¹



78


31 March 2020

6.4.4 Recommendations

During the preparation of the EIS, consultation would be undertaken with Roads and Maritime and Snowy Monaro Regional Council regarding the proposed haulage routes, modifications and upgrades. Concerns raised in community consultation would also be considered when finalising the scope of the traffic impact assessment.


79


31 March 2020

6.5 Hazards and Risks The following section provides a preliminary assessment of hazards and risks, as identified in the SEARs and the NSW Wind Planning Guidelines. This assessment has been used to identify further areas for investigation in the EIS, and aspects that may require input from specialist consultants.

6.5.1 Aviation SMEC has undertaken a preliminary review of the potential adverse impact of the proposed Elysian development on aeronautical operations in the area (Table 6-8). A detailed assessment in accordance with the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASA Regulations) would be undertaken as part of the EIS.

6.5.1.1 Location and potential impacts

The proposed Elysian development site is approximately 115 km south of Canberra Airport, 50 km east of Snowy Mountains (Cooma) Airport, and 80 km north-west of Merimbula Airport (Figure 6-22). A detailed assessment of relative blade height would accompany the formal aviation assessment as part of the EIS, once a LiDAR survey of the site is completed. Potential aeronautical impacts on local aerodromes are summarised in Table 6-8.

Table 6-8. Potential aeronautical impacts on local aerodromes (Cooma, Merimbula)

IMPACT DISCUSSION OUTCOME

Light emission and reflection

The CASA Manual of Standards (MOS) indicates that light emission and reflection from infrastructure may impact aerodromes within 6 km of a wind farm.

The proposed Elysian development site is not located within 6 km of an aerodrome. No further consideration is required.

Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS)

OLS set by the CASA MOS for Cooma and Merimbula Airports is 15 km from the runway end.

The proposed Elysian development site is more than 15 km from the runway at Cooma and Merimbula Airports. No further consideration is required.

Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Aircraft Operations Surfaces (PANS-OPS)

The location of the proposed Elysian development presents a potential hazard to aviation under the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Document 8168 Ops/611.

Further consultation would be required with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) during the preparation of the EIS.

Minimum Safe Altitude (MSA) Surfaces

The proposed Elysian development site is located within the MSA surface buffer around Cooma Airport and is on the periphery of the MSA surface area around Merimbula Airport.


Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) / GPS Arrival Surfaces

DME / GPS Arrival Surfaces allow aircraft to step down in altitude after passing critical obstructions on route to a destination airport.

The proposed Elysian development site may be located within the Arrival Sector B surface for Cooma Airport. The maximum proposed turbine height infringes the Arrival Surface.



FIGURE TITLE Location of Nearby Airports Relative to the Elysian Wind FarmFIG NO. 6-21

CREATED BY FA13847 SOURCES Imagery: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community, Roadnet MDS 2019

Location: \\AUSYFSV003\Group\projects\30018002 - Elysian Wind Farm EIS\100 DATA\GIS\Maps\PEA\30012635_PEA_Fig06_19_Nearby Airports.mxd


PAGE SIZE A4


o

o

o

o

Cooma Airport

MoruyaAerodrome

Canberra Airport

Merimbula Aerodrome

CanberraQueanbeyan

Kings Highway

Princes Highway

Monaro

Highw

ay

Snowy Mountains HighwayPr

ince

sHi

ghwa

y

Prin

ces High

way

0 10 20 305

Km1:875,000


LEGEND

o Airport

Flight Path

Site Boundary

¹



81


31 March 2020

Minimum obstacle clearance (MOC) is based on the crusing altitude of existing flight paths (Figure 6-22) and the maximum turbine height above sea level. It is important to understanding aviation risk as it provides an assessment of the maximum height of the wind turbines against the minimum safe flying altitudes of the routes. The maximum elevation of the tubrines must also be assessed against the lowest safe altitude (LSAlt) for nearby flight paths to detemine whether modification to the flight path or altiude is required.

The preliminary review undertaken by SMEC has identified that the proposed Elysian development site is located within proximity of air route W716: Canberra – Mallacoota. A detailed survey of the site has not yet been undertaken, therefore the relative height of turbines above ground level cannot be calculated accuately at this time. This will be undertaken as part of the complee aeronautical assesssment that will accompany the EIS.

6.5.1.2 Recommendations

During preparation of the EIS further consultation will be required with AirServices Australia and CASA during the preparation of the EIS due to the proximity of the proposed Elysian development to the Canberra to Mallacoota flight path. AirServices Australia and CASA require advance advice about the project, and monthly updates during construction. The CASA would, as necessary refer the project to the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Aeronautical Information Service (AIS) for inclusion of the turbines in the Tall Structures Database for Australia.


82


31 March 2020

6.5.2 Telecommunications

6.5.2.1 Existing services

The standard SEARs for wind farms require consideration of the possible effect on telecommunications systems. The turbines may cause interference with TV and radio communication services, mobile phone services and point to point microwave radio communication services situated within proximity to the site. Telecommunications services often use the same ridgelines that provide an optimum location for wind turbines.

There is a broadcasting tower is located on Brown Mountain, about 30 km south of the Site. Brown Mountain contains ABC Radio National, ABC News Radio, ABC Classic FM and Triple J radio broadcasting. Brown Mountain previously contained transmission points for analogue television stations; however, this transmission point was decommissioned in the transfer to digital TV. Brown Mountain also contains Point to Point radio communication services for Telstra, NSW Police, NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS), NSW State Emergency Services (SES), NSW OEH and two-way mobile bases for NSW Police, NSW RFS and SES. Local FM stations broadcast from Emerald Hill, near Nimmitabel, about 22 km southwest of the site. Digital television is broadcast to Nimmitabel via the Mt Roberts broadcast site which transmits digital services from ABC, SBS, CBN (Prime), WIN (channel 9) and CTC (Southern Cross Austereo).

6.5.2.2 Potential impacts

Wind farms may cause electromagnetic Interference (EMI) which can reduce signal strength and coverage of mobile phones, radio and aircraft navigation systems. Wind farm development may cause EMI in the following ways:

• near-field effects where the signals within the generator and nacelle cause interference; however, this has been mostly overcome with technological advances in turbine design

• diffraction where a turbine reflects or absorbs a signal • reflection / Scattering where the turbine obstructs the signal and causes interference or distortion (Bacon, 2002).

Exclusion zones (Fresnel zones) would be required around radio communication signals and near-field exclusion zones from radio towers.

Digital TV which has been delivered throughout Australia is not impacted by ghosting associated with wind turbines. There can be some associated reduction to service strength; however, this can be overcome by upgrading dwellings to a directional aerial which is able to disregard refracted signals from turbines. Satellite TV services (pay TV and TV delivered by the VAST service) are not impacted unless the direction of the dish antenna directly aligns with a turbine.

A specialist consultant has been engaged to prepare a report on telecommunications and EMI. This report would be used to inform the EIS.

6.5.3 Health The Standard SEARs for wind energy development require environmental assessment of wind farms to “consider and document any health issues having regard to the latest advice of the National Health and Medical Research Council and identify potential hazards and risks associated with electric and magnetic fields (EMF)”. This section provides a brief review of available literature on the impacts of wind farms on human health in Australia.

6.5.3.1 Potential impacts

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Information Paper: Evidence on Wind Farms and Human Health (2015) undertook a review of evidence on a range of health effects that could potentially arise from living near a wind energy development including noise, shadow flicker and electromagnetic radiation. The NHMRC concluded that “there is no consistent evidence that wind farms cause adverse health effects in humans”; however, also notes that “further high quality, independent research into health outcomes of residents within 1,500 m of wind farms is warranted”.

A summary of the findings of NHMRC (2015) on each of the studied health effects is provided in Table 6-9.


83


31 March 2020

Table 6-9. Wind farms and human health (NHMCR, 2015)

HEALTH EFFECT NHMRC CONCLUSION ELYSIAN WIND FARM

Physical and mental health

Noise associated with wind farms is generally low. There is no direct evidence that exposure to wind farm noise affects physical or mental health outcomes of nearby residents.

Further investigation is recommended for residences within 1500 m of a turbine.

A formal Acoustic Assessment within the EIS will review noise impacts on dwellings located within 1500 m of a turbine, or other buffer distance deemed appropriate based on local topography and monitoring.

Annoyance

Regular exposure to noise may result in annoyance and stress which may increase the occurrence of cardiovascular disease.

However, the NHMRC notes that there is no conclusive evidence of a connection between reported annoyance due to wind farm noise. Reported annoyance due to wind farm noise may be due to pre-existing bias held by observers.

No further action required.

Sleep disturbance

It is well established that chronic sleep disturbance impacts health.

However, the NHMRC notes that there is limited objective evidence linking noise generated by wind turbines to sleep disturbance.

Further investigation is recommended for residences within 1500 m of a turbine.


Quality of life NHMRC notes that there is inconsistent evidence of a direct correlation between wind farm noise and quality of life.


Infrasound and low frequency noise

NHMRC notes that there is no direct evidence of infrasound or low frequency noise from wind farms impacting human health outcomes.


Perception of wind farm noise

NHMRC notes that recorded noise levels associated with wind farms tend to be in the range of 30 to 45 dBA at 500 m to 1500 m from a turbine. Beyond 1500 m, recorded noise levels reduce below an intrusive level. Perception of noise beyond 1500 m may be due to the unique properties of noise generated by wind farms such as “whoosh” and “thump” sounds.


Shadow flicker

NHMRC notes that there is insufficient evidence of a correlation between shadow flicker generated by wind turbines and poor health outcomes.

The risk of shadow flicker resulting in a seizure in a person with photosensitive epilepsy is considered extremely low.


Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR)

NHMRC concludes that there is no consistent evidence of adverse health outcomes associated with the level of low-frequency EMR that is emitted from wind farms.



84


31 March 2020

6.5.3.2 Recommendations

It is established that repeated exposure to high noise levels may cause stress, annoyance and sleep disturbance. Wind farms generally do not generate high audible noise levels, with measured levels between 30 to 45 dB(A) up to about 1500 m. Wind farms do generate infrasound and low frequency noise however exposure to this type of noise has not been shown to adversely impact health outcomes.

The current NHMRC research concludes that there may be some noise impact on residences within 1500 m of a wind farm which should be further investigated. An Acoustic Consultant will be engaged during the formal EIS process to prepare a detailed noise impact assessment to determine the impact (if any) on sensitive residential receivers within proximity of the proposed development.

6.5.4 Bushfire Bushfires and grassfires are common throughout Australia and are an intrinsic part of Australia’s environment. Similarly, informal seasonal back-burning is widely practiced in the region. Bushfires and grassfires warrant consideration during the proposed development of Elysian, as the proposed wind farm is located near heavily forested areas of the Wadbilliga National Park and the Dangelong Nature Reserve. Although the proposed site comprises largely disturbed land, with a history of logging and selective clearing, there have been fires at the site. Plus, there is strong evidence of recent burning throughout the proposed Elysian development site.

An awareness of the risk of fires is important for any development in rural or regional Australia. Fires area risk to life and property. The NSW bushfire prone land (BFPL) dataset was used to further investigate preliminary bushfire risk at the proposed Elysian development site. The site is largely mapped as Category 1, which is the highest risk for bushfire; however, there are areas of Category 2 (lower risk that Category 1). The national parks areas near the site are identified as bushfire vegetation Category 1. Bushfire risk would need to be considered in the context of the Rural Fires Act (Figure 6-23).

Activities or events that are linked to fire risk for wind energy construction and operation include:

• human error (arson, cigarette butts, etc.) • incidental (backfiring vehicles and machinery, welding, blade strike from earth moving machinery, etc.) • turbine malfunction • dryland lightning strikes • targeted back burning becoming uncontrolled.

Human error is the most likely cause of fire during both the construction or operation phases of the development. Fire may ignite from spark-causing equipment (e.g., grinders, welders, mowers, graders, motor vehicles), other hot works, smoking (discarded cigarette), or spontaneous combustion of wood chip piles or mulch or due to the inappropriate storage of combustible materials such as chemicals.

There is a potential for fire to occur associated with the project infrastructure including the powerlines, substation and the wind turbines. For example, although unlikely, the nacelle or other housing may ignite because of an electrical or mechanical fault. Fire within a nacelle could spread during adverse weather conditions. Due to the height of the nacelle, physically extinguishing the fire may be difficult. Local NSW RFS brigades may require additional training and specialised equipment to fight a wind turbine fire. A fire originating within the proposed development site could also spread beyond the site boundaries.

Given the recent history of bushfires at the proposed Elysian development site, bushfires may be a threat to the project. The host landowners all currently implement bushfire risk reduction practices, including clearing of overgrown access tracks, maintaining protection zones around infrastructure, and maintenance of bushfire ‘fuel’ loads. Identification of bushfire risks, consequences and likelihood of occurrence is addressed in the Snowy Monaro Bush Fire Risk Management Plan (SMBFMC, 2009), which should be referenced during subsequent design and environmental assessment. A detailed assessment of bushfire risk and required asset protection zones would be undertaken during development of the EIS.


FIGURE TITLE Bushfire RiskFIG NO. 6-22

CREATED BY FA13847 SOURCES public_NSW_Imagery: © Department of Finance, Services & Innovation 2019,Roadnet MDS 2019, Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH)

Location: \\AUSYFSV003\Group\projects\30018002 - Elysian Wind Farm EIS\100 DATA\GIS\Maps\PEA\30012635_PEA_Fig06_20_Bushfire Risk.mxd


PAGE SIZE A4


!H

!H

!H!H

!H !H

!H

!H !H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H!H

!H!H

!H

!H!H

!H

!H!H!H

!H

!H!H

!H!H!H

!H

!H

T 9T 8

T 7

T 6T 5

T 4T 3

T 2

T 1

T 32

T 31

T 30 T 29T 28

T 27T 26

T 25

T 24T 23 T 22

T 21

T 20T 19

T 18

T 17T 16

T 15T 14

T 13

T 12

T 11

T 10

Jibolaro Creek

Turos

s Rive

r

Tuross Riv

er

0 10.5

Km1:35,000



Bushfire Prone LandVegetation Category 1

Vegetation Category 2

Vegetation Buffer

¹



86


31 March 2020

6.5.5 Blade throw and blade glint

Turbine rotor failure may cause blade throw, which is required to be assessed in the SEARs for wind farms. Turbine rotor failure may result in the partial or complete detachment of a turbine blade. The likelihood of a blade throw incident is low; however, this impact is discussed for completeness.

Blade glint is the direct reflection of the sun on wind turbine infrastructure and results from the reflectivity of the white coloured tower, nacelle and blade components of the turbine. Most manufacturers of wind turbine infrastructure treat the turbine with materials with low reflectivity coating to minimise glint and potential nuisance. EWF understands that treating the blades in such a manner is ordinarily seen as an acceptable method in the approval of wind energy developments in NSW.

6.5.5.1 Blade throw

The likely distance or range of blade throw is dependent on the release velocity and turbine tip speed. A variety of competing techniques are used to calculate the range of blade throw and the appropriate distances turbines should be setback from residential properties (Rogers et al., 2012; Larwood, 2005). There have been limited incidences of blade throw or failure in modern wind turbine infrastructure. Academic studies suggest the turbine failure rate is in the range of 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 10,000 turbines (Larwood, 2005). Based on this probability, the chances of a blade throw incident at the proposed Elysian development site are considered very low.

Historically, appropriate setbacks have been calculated at a rate of 1.25 to 3 times the overall turbine height; however, as modern turbines offer higher reliability and reduced potential of blade throw, there is considerable evidence now to suggest that the concept of blade throw, and associated setback requirements be revisited (Larwood, 2005; Rogers et al., 2011). To date, there are no Australian guidelines for blade throw distances or calculation. Blade throw incidents studied by Larwood resulted in a maximum throw distance of approximately 100 m for a whole modern blade, and up to 500 m for blade fragments.

EWF would consider setback rates in its final wind farm planning. At present, the minimum distance between a turbine and a dwelling is 3.61 times the overall proposed turbine height. This is compliant with the setback rates calculated in the literature. All dwellings have a minimum 500 m setback distance from turbines; therefore, we consider the risk of blade throw to be low and able to be overcome by planning.

Because of recent engineering development in wind farm technology, the likelihood of blade throw has been significantly reduced. The location of the proposed site and separation of infrastructure from residential properties has reduce risk, and further analysis of this potential impact or development of management methods is considered unnecessary at this time.

6.5.5.2 Blade glint

There is no specific legislation in NSW regarding blade glint; however, the following documents provide some guidance to the assessment of glint in wind farm proposals:

• the VIA Bulletin states:

“the direct reflection of the sun from the wind turbine structure (glint) is to be minimised through appropriate turbine treatments (such as the use of low sheen and matt finishes).”

• the now repealed, draft NSW Planning Guidelines: Wind farms (2011), similarly states:

“The impact of ‘blade glint’ from wind turbines on neighbours’ houses within 2 km of a proposed wind turbine should be assessed. Blade glint refers to the regular reflection of sun off rotating wind turbine blades. Blades should be finished with a low reflectivity surface treatment to ensure that glint is minimised.”

A 2 km buffer, as suggested in the now repealed 2011 guidelines, has been adopted as a reasonable physical extent for the consideration of blade glint.

As suggested in the relevant assessment guidelines, blade glint is minimised by use of low-reflective finishes on all turbine infrastructure. The location of turbine infrastructure, including the distance from residences and roads, is also an important management method. The proposed turbines are located a minimum of 500 m from major roads, including Tuross Road and 940 m from the nearest non-stakeholder dwelling.


87


31 March 2020

6.6 Aboriginal Heritage The Aboriginal heritage assessment comprised:

• a search of the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) Aboriginal Heritage Management System (AHIMS) database to determine if there had been any archaeological material recorded in the subject land

• a landscape assessment to determine if there are landforms with a high potential to contain Aboriginal objects and to what extent they coincide with proposed tower locations

• preliminary impact assessment and recommendations for further work required.

6.6.1 Applicable legislation and literature review

6.6.1.1 The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW)

In NSW, Aboriginal heritage objects and places are protected mainly by the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, which contains provisions making it illegal to harm Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places without appropriate defence or permission. The Act is administered by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH). Under definitions provided in the Act:

• Aboriginal object means any deposit, object or material evidence (not being a handicraft made for sale) relating to the Aboriginal habitation of the area that comprises New South Wales, being habitation before or concurrent with (or both) the occupation of that area by persons of non- Aboriginal extraction and includes Aboriginal remains

• Aboriginal place means any place declared to be an Aboriginal place under section 84.

If Aboriginal Objects are harmed, there are two levels of offence that Individuals or corporations may be faced with. Knowingly or deliberately harming or desecrating Aboriginal places/objects is the higher of the two levels. Lower level offences are known as ‘strict liability’ offences, that is to say they are offences regardless of whether or not the offender knew they were harming an Aboriginal object or desecrating an Aboriginal place. A person or corporation may have a defence against such prosecution where they have:

• an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) authorising the harm (s.87(1)) • exercised due diligence to establish Aboriginal objects will not be harmed (s.87(2)).

Due diligence may be demonstrated by following requirements described in the National Parks and Wildlife Regulation 2009 (the Regulation) or a code of practice adopted or prescribed by the NPW Regulation (s.87(3)).

6.6.1.2 The Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in NSW 2010

The Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (the Code) describes the process that must be followed to demonstrate due diligence in assessing potential harm to Aboriginal objects by a proposed development or action. The Due Diligence Code sets out steps required to assess whether or not proposed activities may impact Aboriginal objects. These are:

• step 1. Will the activity disturb the ground surface? • step 2a. Search the AHIMS database and use any other sources of information of which you are already aware • step 2b. Is the Activity in an area or areas where landscape features indicate the presence of Aboriginal objects • step 3. Can any harm or the activity itself be avoided? • step 4. Desktop assessment and visual inspection • step 5. Further investigations and impact assessment.

Addressing these questions will determine whether or not Due Diligence obligations for the protection of Aboriginal objects are satisfied. If they are not, further approval (an AHIP) under the NPW Act is required, and this may be a recommendation of the Due Diligence study.

6.6.2 Existing environment

6.6.2.1 Ethnohistorical

Ethnohistorical records are documentary pieces of evidence that record observations of Aboriginal people by early European explorers and settlers. They are useful in the reconstruction of the picture of Aboriginal life before the European settlement. Like all historical records they fall into different categories of direct observation and include, for example:


88


31 March 2020

• journals from explorers and early European occupants of the area – including surveyors, and government officials (direct and contemporary observations recorded close to the time of the event)

• later reminiscences by long-time residents or travellers; • secondary documentation by writers who did not actually observe events or people but were told about them by

people who did observe events.

In research and heritage management studies ethnohistorical records are examined with two main purposes. The first, and most practically applied, is to inform researchers of the range of material remains that could reasonably be expected to occur in any given study area, and where that material might occur. So, for example, where an early observer describes how Aboriginal people in the local area made fine canoes out of sheets of bark cut with stone hatchets, one might reasonably include scarred trees to the types of archaeological site that could be expected in the area and realise that ground stone hatchet heads might occur in the artefact assemblage. The second main use of ethnohistorical records in such studies is to add a human element to the research and analysis of archaeological materials and places.

While ethnohistorical records are a valuable resource in the reconstruction of a picture of pre- European Aboriginal life and material culture, there are limitations to their use. One of the primary limitations is that by their nature they are the sporadic records of untrained observers of varying quality and reliability, as opposed to systematic studies. Further, they are products of their times and, like any observation or historical description, they can be value laden. As a further caution it is to be noted that changes to traditional Aboriginal society and life ways in south east Australia were rapid after the arrival of Europeans in 1788, so it is unlikely that the earliest recordings of Aboriginal people in a given area were of a people completely unchanged by European influence - either through being ravaged by European disease or having contact with European material possessions. Diseases (notably small pox and influenza) were carried out from Sydney by Aboriginal people and infected the wider Aboriginal population prior to their contact with Europeans.

For the purposes of this study, ethnohistorical records are informative in terms of predicting and explaining the sorts of sites that might occur in the study area, analysing archaeological material that might be found, and in assessing significance.

The study area is situated in a territory generally acknowledged as Ngarigo country (Howitt 1904, Tindale 1974, Flood 1980). Documentary evidence regarding Aboriginal people is relatively sparse, surprisingly so, given the acknowledgment that Aboriginal people were closely associated with the earlier phases of European exploration and settlement (English 1985: 21). It has been suggested that the scarcity of references to Aboriginal people in explorer’s journals is the result of deliberate avoidance of them by Aboriginal people (Lea-Scarlett 1968).

Some material culture is described in the early documentation. The observed tools and possessions included spears (barbed and unbarbed), spear throwers, clubs, shields, boomerangs, stone axes, yam sticks, bark vessels, canoes, apparel made from skins (possum and kangaroo), shell and stone scrapers, bone needles, and bark huts (Wright 1923, Helms 1895, Bennett 1834, all in Flood 1980:49-60). Stone axes in particular were said to be highly prized with men rarely going anywhere without them tucked into a fur belt around the waist (Graham 1863). Bark was a material in ubiquitous use for a number of purposes, primarily shelter, containers and canoes. In the early to mid-1830’s Edward John Eyre purchased a land grant that he called ‘Woodlands’ which bounded on the Molonglo River between Queanbeyan and Captains Flat. He records Aboriginal people being employed to cut sheets of bark to assist in the construction of a shearing area. He records:

The bark was cut from the box or stringy bark trees by the blacks who are very skilful and expeditious in doing it. Having selected a suitable tree, the black fellow begins by cutting a ring round the tree thro’ the bark to the wood, just where the lower end of the sheet of bark is intended to be. He next cuts with his tomahawk little steps in the bark about half an inch deep, about two feet apart, alternately on the right and left, into which he puts his great toe as he mounts from one to the other, pressing his feet and legs against the trunk…. For tho’ he uses his hands in catching hold of the tree from time to time as he rises, yet he can stand on these little notches alone and keep both hands free to use in whatever he may be about. In smaller sized trees that he can grasp with his arms he will run up as rapidly as possible without cutting steps or aid of any kind. Having ascended to the requisite height he again cuts a ring around the tree where the top of the sheet of bark is to be and then, gradually descending, makes a perpendicular or longitudinal cut straight down from the upper ring to the lower one. With small pointed sticks he again mounts and inserting them on each side of the perpendicular cut between the bark and the wood, he gradually loosens the former from the latter until at last he gets it stripped off in one unbroken piece forming, when stretched out flat, a sheet from six to twelve feet square, according to the size of the tree. To prevent the bark from cracking when being thus stretched out it is heated inside with fire, just as a cooper heats a cask to make the staves bend as he wishes. The same means are used to bend the


89


31 March 2020

bark into shape when required for a canoe…I have often seen canoes made of a single piece of bark capable of holding six or eight people. Generally, these were cut from large river gum trees…When dry these sheets of bark retain their flat shape - are from an inch to an inch and a half thick – quite impervious to any rain and, of course, most useful in the construction of temporary dwellings, sheds or other buildings. A single sheet properly stretched out and propped up with sticks forms and admirable shelter for the night from any rain, and is constructed by a black fellow, where the proper trees are to be found, in a very few minutes (Eyre 1984:55-56).

Aboriginal food items recorded in the ethnohistoric literature include possum, bandicoot, snakes, various macropods, wombats, emus, brolgas and other birds, lizards, 'native cats', fish, yabbies, mussels, Bogong moths, yams, berries and grass seeds. (Bennett 1834, Bluett 1954). In addition, the author of this report has personally observed and gathered large clusters of very large field mushrooms in the Kybeyan area, which would have easily been a source of seasonal abundance.

The ceremonial and ritual aspects of the lives of local Aboriginal people were rich and intricate. Class and totem systems are recorded for Aboriginal people of the region (Howitt 1904:101-102). Men’s initiation ceremonies, variously called the Kuringal or Bunan involved tooth evulsion and ceremonies inside earthen mounds. (Howitt 1904: 563-565).

Local burial customs included binding of the body into a foetal position and interment with all the deceased’s weapons and implements. Howitt records “spears and nets were included; even in one case a canoe was cut into pieces so that it could be put in the grave. Everything belonging to a dead person was put out of sight” (Howitt 1904:461-462). In the region burials have also been recorded in caves and hollow trees (White and Cane 1986:44). Clark recorded oral history from near Boorowa suggesting that Aboriginal people had been buried at the base, and at the top of a hill, the latter of which occurred between large broken rocks. He specifically notes “from the top of the hill one has a commanding view of the surrounding country side” (Clark 1977:16). This description has analogies to Wright’s description of the burial of Hon Yong (Onyong) who wrote “His grave was on top of a rocky hill…A tunnel about six feet long was excavated and his body was inserted, with his spears (broken in half), his shield, nulla, boomerang, tomahawk, possum rug and other effects (Wright 1923:57).

The dislocation of Aboriginal people in the face of the European settlement appears to have been rapid and traumatic. Smallpox was observed at Yass in 1844, and it is highly likely that the disease had reached the Southern Tablelands at a somewhat earlier date, although possibly not before 1830. Other diseases against which the Aborigines had no immunity included measles and influenza (Flood 1980: 32). In a little over fifty years after the first European incursion into the area, the fully traditional way of life had disintegrated. (Andrews 1979).

While the purely traditional way of life passed, the descendants of those people retain their Aboriginal tribal identity. They are genuinely concerned about the preservation of their cultural heritage.

The ethnohistorical record provides the following information that informs the preparation of this study.

1. the local area contains a range of resources that are recorded in the ethnographic record 2. the last phase of traditional Aboriginal life ceased in approximately the mid 1880’s, so sites like stone artefact

scatters date to a time before this 3. bark was used for many traditional purposes; the occurrence of scarred trees is a possibility although the

widespread clearing and logging would have compromised the potential for large numbers of scarred trees to be found

4. given the traditional and semi-traditional activities that were undertaken in the area into the late 19th century, the occurrence of European materials as part of the Aboriginal archaeology is a possibility (for example, glass or ceramic flaked artefacts).

6.6.2.2 Archaeological

The broader region of south east NSW has been occupied by Aboriginal people for at least 21,000 years. Human occupation at Birragai rock shelter has been dated to ~21,000 Before Present (BP) (Flood et al 1987), Burrill Lake rock shelter near Ulladulla has been dated to ~20,000BP (Lampert 1971) and Bulee Brook 2 in the south coast hinterland has been dated to ~19,000BP (Boot 1996a & b, 2002), these three sites all providing a reasonably consistent picture of the time human occupation of the region becomes archaeologically visible.

Flood’s pioneering archaeological work in the NSW high country emphasised the potentially seasonal nature of occupation, concentrating on ethnohistorical accounts of Bogong moth collection (Flood 1980). She suggested that Ngarigo people occupied the lower hinterland during winter and moved into the high country in summer to collect the moths. Despite arguments refuting the importance of Bogong moths as a seasonal staple (Chapman 1977, Bowdler


90


31 March 2020

1981) or that it was a resource that fostered social cohesion and exchange rather than being a staple food (Kamminga et al 1989), seasonal use of the highlands continues to be the main interpretation of local Aboriginal occupation.

Heffernan and Boot conducted a wide ranging study of the South East Forests (Heffernan and Boot 2000). In a survey transect along Kybeyan Road they recorded eight open artefact scatters and five isolated finds. Dearling (2004) undertook a study of a number of nature reserves and state conservation areas in environmental/ topographic locations similar to the present study area. Among the areas he inspected the following are particularly relevant:

• Kybeyan Nature Reserve: three open artefact scatters and two isolated artefacts (14 artefacts in total) all within a large grassy clearing, crossed by drainage lines, soaks, and minor wetlands. Seven stone materials were recorded, although the small number of artefacts overall makes the sample difficult to draw extensive conclusions. The materials were chert (28.6%), quartz (28.6%), silcrete (14.3%2), indurated mudstone, chalcedony, volcanic, and unknown (each 7.1%).

• Kybeyan SCA: One quartzite broken flake was recorded. • Dangelong Nature Reserve/Mowles Creek: six open artefact scatters and three isolated (116 artefacts in total).

Most were found close to the junction of the Numeralla River and Granny’s Flat Creek. The largest site at Mowles Creek contained 44 artefacts. Eight stone materials were recorded- silcrete (71%), quartz (14.5), chert (7.3), volcanic (3.6%), and Indurated mudstone (3.6%).

• Coornatha Nature Reserve: This study area contained one artefact scatter and one isolated artefact (total five artefacts). The isolated find was located in the area of basalt in the south east corner of the Nature Reserve. Two stone materials were recorded, Chert (60%) and Quartz (40%).

At the ‘Warratah’ property at Kybeyan Dearling (2007) recorded seven Aboriginal archaeological sites, with an overall a total of 53 stone artefacts. Quartz was the dominant stone material, with chalcedony, chert, silcrete andvolcanic artefacts also recorded (Dearling 2007:29). These sites were associated with low gradient terrain, either spur crests or valley floors, with raised level terrain in proximity to water exhibiting the greatest artefact densities (Dearling 2007:27-28). In a re-examination of part of this study area, Williams (2017) relocated Dearling’s site WK-2 recording 31 flaked stone artefacts and further recorded a new site ‘WK-9’, an artefact scatter with 21 artefacts. Both of these artefact clusters were found on locally raised spurs in association with Greens Creek, a small permanent watercourse.

In 2005 Dibden undertook an assessment of a proposed fence alignment at ‘Lone pine’, in Wadbilliga National Park, ~7km south of the present study area. The fence was ~5.5km in length, traversing a range of landforms and vegetation. Seven archaeological sites were recorded mainly in association with spur crests and drainage depression topographic features of low gradient. One major site consisted of more than 80 artefacts over a 200m x 10m area on a knoll and spur crest. Materials recorded included silcrete, quartz, quartzite, volcanic and chert (Dibden 2005:20).

Dibden (2009) undertook an assessment of the Boco Rock Wind Farm west of Nimmitabel, recording Aboriginal stone artefacts at 56 locations. Elevated, relatively level ground close to the Maclaughlin River was found to be the most archaeologically sensitive terrain. Higher terrain such as plateau and high ridge lines exhibited stone artefacts, but at a far reduced density. A total of 237 artefacts were recorded, with quartz and silcrete being the dominant stone materials (Dibden 2009: Appendix 1).

Dibden undertook an archaeological assessment of proposed maintenance work on Wadbilliga Road in Wadbilliga National Park (Dibden 2010). The project assessed the potential impact of widening the existing road by ~1.5m over a total of 5.5km. The project required the installation of nine culverts and removal of 16 trees (Dibden 2010: 3). The study recorded Aboriginal cultural material in the form of stone artefacts at five locations, some of which were revisits to sites recorded some years previously. An extensive scatter of cultural material was located across the area of 2 previously recorded sites (Dibden 2010: 35). The scatter was recorded as occurring over 690m on the east side of the Wadbilliga River, with an earlier recording by Boot noting 1185 artefacts (Dibden 2010:35). The remaining four locations were isolated artefacts, and these objects were found in disturbed contexts and topographic locations not conducive to camp site locations.

In 2015 Dibden undertook an assessment of proposed work on the Kybeyan Radio Tower and Tuross Falls Road in Wadbilliga National Park (Dibden 2015). The purpose of the project was to assess sections of Tuross Falls Road where Aboriginal objects were known to occur, in addition to the small area of proposed disturbance at the Kybeyan Radio tower (Dibden 2015:35). Of the seven site locations investigated, stone artefacts were observed at three, with no objects found at four previously recorded locations. The Kybeyan radio tower location exhibited no archaeological material.

CHMA (2016) undertook a preliminary assessment of a proposed wind farm ~25km south of the present study area. Engaged to provide a preliminary heritage assessment of the wind farm footprint as it was then designed, the sample


91


31 March 2020

survey recorded 13 previously unrecorded sites, termed GH1-GH13 inclusive, and five Potential Archaeological Deposits (PADs) (GH PAD1-5). Of the sites recorded, four were open artefact scatters and nine were open artefact scatters with associated PADs. Approximately 160 stone artefacts were observed (CHMA 2016:40-41), noting that the preliminary nature of the study precluded detailed recording and precise counts.

The study found that where good visibility coincided with broad, open flat crests or saddles within a reasonable distances of water sources cultural material was found, suggesting a widespread scatter of material over those landforms (CHMA 2016:39). A subsequent more detailed archaeological survey was undertaken in 2017 which identified an additional 22 sites including scatters of artefacts, isolated artefacts, potential archaeological deposits scarred trees and a potential quarry (Williams 2018:16-24). 730 stone artefacts were recorded with nine stone materials represented and sixteen technological categories of artefact recorded. Quartz and silcrete artefacts were recorded in approximately equal proportions although there were twice the number of quartz cores and core fragments as there were of silcrete. This suggests that quartz artefacts were created from more readily available and/or smaller nuclei and that silcrete was a more curated material. It was concluded that the archaeological evidence recorded suggested regular use of the study area as a transitory landscape (Williams 2018:31). Evidence of Aboriginal occupation was widespread in locations that offered level to gently sloping topography, but archaeological evidence in the form of artefact scatters also occurred in areas of steeper gradient close to permanent water sources.

The majority of archaeological studies in the area have overwhelmingly recorded scatters of stone artefacts, but other types of archaeological sites have been recorded on the Monaro. In 1991 the remains of two Aboriginal people were discovered eroding out of the bank of Rock Flat Creek at Bunyan ~10km north of Cooma. Despite heavy disturbance it was intimated the people were buried side by side at the same time. Grave goods were found with the human remains, including red ochre, two pebble hammer/anvil stones, five bone points made of kangaroo fibulae eight macropod mandibular rami and 327 pierced kangaroo teeth – all upper incisors pierced to allow them to be strung (Feary 1996).

In 1988 Comber undertook an examination of four quarry/reduction sites between Bredbo and Cooma (Comber 1988). Two of the quarries (A and B) are tabular chert, one (C) was basaltic andesite and one (D) was dacite.

6.6.2.3 AHIMS

A search of the OEH AHIMS register was undertaken on 28/03/2019, over a ~1,295 km2 area centred approximately on the proposed extent of turbines. Within this boundary there were 107 previously recorded sites, only one of which occur within 1 km of a proposed turbine location. The nearest known site to a proposed turbine is site 62-2-0412 (WK-7) which is ~300 m east north east of proposed turbine 30. The locations of these previously recorded sites are illustrated in Figure 6-24.

XW

XW

XW

XW XW

XW

XW

XWXWXW

XW

XWXW

XW

XW

XW

XW

XWXW

XW

XWXWXW

XW

XW

XWXW

XW

XWXW

XWXWXW

XW

XWXW

XWXWXW

XWXW

XWXWXWXW

XWXWXW

XWXW

XW

XW

XW

XWXWXWXW

XWXW

XW

XW

XW

XW

XWXWXW

XWXWXWXWXW

XW

XW

XW

Tuross

Dangelong

Wadbilliga

Carlaminda Tuross Road



¹LEGEND

XW Registered AHIMS Sites

Site Boundary


FIG NO. 6-23 DATE 06/03/2020


PAGE SIZE A4

0 1 2 30.5

Km1:150,000

Location: \\AUSYFSV003\Group\projects\30018002 - Elysian Wind Farm EIS\100 DATA\GIS\Maps\PEA\30012635_PEA_Fig06_21_AHIMS.mxd


FIGURE TITLE AHIMS Sites



93


31 March 2020

6.6.2.4 Artefact scatters

These are a very common site type and consist of stone artefacts found scattered on the ground surface and are often referred to as an open camp site. In most archaeological contexts, an artefact scatter has been deflated by erosion, or it more typically involves a sub-surface deposit of varying depth. Artefact scatters may represent :

• the evidence of camp sites, where everyday activities such as habitation, preparation and consumption of food and storage of tools have occurred

• hunting or gathering events • other events spatially separated from a camp site (e.g. tool production or maintenance) • transitory movement through the landscape.

The detection of artefact scatters depends upon conditions of surface visibility and ground disturbance and post depositional change through either sediment accumulation or surface erosion. Vegetation cover and deposition of sediments generally obscures artefact scatter sites and prevents their detection during surface surveys. High levels of ground disturbance can also obscure or remove evidence of a site. Isolated finds are single artefacts.

They may be representative of simple, singular discards or may be all that is visible within a site, with other material either obscured from view or buried beneath the surface. The ability to observe surface archaeological material at a site will change with altered environmental conditions, therefore visits to the same site at different times almost always result different observations. Artefact scatters might occur in any area with low gradient but will be most dense and easily detectable on level, raised, well drained locations close to water sources or other resource zones such as wetlands.

6.6.2.5 Scarred trees

Scarred trees are those from which the bark has been removed for the manufacture of containers, shields or canoes. Small scars may also represent toe-holds cut into a tree to enable climbing. They are a common site type in the river flood plain corridors. It would be unlikely that scars in this location would be the result of canoe manufacture, so those that are the result of making containers or shelters would be more likely. Scarred trees might occur at any location where mature native trees remain.

6.6.2.6 Burials

Human burials have only rarely been discovered in the region, but those discovered have been found in deeper soil of creek margins (Feary 1996). It is unlikely that any surface survey would detect human burials, and the turbine locations are on high points that will in all likelihood have thin soil profiles, but as the area is drained by several creeks which may require crossing by connecting tracks and/or power cables it is possible that this site type may occur in land subject to disturbance by the establishment of the development.

6.6.2.7 Stone quarries

Hiscock and Mitchell (1993: 19-23, 32) have defined an Aboriginal quarry as being the location of an exploited stone source. This definition was adopted by them as it took in the widest possible range of sites related to stone procurement strategies. As well as including areas exhibiting visible evidence of exploitation, this definition can be extended to areas where procurement techniques have left little or no evidence of activity. Aboriginal stone quarries may range from large, well organised sites and cover may hectares (e.g. the Mount William greenstone quarries, McBryde 1984) to simply locations of cobbles or pebbles which can be easily collected as required (cf. Gould 1977:162-8, Jones and White 1988:57-8,). The underlying geology of the subject area is not one where an Aboriginal quarry would be expected, but stone hatchet quarries are a possibility.

6.6.2.8 Potential archaeological deposits (PADs)

PADs may be defined using topographic and/other environmental variables where it is considered highly likely that archaeological material may occur under the ground, but surface visibility is poor.

6.6.3 Potential impacts The majority of proposed turbine locations to coincide with ridge line features such as crests, knolls and plateaux. Previous archaeological studies in the region identify these elements as having higher concentrations of archaeological material than surrounding sloping topography and in fact in hilly to undulating terrain serve to focus human activity in smaller areas of low gradient. This archaeological material is in the main scatters of stone artefacts of varying density. Where areas of low gradient coincide with watercourses archaeological occurrences become more frequent and denser. As these proposed turbines occur at high points in the landscape their archaeological potential is lessened by distance


94


31 March 2020

to fresh water, but prior studies have also shown that water sources can occur at higher points in the landscape, particularly on plateau type elements (cf. Williams 2018:19).

6.6.4 Recommendations The requirements of efficient wind farm establishment are such that the locations of proposed turbines often coincide with topographic elements that have higher archaeological potential, likewise access roads often follow crest and/or level topography for ease of construction. The suite of proposed locations examined in this study fits that coincident model in large measure, and as such the majority of proposed turbine locations should be subject to a detailed field inspection prior to development occurring. This inspection should take the form of an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment, following the requisite guidelines and standards issues by the NSW Office of Heritage and Environment.

Prior to such inspection the proponent should examine the design of the proposed development with reference to more detailed topographic information (for example, LiDAR generated contour maps) in order to determine if any proposed turbine locations and or access tracks are now on, or are able to be moved to, topography with a slope of >70, as this would place any such turbine / compound in zones of lower archaeological sensitivity.

The Preliminary Aboriginal Heritage Assessment Report is provided in Appendix E.


95


31 March 2020

6.7 Water and soils 6.7.1 Water The proposed development site sits predominately along the ridgelines and therefore, the is limited potential for flooding. The access roads will, however, cross many minor creek alignments near the headwaters of those systems. As the proposed Elysian Wind Farm project site is in a woodland environment, organic material including tree branches are likely to be mobilised during rainfall events.

The nearest rain gauge operated by the Bureau of Meteorology is at Nimmitabel (site 070067; data from 1894 to 2016), about 21 km from the proposed development site at an elevation of 1100 m, which is similar in elevation to many areas of the proposed site. Average annual rainfall at Nimmitabel is 694 mm. Mean monthly rainfall ranges from 45.7 mm in August to 68.7 mm in January (Table 6-10). Mean monthly data indicates that rainfall is relatively consistent throughout the year, with high rainfall in winter and summer months, and less in spring and autumn.

Table 6-10. Mean rainfall for Nimmitabel (1894-2018)

STATSTICS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Mean (mm) 68.2 59.6 59.7 48.4 51.4 66.6 49.7 45.4 48.8 58.2 61.6 67.8

There are several ephemeral creeks and streams that transect the proposed Elysian development site, and several semi-permanent informal dams, along Tuross Road for example (Figure 6-25). Design of any crossings would need to consider potential blockages and be able to withstand overtopping without scouring across the road surface or downstream embankment.

Creek crossings will need to ensure they have capacity for significant events without creating or exacerbating erosion potential. Culvert designs will need to ensure the downstream apron is as wide and flat as possible with long-term stable scour protection to reduce concentrated flows and scour velocities. There is also mapped key fish habitat (KFH) within the site which would need to be considered in detail during the EIS.

There are no registered groundwater bores located within the proposed Elysian development site (WaterNSW search date: 10 January 2019); however, given the history of grazing at the site, it is likely that unregistered groundwater bores occur within the proposal boundary. This would be assessed during the EIS.


FIGURE TITLE Rivers, Waterbodies and Key Fish HabitatFIG NO. 6-24


Location: \\AUSYFSV003\Group\projects\30018002 - Elysian Wind Farm EIS\100 DATA\GIS\Maps\PEA\30012635_PEA_Fig06_22_KFH.mxd


PAGE SIZE A4


!H

!H

!H!H

!H !H

!H

!H !H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H!H

!H!H

!H

!H!H

!H

!H!H!H

!H

!H!H

!H!H!H

!H

!H

T 9T 8

T 7

T 6T 5

T 4T 3

T 2

T 1

T 32

T 31

T 30 T 29T 28

T 27T 26

T 25

T 24T 23 T 22

T 21

T 20T 19

T 18

T 17T 16

T 15T 14

T 13

T 12

T 11

T 10

Tuross

River

Jibolaro Creek

Turos

s Rive

r

0 10.5

Km1:35,000



Rivers

Key Fish Habitat

¹



97


31 March 2020

6.7.2 Soils

Detailed geotechnical investigations have not yet been conducted, and therefore could not inform the PEA. However, a desktop assessment was used to interrogate soils and geology for the PEA.

The proposed Elysian development site is situated on Yalgatta Granodiorite geological unit. Soils are of the Lower Dovonian around, 400 million years old. Crusts are shallow and generally unfractionated to weakly fractionated (NSW Seamless Geology). There is no risk for Acid Sulfate Soils at the proposed Elysian development site. The overall land soil capability is rated as ‘Severely limited’ (Figure 6-26).


FIGURE TITLE Soils and GeologyFIG NO. 6-25

CREATED BY FA13847 SOURCES public_NSW_Imagery: © Department of Finance, Services & Innovation 2019,Roadnet MDS 2019, Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH)

Location: \\AUSYFSV003\Group\projects\30018002 - Elysian Wind Farm EIS\100 DATA\GIS\Maps\PEA\30012635_PEA_Fig06_23_Soil and Geology.mxd


PAGE SIZE A4


!H

!H

!H!H

!H !H

!H

!H !H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H!H

!H!H

!H

!H!H

!H

!H!H!H

!H

!H!H

!H!H!H

!H

!H

T 9T 8

T 7

T 6T 5

T 4T 3

T 2

T 1

T 32

T 31

T 30 T 29T 28

T 27T 26

T 25

T 24T 23 T 22

T 21

T 20T 19

T 18

T 17T 16

T 15T 14

T 13

T 12

T 11

T 10

Jibolaro Creek

Turos

s Rive

r

Tuross Riv

er

0 10.5

Km1:35,000



Dominant Australian SoilClassification (ASC) - Order

Dermosols

Kandosols

Kurosols

Rudosols (Alluvial)

Rudosols and Tenosols

¹



99


31 March 2020

There are several soil landscapes within the proposal development area. These landscapes are associated with several characteristics and limitations, which are outlined in Table 6-11. These landscapes are generally used for sheep and beef production and demonstrate variable erodibility, waterlogging and fertility.

Based on the details of the proposed development known at the time of producing this PEA, these soil constraints appear to be manageable. Factors affecting erosion during construction and access in wet conditions (particularly along informal and/or unsealed roads) and means to control erosion during construction and operation will need to be considered during the design stage and during the process of refining the turbine locations.

Table 6-11. Soil landscapes

LANDSCAPE GEOLOGY AND SOIL LIMITATIONS

Anembo (am)

Undulating rises, plains and broad valley flats on granitics. Long gently inclined to very gently inclined slopes and plains with discontinuous swamps. Local relief to 40 m. Slopes <10%, commonly 6%. Elevation 900–1150 m.

Open-forest to tall open-forest, with open-scrub to closed-sedgeland on alluvium.

Shallow (<50 cm), well-drained Earthy Sands moderately deep (50–150 cm), well drained Red Podzolic Soil and Red Earths on crests and upper slopes. Moderately deep (50–150 cm), moderately well-drained yellow Soloths, poorly drained Brown Podzolic Soils and Gleyed Podzolic Soils and moderately well-drained Yellow Earths on mid-slopes to lower slopes.

Moderately deep to deep (>50 cm), poorly to very poorly drained Alluvial Soils and Brown Clays on alluvial flats and drainage depressions.

Highly erodible, infertile, hard-setting, acid soils with aluminium toxicity potential and low available water-holding potential.

Organic soils with seasonal or permanent water-logging and localised permanently high water-tables.

Celeys Creek (cc)

Rolling low hills on granitics including gently inclined (3–10%) plateau tops, ridges, hillslopes and swamp fills. Rock outcrop is common as tors (<10%). Local relief approximately 90 m. Altitude range 750–1 270 m. Slope range 8–33% generally, approximately 15%.

Partly cleared open-forest to tall open-forest (intermediate sclerophyll forest) with closed tussock grasslands and sedge lands on flats and near mid-slope springs

Shallow (<30 cm), well-drained Earthy Sands, Massive Brown Earths, Bleached Earths and moderately deep (<100 cm), well-drained Yellow Podzolic Soils on crests and upper slopes. Shallow (<35 cm), well-drained Earthy Sands, moderately deep (<150 cm), moderately well-drained Yellow Podzolic Soils, yellow Soloths, Brown Earths and shallow to moderately deep (<70 cm), moderately well-drained Earthy Sands on lower slopes.

Moderately deep to deep (>100 cm), poorly drained Black Earths and Alluvial Soils on flats and drainage depressions.

Stony hard-setting infertile acid soils with aluminium toxicity potential, low available water-holding capacity with steep slopes and localised rock outcrop.

Organic soils with shrinks well potential and localised water logging and permanently high water-tables.

Upper Tuross

Rolling low hills and hills on Adaminaby Group sediments and metasediments. Narrow to moderately broad (<150 m) crests with narrow (<100 m) ridges,

Shallow, moderately well-drained stony Brown Earths and Red Earths on crests and upper slopes. Moderately deep, moderately well-

Stony, infertile, acid soils with aluminium toxicity potential on steep slopes with moderate sheet erosion


100


31 March 2020

LANDSCAPE GEOLOGY AND SOIL LIMITATIONS

moderately inclined to steep (15–40%), moderately long (100–300 m) slopes on steeper hillslopes. Local relief 60–130 m. Altitude range 970–1 220 m.

Open-forest to tall open-forest near some drainage lines and sheltered sites. Limited clearing (<20%).

drained Red Earths and Brown Earths on mid-slopes and lower slopes.

Moderately deep, moderately well-drained Brown Earths in depressions and drainage lines

hazard and localised mass movement hazard.

Duck Hole Creek (du)

Undulating to rolling low hills on Adaminaby Group sediments and metasediments.

Local relief 50–80 m, elevation 930–1217 m, slopes 6–20%. High rainfall (>1 000 mm) along Great Divide.

Open-forest to tall open-forest.

Shallow (<70 cm), moderately well-drained Red Earths, Brown Earths and Structured Red Earths on crests and upper slopes. Moderately deep (>80 cm), moderately well drained Red Earths and yellow Soloths on mid-slopes. Moderately deep (>80 cm) to deep (>220 cm), imperfectly drained yellow Soloths and Gleyed Yellow Duplex Soils on lower slopes and in drainage depressions.

Stony and erodible, infertile, acid soils with aluminium toxicity potential.

Round Hill (rh)

Moderately inclined to steep hills and slopes on Bega Batholith granitics.

Local relief 140–200 m, altitude 780–1 202 m, slopes >20%. Rock outcrop as tors often >25%.

Open-forest to tall open-forest, uncleared.

Shallow (<15 cm), rapidly drained Lithosols, shallow to moderately deep (30–>90 cm), rapidly to well-drained Earthy Sands, and shallow to moderately deep (>40 cm), moderately well-drained Yellow Earths on steep slopes. Shallow to moderately deep (<80 cm), moderately to slowly drained Red Podzolic Soils and Yellow Podzolic Soils on moderately steep slopes

Shallow, stony, non-cohesive infertile acid soils, with low available water-holding capacity and aluminium toxicity potential on steep slopes with moderate sheet erosion hazard and mass movement hazard

6.7.2.1 Potential impacts and recommendations

Investigations undertaken to inform this PEA suggest that the potential for site contamination is low; however, it is still suggested the following management methods be considered:

• ACM removed and disposed by an adequately licenced contractor • baseline assessment of water quality of the creeks within the proposed development site to allow any changes to

water quality be monitored and appropriately addressed • development and implementation of a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) including

measures to minimise runoff and sedimentation of creeks and streams within the proposed development site • CEMP would include measures to minimise soil disturbance and ensure polluted and sediment laden water is not

discharged into downstream waterways • avoid clearing vegetation on areas likely to erode and contribute to degrading water quality, where possible • restrict construction vehicles to access roads where possible to reduce disturbance of soil which may increase the

sediment load of runoff • undertake water quality monitoring prior to commencing works to provide a baseline for monitoring of the

proposed development site during construction and operation. Water quality testing should include total


101


31 March 2020

suspended solids, total phosphorus, total nitrogen, pH, electrical conductivity, temperature, enterococci, and turbidity -especially during / after rainfall events

• water quantity assessment to confirm suitability for abstraction during construction, if this option is maintained • sealing of relevant access roads, or sheeting of roads with suitably sized gravel to avoid erosion in susceptible areas • stabilise and rehabilitate / revegetate disturbed areas as soon as practicable • installation of rainwater collection tanks for use by the proposed development site office • development of an unexpected finds protocol • preparation of a Hazardous Materials Management Plan prior to the commencement of construction on the

proposed development site detailing storage arrangements for fuels, oils and other substances • placement of liquid storage areas away from waterways and drainage channels, and within bunded areas to

minimise pollution incidents resulting from spills.

We do not predict that water management issues would adversely constrain the feasibility of the proposed Elysian development. Existing creeks within the site present an opportunity to use a locally available resource in construction to eliminate the need to transport water to the site. EWF would obtain all required licences to use water for construction purposes under separate application.


102


31 March 2020

6.8 Waste 6.8.1 Waste streams There are no registered contaminated sites from the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) within the proposed Elysian development area, nor are there any records of naturally occurring asbestos. There is the potential for the site to have buried rubbish and informal landfills from past agricultural practices, which can contain contaminates such as herbicides, disused batteries and heavy metals. If these are encountered during construction without appropriate management measures in place, they may present health issues.

While waste generated by the ongoing operation of the proposed development would be minimal, we anticipate that construction waste would need to be appropriately managed to minimise safety, fire and environmental hazards (Table 6-12).

Table 6-12. Indicative waste streams

WASTE TYPE GENERATED BY STRATEGY FOR REUSE OR DISPOSAL

Excavated material Excavating for footings, access roads and levelling for substations

Reuse for backfilling and road construction if possible.

Cleared vegetation Clearing and trimming of vegetation Mulching and reuse on-site

Timber Formwork, packaging Reuse where possible or dispose of in a Council-approved landfill

Excess concrete Inefficient ordering / on-site batching

Recycle or dispose of in a Council-approved landfill

Scrap metal Reinforcement and cut-off Collect and recycle

Waste oil, lubricants Maintenance of turbines Dispose through commercial chemical contractor

Office waste Site office Reuse on-site, recycle through contractor

Sanitary waste systems Temporary toilet facilities (e.g. Port-a-loo) Managed through contactor

General rubbish Construction workers Sorted for recycling and/or disposed of in a Council-approved landfill, Contractor to collect

6.8.2 Potential impacts and recommendations Given the isolated nature of the proposed Elysian development site, appropriate management, storage and disposal of waste during both construction and operation of the wind farm is an important consideration. To minimise waste generation on-site, contractors and employees would be encouraged to efficiently order construction and office waste, reuse and recycle waste where possible and appropriately dispose of waste which is unable to be reused on-site by way of regular commercial collection by licenced contractors.

Waste generated by construction and operation of the proposed development would be minimal and that the site can be appropriately managed to prioritise recycling and reuse of materials where possible and minimise impact on landfill. The proposed development is expected to generate minimal waste during operation. However, waste will be an important consideration once the Elysian development matures and must be decommissioned.

A detailed Waste Management Plan (WMP) would be completed as part of the EIS.


103


31 March 2020

6.9 Cumulative impacts The Wind Energy Guideline requires consideration of the cumulative impact the proposed development and any other existing constructed or approved wind farms may have on the local area in relation to visual amenity, noise, biodiversity and traffic.

The significant +50 km of separation between the proposed Elysian development and the closest turbine in the Boco Rock wind farm would minimise cumulative visual impact. Boco Rock Wind Farm is not visible, even in good weather, from high points on the proposed Elysian development site. Topography and vegetation between the sites provide interruption of the viewshed.

The VIA Bulletin requires the establishment of a ‘visibility distance zone’ - a range of distance zones from selected viewpoints where turbines and ancillary infrastructure would be visible. It is anticipated that the VIA in the EIS would not need to assess any view corridors in the two sites, and from viewpoints further afield looking back at the two sites, as the wind farm sites are not within 8 km of each other.

It is anticipated that the proposed Elysian development would have the following beneficial impacts on the local and regional area:

• contribution to the local economy through creating jobs for contractors during construction and ongoing employment during operation

• demand for secondary services in the local area during construction • securing additional renewable energy sources to meet electricity demand in the wider community.

6.9.1 Management We do not anticipate that cumulative impacts associated with the introduction of a second wind farm to the area would generate the need for specific management practices.

6.9.2 Predicted Outcome We predict that the separation between the proposed Elysian development and Boco Rock wind farm is enough to ensure that there are no cumulative effects arising within the local environment. As such, EWF does not anticipate further consideration of this impact is required.

Figure 6-27 shows the distance and terrain between the proposed Elysian development and Boco Rock wind farm, which is the closest constructed or approved existing wind farm to the proposed development site, located more than 50 km to the south-west. As Boco Rock Wind Farm is located more than 8 km away from the proposed development site, a detailed cumulative impact assessment including this wind farm is not considered warranted; however, this will be assessed further in the EIS.

!P

Boco

Cooma

Yowrie

Tuross

Myalla

Maffra

Arable

Kybeyan

Bemboka

Winifred

NumbuggaBungarby

Rock Flat

Polo Flat

Ironmungy

Dangelong

Coonerang

Bobundara

Wadbilliga

Nimmitabel

Holts Flat

Greenlands

Carlaminda

Upper Brogo

Springfield

Pine ValleyCoolringdon

The Brothers

Steeple Flat

Mount Cooper

Cootralantra

Yankees Creek

Morans Crossing

Monaro

Highway

Snowy Mountains Highway



¹LEGEND

!P Boco Rock Wind Farm

Site Boundary


FIG NO. 6-26 DATE 06/03/2020


PAGE SIZE A4

0 3 6 91.5

Km1:300,000

Location: \\AUSYFSV003\Group\projects\30018002 - Elysian Wind Farm EIS\100 DATA\GIS\Maps\PEA\30012635_PEA_Fig06_24_Location of the Proposed Development Relative to Boco Rock Wind Farm.mxd


FIGURE TITLE Location of the Proposed Development Relative toBoco Rock Wind Farm


Preliminary environmental risk identification

105


31 March 2020

7 Preliminary environmental risk identification Table 7-1 presents a preliminary list of key risks to the environment and measures to manage those risks. This would be updated during the preparation of the EIS, once additional information is obtained. This list would inform the development of a project risk register, which would be a key management tool to be reviewed regularly and revised as required to guide a proactive approach to effectively managing issues and risks during wind farm construction and operation.

Table 7-1. Preliminary environmental risk assessment

Factor Potential Impact Likelihood Consequence Risk Management Residual Likelihood

Residual Consequence

Residual Risk

Landscape Visual Amenity

Visibility of turbines, access roads, powerlines, substations

Almost Certain Major Significant

Landscape screening where required Selected location of turbines Location of roads follow contours

Likely Moderate High

Adverse impact on view corridors from major roads

Almost Certain Major Significant

Landscape screening where required Selected location of turbines Location of roads follow contours

Likely Moderate High

Shadow flicker Nuisance to residential properties

Possible Moderate Medium Separation from sensitive receivers Unlikely Minimal Negligible

Blade Glint and Reflectivity

Distraction to drivers Possible Moderate Medium Matt paint on blades

Maintenance schedule Unlikely Minimal Negligible

Noise (Construction) Excessive noise Possible Minor Low Separation from sensitive receivers Unlikely Minimal Negligible

Noise (Operation) Excessive noise Unlikely Minimal Negligible Separation from sensitive receivers Unlikely Minimal Negligible

Electromagnetic Fields

Excessive electromagnetic noise / interference

Possible Moderate Medium

Placement of equipment Undergrounding cabling Security exclusion fencing

Unlikely Minor Very Low

Vibration (Construction)

Excessive vibration Possible Moderate Medium Separation from

sensitive receivers Unlikely Minor Very Low


106


31 March 2020



Residual Risk

Maintenance schedule

Vibration (Operation) Excessive vibration Remote Minimal Negligible

Separation from sensitive receivers Maintenance schedule

Remote Minimal Negligible

Biodiversity

Disturbance of threatened species, communities and habitat

Almost certain Major Significant

Avoidance of sensitive areas. Minimisation of footprint

Almost certain Moderate Very High#

Loss of threatened species, communities and habitat

Almost certain Major Significant

Avoidance of sensitive areas. Minimisation of footprint

Almost certain Moderate Very High#

Loss of native vegetation

Almost certain Moderate Very High

Avoidance of sensitive areas and remnant vegetation. Minimisation of footprint

Almost certain Minor High#

Heritage

Damage to archaeological items and artefacts

Possible Major High

Archaeological assessment, avoiding areas of concern, Unexpected finds protocol


Damage to items or places of significance

Possible Major High Historical assessment, avoiding areas of concern


Fire (Construction)

Works or use of flammable material during construction causing fire

Unlikely Major Very high

Monitor weather during construction to minimise risk, Management Plan with RFS


Fire (Operation)

Malfunctioning of turbine or substation causing fire

Possible Major Very high Maintenance schedule Provide and maintain firefighting equipment

Unlikely Major Medium


107


31 March 2020



Residual Risk

Water (Construction) Reduced water quality in waterways

Likely Major Very high

Minimise soil disturbance and erosion Sedimentation control during construction Revegetate cleared areas where practicable


Water (Operation) Reduced water quality in waterways

Unlikely Major Medium Maintenance of accessways and revegetated surfaces

Unlikely Moderate Low

Air Quality (Construction)

Reduced air quality Unlikely Minor Very low

Dust mitigation during construction Appropriate construction practices Maintenance of construction vehicles

Unlikely Minimal Negligible

Air Quality (Operation)

Reduced air quality Remote Minor Negligible

Maintenance of access roads and maintenance vehicles

Remote Minimal Negligible

Waste (Construction)

Contamination of environment, harm to flora and fauna

Likely Minor Medium

Implement Waste Management Plan Accurate ordering of materials Appropriate disposal and reuse of waste

Likely Minimal Low

Waste (Operation)

Contamination of environment, harm to flora and fauna

Likely Minimal Low

Implement Waste Management Plan Accurate ordering of materials Appropriate disposal and reuse of waste

Likely Minimal Low

Traffic and Transport (Construction)

Disruption of traffic flows, damage to roads and road infrastructure

Almost certain Moderate Very high

Management of deliveries, transportation routes and access points,

Likely Minor Medium


108


31 March 2020



Residual Risk

temporary relocation of road infrastructure

Traffic and Transport (Operation)

Disruption of traffic flows, damage to roads and road infrastructure

Remote Minor Negligible Management of maintenance activities and access points

Remote Minor Negligible

Aviation

Interference with flight paths, air traffic and wind turbulence

Possible Major High

Statutory notification requirements. Appropriate location and height of turbines Distance of site from airports Obstacle lighting/marking Notifying/Educating local pilots

Unlikely Moderate Low

Environment (General)

Cumulative Visual Impacts with BRWF


Siting of turbines to reduce visibility of multiple turbines from sensitive view points

Unlikely Minimal Negligible

#Residual impacts to be addressed through biodiversity offsets.

Conclusion

109


31 March 2020

8 Conclusion The proposed Elysian wind energy development presents an opportunity to increase renewable energy output in NSW. As discussed in this PEA, minimising adverse impacts on the local community has, and will continue to be, a key consideration in the design and layout of the proposed Elysian development turbine layout. Design development to date has sought to minimise potential adverse impacts on nearby national parks and reserves, considered the location of turbines and roads to minimise potential adverse impacts on the environment, threatened species and their habitats, and appropriate location of turbine infrastructure to minimise the visual intrusiveness of the proposed wind farm on residential and from key public viewpoints.

EWF is committed to minimising potential long term economic, visual and environmental adverse impacts on the local area and changes that may be required in consultation with state agencies and the DP&E would continue to be undertaken. EWF is also committed to continue to work with residents and preliminary consultation with the community has shown support for the project.

This proposed site is favourable for the development of a wind farm with:

• consistent and adequate wind speed • proximity to high voltage transmission lines and uncomplicated connection to the existing electricity grid • isolation from residential properties and high population densities • proximity to natural water sources • ready access to existing highway infrastructure for construction, turbine delivery and emergency access • limited clearing required of natural wooded vegetation.

We respectfully request that the detailed discussion presented in this document be considered in the preparation of site-specific SEARs.

References

110


31 March 2020

References Australian Bureau of Statistics (2016a), Quick Stats: Kybeyan, http://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/SSC12224?opendocument , 2nd January, 2019

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2016b), Quick Stats: Nimmitabel, http://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/SSC12966?opendocument, accessed 2nd January, 2019

Australian Government, Environmental health: wind farms, National Health and Research Council, https://nhmrc.gov.au/health-advice/environmental-health/wind-farms visited 4th January 2019

Australian Government (2018), Best practice, National Wind Farm Commissioner, https://www.nwfc.gov.au/publications/best-practice, accessed 14th January, 2019

Australian Government (2016c) What is a bushfire? Geosciences Australia, Australian Government, Symonston, Australian Capital Territory. Site accessed 14 October 2016. http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/hazards/bushfire/basics/what

Bishop ID (2002), Determination of Thresholds of Visual Impact: The Case of Wind Turbines, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 29, pp 707-18

Boot PG (1996a) Aspects of Prehistoric Change in the South Coast Hinterland of New South Wales. Tempus 6: 63-79

Boot PG (1996b) Pleistocene Sites in the South Coast Hinterland of New South Wales. Tempus 6: 275-288

Boot PG (2002) Didthul, Gulaga and Wadbilliga: An archaeological study of the Aboriginals of the New South Wales South Coast hinterland. Unpublished PhD thesis, The Australian National University

Clean Energy Council (2018), Project Tracker, https://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/resources/project-tracker accessed 3rd January, 2019

Clean Energy Council (2018a), Technologies: Wind, https://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/resources/technologies/wind accessed 3rd January, 2019

Clean Energy Council (2018), Electricity initiatives, https://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/advocacy-initiatives/electricity-prices accessed 3rd January, 2019

Clean Energy Council (2013) Best practice guidelines. For implementation of wind energy projects in Australia. Clean Energy Council, Melbourne, Victoria.

Comber J (1988) Ngarigo Quarries: A Lithics Survey and Analysis on the Monaro Tablelands, NSW. Unpublished Litt B. Thesis, Dept of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University

Costin A (1954) A study of the ecosystems of the Monaro region of New South Wales. Sydney: Australian Government Printer.

Dearling C (2004) Preliminary Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment, Selected Nature Reserves, Monaro Region, Unpublished Report to NSW NPWS Snowy Mountains Region, Charles Dearling Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultants, Weetangera ACT.

Dearling C (2007) Proposed Rural Subdivision of Lot 1 DP 652089, Lot 39 DP 750546, Lots 16, 17, 20, 23, 33 36, 52, 53, 56, 108 and 109 DP 752214, Tuross Road, Kybeyan, NSW. Report to Guy Dawson.

Deloitte (2018), Statutory Review of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation: report prepared for the Department of Environment, https://www.cefc.com.au/media/402001/cefc-statutory-review-deloitte-october-2018.pdf

Dibden J (2005) Kybeyan Fence Realignment Project, Lone Pine, Wadbilliga National Park Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment. Report to NGH Environmental

Dibden J (2009) Boco Rock Wind Farm. Report to Wind Prospect.

Dibden J (2010) Proposed Maintenance Work – Wadbilliga Road, Wadbilliga National Park; Indigenous Archaeological Assessment. Report to NGH Environmental.

http://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/SSC12224?opendocument




https://nhmrc.gov.au/health-advice/environmental-health/wind-farms

https://www.nwfc.gov.au/publications/best-practice

http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/hazards/bushfire/basics/what

http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/hazards/bushfire/basics/what

https://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/resources/project-tracker

https://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/resources/technologies/wind

https://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/advocacy-initiatives/electricity-prices

https://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/advocacy-initiatives/electricity-prices

https://www.cefc.com.au/media/402001/cefc-statutory-review-deloitte-october-2018.pdf

References

111


31 March 2020

Dibden J (2015) Kybeyan Radio Tower and Tuross Falls Road Maintenance, Wadbilliga National Park, via Cooma and Nimmitabel, NSW: Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report. Report to Bombala Area, PWG, NSW OEH.

Environment Protection and Heritage Council (Draft 2010) National wind farm development guidelines. Environment Protection and Heritage Council, Adelaide, South Australia

Early Warning Network (2018), Kybeyan, http://ewn.com.au/fire/bushfire-advice-dangelong-rd-kybeyan-nsw-370729.fire, accessed 10th January, 2019

Feary S (1996) An Aboriginal Burial with Grave Goods near Cooma, NSW. Australian Archaeology 43: 40-42

Flood J (1980) The Moth Hunters: Aboriginal Prehistory of The Australian Alps. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra

Flood J, David B, Magee J, English B (1987) Birrigai: A Pleistocene Site in south-eastern highlands - Archaeology. Oceania. 22: 9-26

Gould RA (1977) Ethnoarchaeology; or, Where Do Models Come From? Wright, R.V.S.1977: 162-8

Hiscock P, Mitchell S (1993) Stone Artefact. Quarries and Reduction Sites in Australia: Towards a Type Profile. Australian Heritage Commission Technical Publications Series No.4. AGPS, Canberra

IRENA (2018) Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2018. International Renewable Energy Agency

Jennings J, Mabbutt J (1977) Physiographic outlines and regions. Jeans D (ed): Australia: A Geography. Sydney University Press; Sydney: PP 38 – 52.

Jones R, White N (1988) Point Blank: Stone Tool Manufacture at the Ngilipidji Quarry, Arnhem Land 1981.Meehan and Jones (eds) 1988 Archaeology with Ethnography: an Australian perspective. Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, ANU, Canberra. pp 51-87

Kellner T (2014) How Loud is a Wind Turbine, GE Global Research and National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. Site accessed 9 December 2016. https://cleantechnica.com/2011/12/02/wind-turbine-noise-hurdles/

Lampert RJ (1971) Burrill Lake and Currarong: Coastal Sites in Southern New South Wales. Terra Australis No 1. Canberra

Lewis PC, Glen RA (1995) Bega-Mallacoota 1:250,000 Geological Sheet SJ/55-8. Geological Survey of NSW, Sydney

McBryde I (1984) Kulin greenstone quarries: the social contexts of production and distribution at the Mt. William site. In World Archaeology 16(2): 267-85

NSW Government (2013), Compilation map: Biometric vegetation types and endangered ecological communities of the Shoalhaven, Eurobodalla & Bega Valley local government areas. A living map. Version 2.0. Technical Report. NSW Office of Environment & Heritage, Queanbeyan, Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney, NSW

NSW Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability & New South Wales. Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability (issuing body.) 2006, The New South Wales wind atlas, Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability, Sydney.

NSW Government (2015), Transmission infrastructure strategy, Department of Planning and Environment, https://energy.nsw.gov.au/renewables/clean-energy-initiatives/transmission-infrastructure-strategy accessed 3rd January 2019

NSW Government (2016) Wind Energy: Assessment Policy. Department of Planning and Environment, NSW Government, Sydney, New South Wales.

NSW Government (2016b) Wind Energy: Noise Assessment Bulletin. Department of Planning and Environment, NSW Government, Sydney, New South Wales.

NSW Government (2016a) Wind Energy: Visual Impact Assessment Bulletin. Department of Planning and Environment, NSW Government, Sydney, New South Wales.

NSW Government (2016c), Wind Energy Guideline for State Significant Development, Department of Planning and Environment, Sydney, New South Wales

http://ewn.com.au/fire/bushfire-advice-dangelong-rd-kybeyan-nsw-370729.fire

http://ewn.com.au/fire/bushfire-advice-dangelong-rd-kybeyan-nsw-370729.fire

https://cleantechnica.com/2011/12/02/wind-turbine-noise-hurdles/

https://cleantechnica.com/2011/12/02/wind-turbine-noise-hurdles/

https://energy.nsw.gov.au/renewables/clean-energy-initiatives/transmission-infrastructure-strategy

References

112


31 March 2020

Pain C, Gregory L, Wilson P, McKenzie N (2011) The Physiographic Regions of Australia: Explanatory Notes. Australian Collaborative Land Evaluation Program and National Committee on Soil and Terrain

Roads and Maritime Services (2017) Schedule of Classified Roads and Unclassified Regional Roads https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/business-industry/partners-suppliers/lgr/documents/classified-roads-schedule.pdf

Rural Fire Service NSW (2009), Bush Fire Risk Management Plan, Snowy Monaro Bush fire Management Committee, https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/2629/Snowy-Monaro-BFRMP.pdf

Shang H and Bishop ID (2000), Visual Threshold for Detection, Recognition and Visual Impact in Landscape Settings, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 20 oo125

South Australia Environmental Protection Authority (2009), Wind Farm Environmental Noise Guidelines, Adelaide, South Australia

Sullivan RG et al (2012), Wind Turbine Visibility and Visual Impact Threshold Distances in Western Landscapes, Argonne National Laboratory and the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, USA

Taylor G (1994) A History of the Geological Exploration of the Monaro with Particular Reference to the Cainozoic and Landscape Evolution. in K.G. McQueen (ed) The Tertiary Geology and Geomorphology of the Monaro: The Perspective in 1994. Centre for Australian Regolith Studies, Occasional Publication No.2. pp 1-19

Tozer M Turner K Keith D Tindall D Pennay C Simpson C MacKenzie B Beukers P Cox S (2010) Native vegetation of southeast NSW: a revised classification and map for the coast and eastern tablelands. Cunninghamia 11(3): 359-406

US Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (2018), Inside of a Wind Turbine, https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/inside-wind-turbine-0, accessed 2nd January 2019

WaterNSW (2018), Real-time data: https://realtimedata.waternsw.com.au/, accessed 10th January, 2019

Williams D (2017) Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence Assessment: Lot 1 DP 1192576, Kybeyan, South East NSW. Report to Mr G.Dawson.

Williams D (2018) Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Assessment: Proposed Granite Hills Wind Farm, Nimmitabel, NSW. Report to Granite Hills Wind Farm Pty Ltd.

https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/business-industry/partners-suppliers/lgr/documents/classified-roads-schedule.pdf

https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/2629/Snowy-Monaro-BFRMP.pdf

https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/inside-wind-turbine-0

https://realtimedata.waternsw.com.au/

Appendix A Elevation profile transects


SMEC Internal Ref. [Status] 31 March 2020

Appendix A Elevation profile transects


FIGURE TITLE Relief of the Proposed Development Site - Transect LinesFIG NO. 2-1


Location: \\AUSYFSV003\Group\projects\30018002 - Elysian Wind Farm EIS\100 DATA\GIS\Maps\PEA\30012635_PEA_Fig02_01_Elevation Profile.mxd


PAGE SIZE A4


Tuross

River

KybeyanRiver

Kybe

yan

River

Turos

sR iv

er

TurossRiver

Tuross

River

Turos

s Rive

r

JibolaroCreek

Tuross

River

0 10.5

Km1:45,000


LEGENDSite Boundary

North-South Trasect Line

East-West Trasect Line

¹


Appendix B Communications Log



Appendix B Communications Log

Elysian Wind Farm community protocol: Since 2017 the then proponents of the wind farm development have been in dialogue with neighboring properties regarding the development and participation. A number of the neighboring and surrounding properties are not permanently habited as they are weekenders, bush block, holiday units or managed/owned by farming conglomerates. Consequently, it has not been possible to contact a number of residents at the property as they were not present when representatives visited, gates were locked and contact details not traceable by ordinary means. Snowy Monaro Council has sent a notice and news letter to all rate payers within the catchment area of the wind farm in order to capture nonresident dwelling owners. About 100 flyers/brochures has been distributed up and down Tuross road, Kybeyan road including sides roads such as Green and Hain’s rd. and to relevant properties from Kybeyan road to Nimmitable along the proposed transmission easement. There have been very few concerns raised in response to visits, telephone conversations and flyer distribution. Mostly the people are positive or agnostic only one has expressed to be against renewables in general but not hostile to the development. The local mailman and publican in Nimmitable have been consulted with regards to identification of dwellings and their owner and occupation status. He has not mentioned that any concerns have been raised or discussed with him on his mail route nor at his pub. Both pubs and the café in Nimmitable are informed about the development and their opinions sought. A number of local’s have been or are involved in various activities at the Dawson farm and the development in general. These are local’s that have business activities across the broader Kybeyan and Tuross area and are in regular contact with the residence of the great area. Several business and community groups in Nimmitable has been met face to face and information about the project has been exchanged. Based on the proponents and associate’s activities we are confident that the broader community is well informed about the proposed development. During the next phase of the development community engagement is planned to be ramped up and public information meetings will be conducted to inform the local residents about the proposed development and the impact it may have on the area.

SMEC Property No 1

432 Tuross Road

Same address as no. 29 & 30 Owner Jibolora estate (29), mentioned that there is no residence at these coordinates

Correspondence and meetings with owner about possible WTG hosting. Agnostic to WF’s, have no issues with visual, no noise at the distance

SMEC Property No 2

1140 Tuross Road – Wirraway

Holiday property Flyer drop

SMEC Property No 3

1142 Tuross Road - Langdon

Farm or life stle block. Unable to contact, so far Flyer drop

SMEC Property No 4

1144 Tuross Road - Blackwood

Unable to detect dwelling type If mail box then – flyer drop

SMEC Property No 5

1171 Tuross Road – Jenda

Appears not permanently occupied

If mail box then – flyer drop

SMEC Property No 6

1191 Tuross Road – Misty Brae


If mail box then – flyer drop

SMEC Property No 7

1265 Tuross Road Chaddlewood

Farm, permanently Habited

Several phone conversations, additional information posted Not a supporter of renewable energy

SMEC Property No 8

1302 Tuross Road

Advised by postman; bush block – no mail delivered

Flyer drop

SMEC Property No 9

1380 Tuross Road

Permanently habited

Flyer drop, nobody home when visited, no reaction to flyers or council note

SMEC Property No 10

1402 Tuross Road

Farm related building, habitation unknown

Flyer drop

SMEC Property No 11

1418 Tuross Road – Railway Carriage

Advised by postman as vacant

Flyer drop

SMEC Property No 12

1454 Tuross Road – Tuppence

Holiday property, Friendly neighbor relations, correspondence, telephone conversations. Flyer drop, noise monitor accepted

SMEC Property No 13

1484 Tuross Road – Tarnakeeta

Appears habited

Flyer drop, no response to flyers or council note

SMEC Property No 14

1555 Tuross Road – Tuross

Farm, permanently Habited

Flyer drop, no response to flyer or council note

SMEC Property No 16

1797 Tuross Road –Karlaeila


Flyer drop, no response to flyer or council note.

SMEC Property No 17

1862 Tuross Road

Permanently Habited

Owned by participating land owner. Not opposed.

SMEC Property 18 2027 Tuross Road The property is owners tracked, life style block. .

Flyer has been dropped in mail box. Owners have been tracked, anti-wind campaigners.

SMEC Property No 19

2027 Tuross Road

Appears to be a bush block with same entrance as (18), however there is only 1 mail box

Flyer’s have been dropped in mail box. Owners not tracked or responding to flyers or council note.

SMEC Property No 20

2107 Tuross Road – Blacka Cottage

Holiday cabin

Flyer drop, meet owner and discussed noise monitor. Not interested.

SMEC Property 21 66 Wadbiliga rd Bush block or barn Private road access, no mail box SMEC Property 22 1364 Tuross road House partly obscured by tree,

with no visible access track. Flyer will have been dropped in mail box if any.

SMEC Property No 23

222 McCarthys Road

Farm, Permanently Habited

Telephone, conversations, visited, unsupportive.

SMEC Property No 24

260 McCarthys Road

Farm, Permanently Habited

Meetings, telephone conversations, lease discussions regarding WTG hosting

SMEC Property No 25

248 Hains Road South Mole Station

Managed Farm Telephone conversations, e mails, lease negotiations as potential WTG host. Met farm manger. Not opposed to WF

SMEC Property No 26

174 Old Dangelong Road, Farm, Undetermined status at this time

No contact, no access road to be found or seen on satellite images.

SMEC Property No 27

2029 Kybeyan Road

The Kybeyan community hall, not a residence.

Community consultation meeting held here.

SMEC Property No 28

306 Old Kybeyan Road, South Wondallee

Farm, permanently habited

Met with owner, telephone and e mail correspondence. Concerned about visual impact.

SMEC Property No 29

432 Tuross Road #2

Jibolora estate owner’s residence

Same address as 2 other dwellings. Meetings and e mail correspondence, see note under prop.1

SMEC Property No 30

432 Tuross Road #3

Owned by Jibolora estate, farm mangers residence

Same address as 2 other dwellings. Same owner as (1) & (29)

SMEC Property Number 31

247 Hains Road

Bush bock

Flyer drop, no response to flyer or council note.


204 Hains Road - Lazy Acres

Permanently Habited farm Flyer drop, attended community meeting. Anti-Wind campaigner.


166 Hains Road – Pinewood

Pinewood, owned by South Mole 248 Hains Road

Met on farm, flyer drop, positive to WF, phone calls.


2245 Kybeyan Road

Permanently Habited

Several meeting, phone calls and correspondence. Contemplated hosting turbines but backed out.


1316 Tuross road

Holiday/hobby farm, Flyer drop, no response to flyer or council note.


1995 Tuross Road

Bush block, no visible tracks or roads.

Flyer drop if mail box at road. No response to flyer or council note.


59 The Avenue Permanently Habited

Owner nearby farmer – informed of EWF

SMEC Property 38

193 The Avenue

Farm, permanently habited

New owner met at community meeting in Feb.20

SMEC Property 39

2097 Kybeyan road Kybeyan station Owned by same owner as (1), (29) & (30)

SMEC property 40 1935 Kybeyan road Farm, permanently habited Flyers, meeting, telephone conversations.

SMEC property 41 457 The Avenue Managed farm E mail and phone calls with owner, owner present at community meeting in Dec. 19. Concerned about proximity to air strip.

SMEC property 42 1416 Tuross Road Holiday farm Informed of EWF, expressed concerns whether noise might be a problem. Requested information as project evolves, concerned about visual impact. Does not want noise monitors or visual photographer on property.

SMEC property 43 1974 Tuross road, Waratah Permanently habited Unsupportive of EWF Concerns regarding possible speeding traffic. Discussions during July and September, concerned about property values at community meeting Dec.19.

SMEC property 44 117 Greens Road Permanently habited Visited, informed about EWF. Thought they may be able to hear the WTGs. Not supportive.

SMEC Property No 45-46

314 Greens Road, 2 residences Permanently Habited

Owner looks after the EWF site, help EWF main landowner and run cattle on EWF farm.

SMEC property 47 Tuross rd across fr. Green rd. Holiday cabin Flyers and notes left, responded by e mail Feb. 20 to meet at next visit.

SMEC property 48 1860 Tuross road Holiday cabin Flyers, note from council – no response.

SMEC property 49 1866 Tuross road Holiday cabin Flyers, note from council – no response.

SMEC property 50 1868 Tuross road Stakeholder house Participating landowner SMEC property 51 1147 Tuross road, Nadjongbilia Farm house across river Flyers, note from council – no

response SMEC property 52 8 Tuross road Undetermined building Unable to contact, no mail box 1414 Tuross Road Bush block, flyer no response 857 Tuross Road Farm, Permanently Habited

Flyer drop and visited.

1991 Tuross Road Kybeyan Information flyer delivered during March

Federal Hotel Nimmitable Information provided. In favor The Royal Arms Nimmitabel Information provided. In favor Below properties relates The transmission line Eblana 1023 Kybeyan Road

Permanently Habited

Information provided, including details of proposed community power line upgrade. Not opposed,

enquired if they could host WTGs

Fern Hill 1155 Kybeyan Road Information provided, including details of proposed community power line upgrade.

Parkside Cottage 1044 Kybeyan Road

Information provided, including details of proposed community power line upgrade. Recently sold property

Kydra 1044 Kybeyan Road Permanently Habited

Same owner as Parkside Cottage

736 Kybeyan Road Permanently Habited

Owner Flyer drop, nobody home when visited


Flyer drop, nobody home when visited

739 Kybeyan Road Holiday house Not permanently occupied, information provided

740 Kybeyan Road Holiday house Not permanently occupied, information provided


Several discussions during 2018. Information provided, including details of proposed community power line upgrade.

2074 Tom Groggin Road Nimmitabel

Information provided, including details of proposed community power line upgrade.





Sunnybrook 637 Old Bega Road Nimmitabel

Information flyer drop during March 2019

79 Kybeyan Road, Winifred Information provided, including details of proposed community power line upgrade.



Hurlestone 530 Kybeyan Road Winifred

Information provided, including details of proposed

752 Kybeyan Road, Kybeyan Information provided, including details of proposed community power line upgrade.

Kydra Bend Kybeyan Road, Winifred

Information provided, including details of proposed

community power line upgrade.


Kybeyan Road Winifred Information provided, including details of proposed community power line upgrade.

Old Belmont ,58 Bells Road, Winifred


Bell Mont, 42 Bells Road Winifred


729 Kybeyan Road Winifred Information provided, including details of proposed community power line upgrade.

community power line upgrade.

Phoenix Springs Kybeyan Road, Winifred


Kydra River Homestead, Kybeyan Road, Winifred



836 Kybeyan Road, Winifred Information flyer delivered during March

Stanhenge, 1040 Kybeyan Road, Winifred

Permanently Habited

Information flyer delivered during March

17 Old Kybeyan Road Information flyer delivered during September.

Appendix C Cooma-Monaro LEP Riparian Land



Appendix C Cooma-Monaro LEP Riparian Land

Appendix D Preliminary Noise Level Predictions



Appendix D Preliminary Noise Level Predictions

Acoustics • Air Quality • EMF • Light Spill • Vibration

S190274LT1A

www.resonate-consultants.com 1 of 7

Friday, 20 March 2020 Project number: S190274 Reference: S190274LT1 Rev A Mark Davey SMEC Australia Pty Ltd Level 5, 20 Berry Street North Sydney NSW 2060 Dear Mark, Elysian Wind Farm Preliminary Noise Level Prediction

1 Introduction This letter contains updated information about preliminary noise level predictions from the proposed Elysian wind farm at nearby sensitive receptor locations. It presents predicted levels at the receptors and a noise contour map with noise levels in dB(A). The objectives of this assessment are to undertake a preliminary assessment of noise from the wind farm operation to inform future planning stage assessments. The assessment is based on wind turbine noise criteria determined in accordance with the NSW Wind Energy: Noise

Assessment Bulletin (NSW Bulletin).

2 Background levels and criteria Background noise level monitoring was conducted in 6 locations (see Appendix A) in December 2019 and January 2020. The data has been analysed in accordance with the NSW Bulletin and the results correlated with hub height wind speed at the wind farm site are provided in Table 1. Table 1 Measured background levels

Location Measured background noise level in dB(A) for hub height wind speed in m/s

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

L1 22 22 23 24 25 27 28 29 31 32 33 33

L2 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 30 30 30 30 30

L3 22 23 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 30

L4 24 24 25 25 26 27 28 28 29 30 30 30

L5 24 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 30 30 30 29

L6 21 23 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 34 36 38

The NSW Bulletin states that:

The predicted equivalent noise level (LAeq,10 minute), adjusted for tonality and low frequency noise in

accordance with these guidelines, should not exceed 35 dB(A) or the background noise (LA90,10 minute) by

more than 5 dB(A), whichever is greater, at all relevant receivers for wind speed from cut-in to rated power of

the wind turbine generator and each integer wind speed in between.


S190274LT1A


Based on the above, Table 2 presents the criteria for each of the logging locations for wind speeds from 3 to 14 m/s, which corresponds to the range of cut-in to rated power of typical wind turbines. Table 2 Criteria based on background noise measurements

Location Criteria in dB(A) for hub height wind speed in m/s

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

L1 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 36 37 38 38

L2 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35

L3 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35

L4 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35

L5 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35

L6 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 36 37 39 41 43

As the background levels were generally under 30 dB(A), the criteria for most locations and wind speeds will be 35 dB(A), with the exception of higher wind speeds at Location 1 and Location 6. At 9 m/s, which corresponds to the lowest wind speed at which many wind turbines reach their maximum sound power level, the noise criterion is 35 dB(A) for all monitoring locations.

3 Preliminary assessment of wind turbine noise

3.1 Prediction methodology SMEC has advised that the potential Wind Turbine Generator (WTG) model would be similar to a Vestas V162-5.6 MW, which has the following properties: • Rotor diameter of 162 m • Serrated trailing edge • A maximum sound power level of 104.0 dB(A) • A hub height of 149 m • A planned tip height maximum (ground to tip of vertical blade) of 230 m Table 3 presents the octave band sound power level spectrum upon which this assessment is based, which correspond to the sound data of a 5.6 MW WTG at the lowest rated power wind speed of 14 m/s. Table 3 5.6 MW WTG sound power level spectrum

Hub height wind

speed

Sound power level in dB(A) at octave band centre frequency in Hz Overall

m/s 8 16 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 dB(A)

14 45.7 61.7 74.8 85.1 92.6 97.2 99.1 98.1 94.8 87.7 78.3 104.0


S190274LT1A


To predict wind farm noise levels from Elysian Wind Farm, an environmental noise model has been developed in SoundPLAN version 8.1 environmental noise prediction software. The noise model implements the ISO 9613-2:19961 prediction algorithm with corrections as recommended by the UK Institute of Acoustics A Good Practice Guide to the

Application of ETSU-R-97 for the Assessment and Rating of Wind Turbine Noise (Good Practice Guide) In accordance with standard prediction procedures for wind farm noise, predictions have been undertaken on the basis of the following parameters: • WTG and residence locations as per the coordinates detailed in Appendix A. • Topographical contours provided by ELVIS - Elevation - Foundation Spatial Data. • Ground absorption factor of 50% representing mixed reflective and absorptive ground. This corresponds to a

value of G = 0.5 in accordance with ISO 9613-2:1996. • Receiver height of 1.5 m above ground. • Temperature of 10˚C and relative humidity of 70%. • +3 dB applied to the predicted noise level from any WTG where concave topography observed as per the UK

Institute of Acoustics Good Practice Guide definition • Topographical shielding limited to 2 dB. • Application of a 1 dB uncertainty factor to the predicted noise levels to account for any future variation in WTG

sound power level. This prediction methodology is in accordance with that recommended by the UK Institute of Acoustics Good Practice Guide with the exceptions that: • The Good Practice Guide recommends a receiver height of 4 m above ground rather than 1.5 m above ground.

A receiver height of 4 m above ground would increase predicted noise levels by approximately 1.5 dB. • The Good Practice Guide recommends that 2 dB be subtracted from predicted noise levels to adjust predicted

Leq noise levels to the assessed L90 noise levels. As in the UK, the SA Guidelines also use the L90 metric to quantify wind turbine noise levels but this correction has not been adopted for this assessment.

Given that the above two changes effectively negate each other, the predicted noise levels using the adopted methodology are considered to be consistent with the IoA Good Practice Guide. It is also noted that this methodology has been shown to accurately predicted downwind noise levels for Australian sites with sloping or relatively flat topography.2

3.2 Preliminary prediction results Table 4 on the following page presents the predicted wind turbine noise levels for the preliminary layout at each receptor within 12 km of a WTG location. The predictions are based on the WTGs operating at rated power and for the receptor being downwind of the wind farm. Lower noise levels would generally be expected for lower wind speeds and for situations where the receptor is not downwind of the wind farm. The highest predicted noise level is 41 dB(A) (for a non-associated receptor). A noise contour map showing the predicted noise level contours for the preliminary layout is included as Appendix A. Further planning stage assessments will be carried out and the following will be considered: • Updated wind farm noise predictions to reflect the finalised layout and WTG selections. • Ensuring appropriate noise agreements are in place with associated receptors.

1 International Standard ISO 9613-2, 1996, Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors, Part 2: General method of calculation 2 Evans T & Cooper J, 2012, Comparison of predicted and measured wind farm noise levels and implications for assessments of new wind farms, Acoustics Australia, vol. 40, no. 1, pp 28-36.


S190274LT1A


For this high-level preliminary assessment, receptors that are predicted to have a noise level greater than 35 dB(A) have been highlighted in blue. These receptors are flagged as likely risk of exceedance and would require measures to address the predicted exceedance. Such measures would generally involve: • Implementing appropriate agreements with the landowners of these locations. • Altering the wind farm layout to reduce the predicted noise level to 35 dB(A) by relocating or removing WTGs. • Curtailing wind turbine operation under specific conditions by operating WTGs at lower sound power level

modes. Note that curtailment requirements for particular turbines may be significant if a reduction of more than 2 dB is required at a particular receptor.


S190274LT1A


Table 4 Preliminary wind farm noise predictions in dB(A)

ID Address Preliminary predicted

noise level ID Address

Preliminary predicted

noise level

1 432 Tuross Road #1 31 27 2029 Kybeyan Road 24

2 1140 Tuross Road 30 28 306 Old Kybeyan Road 22

3 1142 Tuross Road 33 29 432 Tuross Road #2 21

4 1144 Tuross Road 29 30 432 Tuross Road #3 18

5 1171 Tuross Road 27 31 247 Hains Rd 20

6 1191 Tuross Road 28 32 204 Hains Road 20

7 1265 Tuross Road 30 33 166 Hains Road 18

8 1302 Tuross Road 33 34 2245 Kybeyan Road 30

9 1380 Tuross Road 35 35 1316 Tuross Road 34


11 1418 Tuross Road 36 37 59 The Avenue 20







18 2027 Tuross Road 35 44 117 Greens Road 38

19 2027 Tuross Road 32 45 314a Greens Road 28

20 2107 Tuross Road 37 46 314b Greens Road 28

21 66 Wadbilliga Road 29 47 2134 Tuross Road 41


23 222 McCarthys Road 26 49 1866 Tuross Road 39

24 260 McCarthys Road 26 501 1868 Tuross Road 42

25 248 Hains Road 19 51 1147 Tuross Road 24

26 174 Old Dangelong Road 16 52 8 Tuross Road 29

(1) Indicates an associated receptor. A criteria of 45 dB(A) would apply for these receptors.


S190274LT1A


Please let me know if you have any questions. Yours sincerely,

Marc Schluessel Acoustic Consultant p+61 2 8355 4888 m+61 415 540 512 [email protected]


S190274LT1A


Appendix A – Preliminary noise contour map

ElysianWindFarmNSW

Drawnby:MS

Checkedby:TE

Dated:March2020

Revision:A

Pagesize:A4

Imagery:(c)Google

BasedonV1624.2MWWTGwithSTEs

onblades

Windturbinegenerators

Receptors

Associatedreceptor

Logginglocations

Noise levels

35

40

45

50

Legend

FigureB1Preliminarywindturbinenoisecontourmap

NOTE:PRELIMINARYLAYOUTONLY

Appendix E Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report



Appendix E Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

Report to Elysian Wind Farm

By

Doug Williams

June 2019

Preliminary Aboriginal Heritage Assessment

Proposed ‘Elysian’ Wind Farm Kybeyan, South East NSW

Disclaimer Any representations, statements, opinions or advice expressed or implied in this document is made in good faith but

provided on the condition that Access Archaeology & Heritage Pty Ltd, its Director, agents or employees are not liable

for any damage or loss whatsoever which has occurred or may occur, in relation to taking or not taking (as the case

may be) action on the basis of those representations, statements or advice.

Doug Williams

Principal Consultant

Document Management

Draft D.Williams to A.Shingler 27/06/19

Access Archaeology & Heritage Pty Ltd PO Box 816 MORYUA NSW 2537

Phone: 0412 997177 E-mail: [email protected]

Page i

Table of Contents

SECTION PAGE

Title Page

Document Management i

Table of Contents ii

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 The Nature of the Development 1

1.3 Project Objectives 1

1.4 Participants 1

2. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK 4

2.1 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) 4

2.2 The Due Diligence Code of Practice for Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales, 2010

4

2.3 The Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979 4

3. ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND 5

4. ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE LOCAL AREA 6

4.1 Ethnohistory 6

4.2 Archaeological Background 8

4.3 AHIMS Search 10

4.4 Model of Site Location 10

5. METHODS 11

6. REGISTER SEARCH AND SITE ASSESSMENT 12

6.1 AHIMS Search 12

6.2 Archaeological Assessment 13

7. CONCLUSIONS 14

8. DUE DILIGENCE DECISION PROCESS 15

9. RECOMMENDATIONS 16

10. REFERENCES 17

Attachment 1. AHIMS Search Results

Preliminary Aboriginal Heritage Assessment: Elysian Windfarm, Kybeyan, NSW

June 2019 Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

This document is a preliminary archaeological assessment of the proposed ‘Elysian’ wind farm (EWF) at

Kybeyan, ~23km north east of Nimmitabel, south east NSW (Figure 1). It considers issues relating to

Aboriginal heritage to the extent required to prepare a Preliminary Environmental Assessment for the EWF

development. Located in the Snowy-Monaro Regional Council LGA, the study area comprises the footprint

of 30 proposed tower locations and connecting infrastructure. The study is a desktop assessment using the

results of prior larger local studies to inform an analysis of archaeological potential.

Access Archaeology & Heritage (AAH) was engaged by Elysian Wind Farm to prepare the assessment.

1.2 The Nature of the Development

At the time of preparing this document there are thirty wind turbine tower locations proposed (Figure 2).

These locations will each have a development footprint of between 0.5 to 1 Ha, and access tracks will need

to be created to the majority with the current layout requiring ~23.5km of linking access tracks (~7ha of

footprint).

1.3 Project Objectives

The objectives of this project were:

Undertake a search of the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) Aboriginal Heritage

Management System (AHIMS) database to determine if there had been any archaeological material

recorded in the subject land.

To undertake a landscape assessment to determine if there are landforms with a high potential to

contain Aboriginal objects and to what extent they coincide with proposed tower locations.

Complete a report on the assessment and present recommendations for any further work required.

1.4 Participants

Heritage Advisor – Doug Williams Bachelor of Arts – Honours (ANU) Graduate Diploma of Applied Science

(University of Canberra), PhD Candidate (Griffith) Doug Williams has been a professional archaeologist and heritage manager since 1992 and has undertaken

large-scale complex archaeological projects in New South Wales, ACT, Western Australia, Victoria and

South Australia. He has qualifications in Australian Aboriginal archaeology and post graduate qualifications

in Cultural Heritage Management. Doug has worked in south east NSW and the Monaro region for many

years, and is a member of the ACT Heritage Council with recognised expertise in archaeology.


June 2019 Page 2

Figure 1. Proposed turbine locations.


June 2019 Page 3

Figure 2. Approximate locations of proposed turbines


June 2019 Page 4

2. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK 2.1 The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW)

In NSW, Aboriginal heritage objects and places are protected mainly by the National Parks and Wildlife Act

1974 (NSW) (the Act) which contains provisions making it illegal to harm Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal

places without appropriate defence or permission. The Act is presently administered by the NSW Office of

Environment and Heritage (OEH). Under definitions provided in the Act:

Aboriginal object means any deposit, object or material evidence (not being a handicraft made for

sale) relating to the Aboriginal habitation of the area that comprises New South Wales, being

habitation before or concurrent with (or both) the occupation of that area by persons of non-

Aboriginal extraction, and includes Aboriginal remains.

Aboriginal place means any place declared to be an Aboriginal place under section 84.

If Aboriginal Objects are harmed, there are two levels of offence that Individuals or corporations may be

faced with. Knowingly or deliberately harming or desecrating Aboriginal places/objects is the higher of the

two levels. Lower level offences are known as ‘strict liability’ offences, that is to say they are offences

regardless of whether or not the offender knew they were harming an Aboriginal object or desecrating an

Aboriginal place. A person or corporation may have a defence against such prosecution where they have:

An Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) authorising the harm (s.87(1))

Exercised due diligence to establish Aboriginal objects will not be harmed (s.87(2))

Due diligence may be demonstrated by following requirements described in the National Parks and Wildlife

Regulation 2009 (the Regulation) or a code of practice adopted or prescribed by the NPW Regulation

(s.87(3)).

2.2 The Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in NSW 2010

The Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (the Code)

describes the process that must be followed to demonstrate due diligence in assessing potential harm to

Aboriginal objects by a proposed development or action. The Due Diligence Code sets out steps required to

make an assessment of whether or not proposed activities may impact Aboriginal objects. These are:

Step 1. Will the activity disturb the ground surface?

Step 2a. Search the AHIMS database and use any other sources of information of which you are

already aware

Step 2b. Is the Activity in an area or areas where landscape features indicate the presence of

Aboriginal objects

Step 3. Can any harm or the activity itself be avoided?

Step 4. Desktop assessment and visual inspection

Step 5. Further investigations and impact assessment

Addressing these questions will determine whether or not Due Diligence obligations for the protection of

Aboriginal objects are satisfied. If they are not, further approval (an AHIP) under the NPW Act is required,

and this may be a recommendation of the Due Diligence study.

2.3 The Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979

The Environment Planning & Assessment Act (NSW) 1979 (EPAA) establishes a planning structure that requires

consideration of environmental impacts of new projects, including impact to Aboriginal cultural heritage. A

proposal classified as State Significant Development (SSD) or State Significant Infrastructure (SSI) under the

EPAA is exempt from the requirement to obtain AHIPs to undertake works that may harm Aboriginal Objects.

Definitions of harm outlined in the NPWA are obviated once a development is classified as SSD or SSI and

permission instead rests with the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment.


June 2019 Page 5

In this process the EPAA requires consideration of possible impact to cultural heritage that may arise from

development activities and while formal AHIPs are not required a formal assessment process must be

documented and it is current practice for this process to follow standards and guidelines established by NSW

OEH for these purposes, in particular those steps outlined in Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation

Requirements for Proponents 2010.

3. ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND The proposed tower locations follow, broadly, the Kybeyan Range, itself part of the Great Dividing Range

which forms the watershed between drainages flowing eastwards to the sea, and those flowing westward

into the Murray-Darling basin – in this instance via minor creeks into the Numeralla River and on into the

Murrumbidgee River. It is on the very eastern edge of the Monaro region, part of the Eastern Uplands of

south eastern Australia (Jennings and Mabbutt 1977). The location is placed into a further subdivision of the

eastern uplands, being Monaro Tableland region of the Kosciuszkan Uplands Province (Pain et al 2011:19).

Containing four distinct sub-regions, the Monaro is an area of high tablelands and mountains (Costin 1954,

Flood 1980). It is bounded by the Kosciuszko Highland in the west, the coastal escarpment in the east and

the Victorian border in the south (Taylor 1994). The northern boundary is less distinct than the other

boundaries, with some researchers including the land up to and including Canberra and Queanbeyan, and

others defining the northern boundary around Bredbo (Tylor 1994:1). The four Monaro areas described by

Costin (1954) are alpine, sub-alpine, montane and tableland, with the study area located in the Tableland.

All of the proposed turbine locations are underlain by early Devonian Glenbog Granodiorite, although the

wider area is geologically complex (Figure 4). Granodiorite is not a stone normally associated with

manufacture of stone artefacts, although the Adaminaby group formations have potential to contain pockets

of material suitable for this purpose, and indeed a source of good quality quartz and chalcedony has been

recorded near Tuross Falls (Dearling 2007).

Dggg = Glenbog Granodiorite, Oah = Adaminaby Group, Dguj = Jillicambra Adamellite,

Figure 3. Geology of the study area (Lewis and Glenn 1995)


June 2019 Page 6

The proposed tower locations are situated on high knolls, ridges and saddles to take advantage of elevated

topography. These higher points of topography are generally of lesser agricultural value and therefore have

not been subject to clearing and retain a cover of native eucalypt forest vegetation. Logging has occurred

through parts of the area.

4. ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE LOCAL AREA 4.1 Ethnohistory.

Background and Limitations

Ethnohistorical records are documentary pieces of evidence that record observations of Aboriginal people by early

European explorers and settlers. They are useful in the reconstruction of the picture of Aboriginal life before the

European settlement. Like all historical records they fall into different categories of direct observation and include, for

example:

journals from explorers and early European occupants of the area – including surveyors, and government

officials (direct and contemporary observations recorded close to the time of the event);

later reminiscences by long-time residents or travellers;

secondary documentation by writers who did not actually observe events or people but were told about them

by people who did observe events.

In research and heritage management studies ethnohistorical records are examined with two main purposes. The first,

and most practically applied, is to inform researchers of the range of material remains that could reasonably be

expected to occur in any given study area, and where that material might occur. So, for example, where an early

observer describes how Aboriginal people in the local area made fine canoes out of sheets of bark cut with stone

hatchets, one might reasonably include scarred trees to the types of archaeological site that could be expected in the

area, and realise that ground stone hatchet heads might occur in the artefact assemblage. The second main use of

ethnohistorical records in such studies is to add a human element to the research and analysis of archaeological

materials and places.

While ethnohistorical records are a valuable resource in the reconstruction of a picture of pre- European Aboriginal life

and material culture, there are limitations to their use. One of the primary limitations is that by their nature they are the

sporadic records of untrained observers of varying quality and reliability, as opposed to systematic studies. Further,

they are products of their times and, like any observation or historical description, they can be value laden. As a further

caution it is to be noted that changes to traditional Aboriginal society and life ways in south east Australia were rapid

after the arrival of Europeans in 1788, so it is unlikely that the earliest recordings of Aboriginal people in a given area

were of a people completely unchanged by European influence - either through being ravaged by European disease or

having contact with European material possessions. Diseases (notably small pox and influenza) were carried out from

Sydney by Aboriginal people and infected the wider Aboriginal population prior to their contact with Europeans.

For the purposes of this study, ethnohistorical records are informative in terms of predicting and explaining the sorts of

sites that might occur in the study area, analysing archaeological material that might be found, and in assessing

significance.

.

Ethnohistory Summary

The study area is situated in a territory generally acknowledged as Ngarigo country (Howitt 1904, Tindale 1974, Flood

1980). Documentary evidence regarding Aboriginal people is relatively sparse, surprisingly so, given the

acknowledgment that Aboriginal people were closely associated with the earlier phases of European exploration and

settlement (English 1985: 21). It has been suggested that the scarcity of references to Aboriginal people in explorer’s

journals is the result of deliberate avoidance of them by Aboriginal people (Lea-Scarlett 1968).

Some material culture1 is described in the early documentation. The observed tools and possessions included spears

(barbed and unbarbed), spear throwers, clubs, shields, boomerangs, stone axes, yam sticks, bark vessels, canoes,

apparel made from skins (possum and kangaroo), shell and stone scrapers, bone needles, and bark huts (Wright 1923,

1 Material Culture is that part of the culture of a people physically expressed or evident in the things they made and used. It might include tools, ornaments, clothing, and structures.


June 2019 Page 7

Helms 1895, Bennett 1834, all in Flood 1980:49-60). Stone axes in particular were said to be highly prized with men

rarely going anywhere without them tucked into a fur belt around the waist (Graham 1863). Bark was a material in

ubiquitous use for a number of purposes, primarily shelter, containers and canoes. In the early to mid 1830’s Edward

John Eyre purchased a land grant that he called ‘Woodlands’ which bounded on the Molonglo River between

Queanbeyan and Captains Flat. He records Aboriginal people being employed to cut sheets of bark to assist in the

construction of a shearing area. He records:

The bark was cut from the box or stringy bark trees by the blacks who are very skilful and expeditious in doing it.

Having selected a suitable tree the black fellow begins by cutting a ring round the tree thro’ the bark to the wood,

just where the lower end of the sheet of bark is intended to be. He next cuts with his tomahawk little steps in the

bark about half an inch deep, about two feet apart, alternately on the right and left, into which he puts his great toe

as he mounts from one to the other, pressing his feet and legs against the trunk…. For tho’ he uses his hands in

catching hold of the tree from time to time as he rises, yet he can stand on these little notches alone and keep both

hands free to use in whatever he may be about. In smaller sized trees that he can grasp with his arms he will run

up as rapidly as possible without cutting steps or aid of any kind. Having ascended to the requisite height he again

cuts a ring around the tree where the top of the sheet of bark is to be and then, gradually descending, makes a

perpendicular or longitudinal cut straight down from the upper ring to the lower one. With small pointed sticks he

again mounts and inserting them on each side of the perpendicular cut between the bark and the wood, he

gradually loosens the former from the latter until at last he gets it stripped off in one unbroken piece forming, when

stretched out flat, a sheet from six to twelve feet square, according to the size of the tree. To prevent the bark from

cracking when being thus stretched out it is heated inside with fire, just as a cooper heats a cask to make the

staves bend as he wishes. The same means are used to bend the bark into shape when required for a canoe…I

have often seen canoes made of a single piece of bark capable of holding six or eight people. Generally these

were cut from large river gum trees…When dry these sheets of bark retain their flat shape - are from an inch to an

inch and a half thick – quite impervious to any rain and, of course, most useful in the construction of temporary

dwellings, sheds or other buildings. A single sheet properly stretched out and propped up with sticks forms and

admirable shelter for the night from any rain, and is constructed by a black fellow, where the proper trees are to be

found, in a very few minutes (Eyre 1984:55-56)

Aboriginal food items recorded in the ethnohistoric literature include possum,

bandicoot, snakes, various macropods, wombats, emus, brolgas and other birds,

lizards, 'native cats', fish, yabbies, mussels, bogong moths, yams, berries and grass

seeds. (Bennett 1834, Bluett 1954). In addition, the author of this report has

personally observed and gathered large clusters of very large field mushrooms in the

Kybeyan area, which would have easily been a source of seasonal abundance.

The ceremonial and ritual aspects of the lives of local Aboriginal people were rich and

intricate. Class and totem systems are recorded for Aboriginal people of the region

(Howitt 1904:101-102). Men’s initiation ceremonies, variously called the Kuringal or

Bunan involved tooth evulsion and ceremonies inside earthen mounds. (Howitt 1904:

563-565).

Local burial customs included binding of the body into a foetal position and interment

with all the deceased’s weapons and implements. Howitt records “spears and nets

were included; even in one case a canoe was cut into pieces so that it could be put in

the grave. Everything belonging to a dead person was put out of sight” (Howitt

1904:461-462). In the region burials have also been recorded in caves and hollow

trees (White and Cane 1986:44). Clark recorded oral history from near Boorowa

suggesting that Aboriginal people had been buried at the base, and at the top of a hill, the latter of which occurred

between large broken rocks. He specifically notes “from the top of the hill one has a commanding view of the

surrounding country side” (Clark 1977:16). This description has analogies to Wright’s description of the burial of Hon

Yong (Onyong) who wrote “His grave was on top of a rocky hill…A tunnel about six feet long was excavated and his

body was inserted, with his spears (broken in half), his shield, nulla nulla, boomerang, tomahawk, possum rug and

other effects…” (Wright 1923:57).

Field mushrooms picked in the

Kybeyan area 2017


June 2019 Page 8

The dislocation of Aboriginal people in the face of the European settlement appears to have been rapid and traumatic.

Smallpox was observed at Yass in 1844, and it is highly likely that the disease had reached the Southern Tablelands at

a somewhat earlier date, although possibly not before 1830. Other diseases against which the Aborigines had no

immunity included measles and influenza (Flood 1980: 32). In a little over fifty years after the first European incursion

into the area, the fully traditional way of life had disintegrated. (Andrews 1979).

While the purely traditional way of life passed, the descendants of those people retain their Aboriginal tribal identity.

They are genuinely concerned about the preservation of their cultural heritage.

The ethnohistorical record provides the following information that informs the preparation of this study.

1. The local area contains a range of resources that are recorded in the ethnographic record;

2. The last phase of traditional Aboriginal life ceased in approximately the mid 1880’s, so sites like stone

artefact scatters date to a time before this;

3. Bark was used for many traditional purposes, the occurrence of scarred trees is a possibility although the

widespread clearing and logging would have compromised the potential for large numbers of scarred trees

to be found.

4. Given the traditional and semi-traditional activities that were undertaken in the area into the late 19th

century, the occurrence of European materials as part of the Aboriginal archaeology is a possibility (for

example, glass or ceramic flaked artefacts).

4.2 Archaeological Background

The broader region of south east NSW has been occupied by Aboriginal people for at least 21,000 years. Human

occupation at Birragai rock shelter has been dated to ~21,000 Before Present (BP) (Flood et al 1987), Burrill

Lake rock shelter near Ulladulla has been dated to ~20,000BP (Lampert 1971) and Bulee Brook 2 in the south

coast hinterland has been dated to ~19,000BP (Boot 1996a & b, 2002), these three sites all providing a

reasonably consistent picture of the time human occupation of the region becomes archaeologically visible.

Flood’s pioneering archaeological work in the NSW high country emphasised the potentially seasonal nature of

occupation, concentrating on ethnohistorical accounts of Bogong moth collection (Flood 1980). She suggested

that Ngarigo people occupied the lower hinterland during winter and moved into the high country in summer to

collect the moths. Despite arguments refuting the importance of Bogong moths as a seasonal staple (Chapman

1977, Bowdler 1981) or that it was a resource that fostered social cohesion and exchange rather than being a

staple food (Kamminga et al 1989), seasonal use of the highlands continues to be the main interpretation of local

Aboriginal occupation.

Heffernan and Boot conducted a wide ranging study of the South East Forests (Heffernan and Boot 2000). In a

survey transect along Kybeyan Road they recorded eight open artefact scatters and five isolated finds.

Dearling (2004) undertook a study of a number of nature reserves and state conservation areas in environmental

/ topographic locations similar to the present study area. Among the areas he inspected the following are

particularly relevant:

Kybeyan Nature Reserve: three open artefact scatters and two isolated artefacts (14 artefacts in total)

all within a large grassy clearing, crossed by drainage lines, soaks, and minor wetlands. Seven stone

materials were recorded, although the small number of artefacts overall makes the sample difficult to

draw extensive conclusions. The materials were chert (28.6%), quartz (28.6%), silcrete (14.3%2),

indurated mudstone, chalcedony, volcanic, and unknown (each 7.1%).

Kybeyan SCA: One quartzite broken flake was recorded.

Dangelong Nature Reserve/Mowles Creek: six open artefact scatters and three isolated (116 artefacts

in total). Most were found close to the junction of the Numeralla River and Granny’s Flat Creek. The

largest site at Mowles Creek contained 44 artefacts. Eight stone materials were recorded- silcrete

(71%), quartz (14.5), chert (7.3), volcanic (3.6%), and Indurated mudstone (3.6%).


June 2019 Page 9

Coornatha Nature Reserve: This study area contained one artefact scatter and one isolated artefact

(total five artefacts). The isolated find was located in the area of basalt in the south east corner of the

Nature Reserve. Two stone materials were recorded, Chert (60%) and Quartz (40%).

At the ‘Warratah’ property at Kybean Dearling (2007) recorded seven Aboriginal archaeological sites, with an

overall a total of 53 stone artefacts. Quartz was the dominant stone material, with chalcedony, chert, silcrete and

volcanic artefacts also recorded (Dearling 2007:29). These sites were associated with low gradient terrain, either

spur crests or valley floors, with raised level terrain in proximity to water exhibiting the greatest artefact densities

(Dearling 2007:27-28). In a re-examination of part of this study area, Williams (2017) relocated Dearling’s site

WK-2 recording 31 flaked stone artefacts and further recorded a new site ‘WK-9’, an artefact scatter with 21

artefacts. Both of these artefact clusters were found on locally raised spurs in association with Greens Creek, a

small permanent watercourse.

In 2005 Dibden undertook an assessment of a proposed fence alignment at ‘Lone pine’, in Wadbilliga National

Park, ~7km south of the present study area. The fence was ~5.5km in length, traversing a range of landforms

and vegetation. Seven archaeological sites were recorded mainly in association with spur crests and drainage

depression topographic features of low gradient. One major site consisted of more than 80 artefacts over a

200m x 10m area on a knoll and spur crest. Materials recorded included silcrete, quartz, quartzite, volcanic and

chert (Dibden 2005:20).

Dibden (2009) undertook an assessment of the Boco Rock Wind Farm west of Nimmitabel, recording Aboriginal

stone artefacts at 56 locations. Elevated, relatively level ground close to the Maclaughlin River was found to be

the most archaeologically sensitive terrain. Higher terrain such as plateau and high ridge lines exhibited stone

artefacts, but at a far reduced density. A total of 237 artefacts were recorded, with quartz and silcrete being the

dominant stone materials (Dibden 2009: Appendix 1).

Dibden undertook an archaeological assessment of proposed maintenance work on Wadbilliga Road in

Wadbilliga National Park (Dibden 2010). The project assessed the potential impact of widening the existing road

by ~1.5m over a total of 5.5km. The project required the installation of nine culverts and removal of 16 trees

(Dibden 2010: 3). The study recorded Aboriginal cultural material in the form of stone artefacts at five locations,

some of which were revisits to sites recorded some years previously. An extensive scatter of cultural material

was located across the area of 2 previously recorded sites (Dibden 2010: 35). The scatter was recorded as

occurring over 690m on the east side of the Wadbilliga River, with an earlier recording by Boot noting 1185

artefacts (Dibden 2010:35). The remaining four locations were isolated artefacts, and these objects were found

in disturbed contexts and topographic locations not conducive to camp site locations.

In 2015 Dibden undertook an assessment of proposed work on the Kybeyan Radio Tower and Tuross Falls Road

in Wadbilliga National Park (Dibden 2015). The purpose of the project was to assess sections of Tuross Falls

Road where Aboriginal objects were known to occur, in addition to the small area of proposed disturbance at the

Kybeyan Radio tower (Dibden 2015:35). Of the seven site locations investigated, stone artefacts were

observed at three, with no objects found at four previously recorded locations. The Kybeyan radio tower location

exhibited no archaeological material.

CHMA (2016) undertook a preliminary assessment of a proposed wind farm ~25km south of the present study

area. Engaged to provide a preliminary heritage assessment of the wind farm footprint as it was then designed,

the sample survey recorded 13 previously unrecorded sites, termed GH1-GH13 inclusive, and five Potential

Archaeological Deposits (PADs) (GH PAD1-5). Of the sites recorded, four were open artefact scatters and nine

were open artefact scatters with associated PADs. Approximately 160 stone artefacts were observed (CHMA

2016:40-41), noting that the preliminary nature of the study precluded detailed recording and precise counts.

The study found that where good visibility coincided with broad, open flat crests or saddles within a reasonable

distances of water sources cultural material was found, suggesting a widespread scatter of material over those


June 2019 Page 10

landforms (CHMA 2016:39). A subsequent more detailed archaeological survey was undertaken in 2017 which

identified an additional 22 sites including scatters of artefacts, isolated artefacts, potential archaeological

deposits scarred trees and a potential quarry (Williams 2018:16-24). 730 stone artefacts were recorded with

nine stone materials represented and sixteen technological categories of artefact recorded. Quartz and silcrete

artefacts were recorded in approximately equal proportions although there were twice the number of quartz cores

and core fragments as there were of silcrete. This suggests that quartz artefacts were created from more readily

available and/or smaller nuclei and that silcrete was a more curated material. It was concluded that the

archaeological evidence recorded suggested regular use of the study area as a transitory landscape (Williams

2018:31). Evidence of Aboriginal occupation was widespread in locations that offered level to gently sloping

topography, but archaeological evidence in the form of artefact scatters also occurred in areas of steeper

gradient close to permanent water sources.

The majority of archaeological studies in the area have overwhelmingly recorded scatters of stone artefacts, but

other types of archaeological sites have been recorded on the Monaro. In 1991 the remains of two Aboriginal

people were discovered eroding out of the bank of Rock Flat Creek at Bunyan ~10km north of Cooma. Despite

heavy disturbance it was intimated the people were buried side by side at the same time. Grave goods were

found with the human remains, including red ochre, two pebble hammer/anvil stones, five bone points made of

kangaroo fibulae eight macropod mandibular rami and 327 pierced kangaroo teeth – all upper incisors pierced to

allow them to be strung (Feary 1996).

In 1988 Comber undertook an examination of four quarry/reduction sites between Bredbo and Cooma (Comber

1988). Two of the quarries (A and B) are tabular chert, one (C) was basaltic andesite and one (D) was dacite.

4.3. AHIMS search.

A search of the OEH AHIMS register was undertaken on 28/03/2019, over a ~1,295km2 area centred

approximately on the proposed extent of turbines. Within this boundary there were 107 previously recorded

sites, only one of which occur within 1km of a proposed turbine location. The nearest known site to a proposed

turbine is site 62-2-0412 (WK-7) which is ~300m east north east of proposed turbine 30. The locations of these

previously recorded sites are illustrated in Figure 4.

4.4. Site Location Model

Pursuant to the above, the following types of sites were considered to have potential to occur in the inspection

area:

Artefact scatters

These are a very common site type and consist of stone artefacts found scattered on the ground surface and are

often referred to as an open camp site. In most archaeological contexts, an artefact scatter has been deflated by

erosion, or it more typically involves a sub-surface deposit of varying depth. Artefact scatters may represent :

the evidence of camp sites, where everyday activities such as habitation, preparation and consumption

of food and storage of tools have occurred;

hunting or gathering events;

other events spatially separated from a camp site (e.g. tool production or maintenance); or

transitory movement through the landscape.

The detection of artefact scatters depends upon conditions of surface visibility and ground disturbance and post-

depositional change through either sediment accumulation or surface erosion. Vegetation cover and deposition

of sediments generally obscures artefact scatter sites and prevents their detection during surface surveys. High

levels of ground disturbance can also obscure or remove evidence of a site. Isolated finds are single artefacts.

They may be representative of simple, singular discards or may be all that is visible within a site, with other

material either obscured from view or buried beneath the surface. The ability to observe surface archaeological

material at a site will change with altered environmental conditions, therefore visits to the same site at different

times almost always result different observations. Artefact scatters might occur in any area with low gradient, but


June 2019 Page 11

will be most dense and easily detectable on level, raised, well drained locations close to water sources or other

resource zones such as wetlands.

Scarred trees

Scarred trees are those from which the bark has been removed for the manufacture of containers, shields or

canoes. Small scars may also represent toe-holds cut into a tree to enable climbing. They are a common site

type in the river flood plain corridors. It would be unlikely that scars in this location would be the result of canoe

manufacture, so those that are the result of making containers or shelters would be more likely. Scarred trees

might occur at any location where mature native trees remain.

Burials

Human burials have only rarely been discovered in the region, but those discovered have been found in deeper

soil of creek margins (Feary 1996). It is unlikely that any surface survey would detect human burials, and the

turbine locations are on high points that will in all likelihood have thin soil profiles, but as the area is drained by

several creeks which may require crossing by connecting tracks and/or power cables it is possible that this site

type may occur in land subject to disturbance by the establishment of the development.

Stone Quarries

Hiscock and Mitchell (1993: 19-23, 32) have defined an Aboriginal quarry as being the location of an exploited

stone source. This definition was adopted by them as it took in the widest possible range of sites related to stone

procurement strategies. As well as including areas exhibiting visible evidence of exploitation, this definition can

be extended to areas where procurement techniques have left little or no evidence of activity. Aboriginal stone

quarries may range from large, well organised sites and cover may hectares (e.g. the Mount William greenstone

quarries, McBryde 1984) to simply locations of cobbles or pebbles which can be easily collected as required (cf.

Gould 1977:162-8, Jones and White 1988:57-8,). The underlying geology of the subject area is not one where

Aboriginal quarries would be expected, but stone hatchet quarries are a possibility.

Potential Archaeological Deposits (PADs)

PADs may be defined using topographic and/other environmental variables where it is considered highly likely

that archaeological material may occur under the ground, but surface visibility is poor.

5. METHODS The Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) site register was consulted to determine

if any sites had been previously recorded in, and near, the subject area, this included both basic and

extensive searches.

Previous archaeological studies were reviewed to familiarise the consultant with local archaeology, and recent investigations in the area. Aerial (satellite) imagery was consulted as a guide to topographic assessment. The assessment of topographic location was undertaken with recourse to publicly available topographic maps with contours at 10m intervals on the NSW Spatial Information Exchange platform (SIX Maps). Tower locations were pin pointed by identifying GDA coordinates of each tower in QGIS ad transferring those to the coordinate tool in SIX Maps.


June 2019 Page 12

6. REGISTER SEARCH AND SITE ASSESSMENT

6.1 AHIMS Search

A search of the AHIMS register maintained by NSW OEH was undertaken on 14 December 2018 over an

area of ~1,295 square kilometres (~36km x ~36km) centred approximately on the proposed extent of the

turbines. This search showed 107 sites recorded previously in that area (Figure 4 and Attachment 1). This

suite of sites comprised occurrences of surface stone artefacts with only two exceptions. There were:

62-3-0061, Grinding Grooves at Back River,

62-3-0063, Scarred Tree at Queens Pound on Wadbilliga River.

Figure 4. Proposed turbine locations and registered Aboriginal sites.

= turbine location


June 2019 Page 13

6.2 Archaeological Assessment

Table 1. General archaeological assessment of proposed turbine locations.

Turbine Topographic element Previously

Recorded Site Nearest Recorded

Site (km) Archaeological Potential Model

1 Broad high saddle No 4.5 Moderate-High

2 Ridge crest No 4.0 Moderate-High

3 Broad ridge crest No 3.1 Moderate-High

4 Broad knoll No 2.7 Moderate-High



7 Slope No 2.9 Low

8 Gentle spur crest No 2.0 Moderate-High

9 Broad flat No 3.0 Moderate

10 Spur crest No 2.0 Moderate-High


12 Narrow Ridge crest No 1.7 Moderate

13 Broad spur crest No 2.5 Moderate-High


15 Broad Plateau No 3.0 Moderate-High


17 Narrow ridge crest No 1.4 Moderate

18 Narrow ridge crest No 1.5 Moderate



21 Knoll No 2.5 Moderate-High









30 Broad Knoll No 0.3 Moderate-High

The analysis summarised in Table 1 shows the majority of proposed turbine locations to coincide with ridge

line features such as crests, knolls and plateaux. Previous archaeological studies in the region identify

these elements as having higher concentrations of archaeological material than surrounding sloping

topography and in fact in hilly to undulating terrain serve to focus human activity in smaller areas of low

gradient. This archaeological material is in the main scatters of stone artefacts of varying density. Where

areas of low gradient coincide with watercourses archaeological occurrences become more frequent and

more dense. As these proposed turbines occur at high points in the landscape their archaeological potential

is lessened by distance to fresh water, but prior studies have also shown that water sources can occur at

higher points in the landscape, particularly on plateau type elements (cf. Williams 2018:19).


June 2019 Page 14

7. CONCLUSION

The requirements of efficient wind farm establishment are such that the locations of proposed turbines often

coincide with topographic elements that have higher archaeological potential, likewise access roads often

follow crest and/or level topography for ease of construction. The suite of proposed locations examined in

this study fits that coincident model in large measure, and as such the majority of proposed turbine locations

should be subject to a detailed field inspection prior to development occurring. This inspection should take

the form of an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment, following the requisite guidelines and standards

issues by the NSW Office of Heritage and Environment.

Prior to such inspection the proponent should examine the design of the proposed development with

reference to more detailed topographic information (for example, LiDAR generated contour maps) in order to

determine if any proposed turbine locations and or access tracks are now on, or are able to be moved to,

topography with a slope of >70, as this would place any such turbine / compound in zones of lower

archaeological sensitivity.


June 2019 Page 15

8. DUE DILIGENCE DECISION PROCESS

This decision matrix has been developed by the NSW OEH as one that provides satisfactory process for the

purposes of undertaking due diligence (NSW DECCW 2010:10).


June 2019 Page 16

9. RECOMMENDATIONS. Pursuant to the information provided above, it is recommended that:

1. Prior to development the proposed turbine locations, compounds and ancillary works footprint should be subject to a detailed archaeological assessment complying with standards, guidelines and any other conditions issued by the NSW State Government.

2. Prior to the completion of the study noted in Recommendation 1 the proponent should avoid undertaking, commissioning or allowing ANY ground disturbing work or vegetation clearing associated with this development.

3. Where such ground disturbing work is unavoidable prior to the issue of overall approvals, the proponent should prepare a Due Diligence Aboriginal Heritage Assessment in accordance with NSW OEH standards and guidelines.

The proponents, their employees and agents are reminded that the National Parks and Wildlife Act (NSW) 1974 (as amended) is a strict liability act and under its provisions it is an offence to destroy, deface or otherwise disturb an Aboriginal Object without first obtaining the consent of the Director General of the NSW NPWS.


June 2019 Page 17

10. REFERENCES

Boot, P. 1996a. ‘Aspects of Prehistoric Change in the South Coast Hinterland of New South Wales’ in Tempus 6: 63-79

Boot, P. 1996b. ‘Pleistocene Sites in the South Coast Hinterland of New South Wales’ in Tempus 6: 275-288

Boot, P.G. 2002. Didthul, Gulaga and Wadbilliga: An archaeological study of the Aboriginals of the New South Wales South Coast hinterland. Unpublished PhD thesis, The Australian

National University.

Comber, J. 1988. Ngarigo Quarries: A Lithics Survey and Analysis on the Monaro Tablelands, NSW. Unpublished Litt B. Thesis, Dept of Archaeology and Anthropology, ANU

Costin, A. 1954. A study of the ecosystems of the Monaro region of New South Wales. Sydney: Australian Government Printer.

Dearling, C. 2004. Preliminary Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment, Selected Nature Reserves, Monaro Region, Unpublished Report to NSW NPWS Snowy Mountains Region, Charles Dearling Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultants, Weetangera ACT.

Dearling, C. 2007. Proposed Rural Subdivision of Lot 1 DP 652089, Lot 39 DP 750546, Lots 16, 17, 20, 23, 33 36, 52, 53, 56, 108 and 109 DP 752214, Tuross Road, Kybeyan, NSW. Report to Guy Dawson.

Dibden, J. 2005. Kybeyan Fence Realignment Project, Lone Pine, Wadbilliga National Park Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment. Report to NGH Environmental.

Dibden, J. 2009. Boco Rock Wind Farm. Report to Wind Prospect.

Dibden, J. 2010. Proposed Maintenance Work – Wadbilliga Road, Wadbilliga National Park; Indigenous Archaeological Assessment. Report to NGH Environmental.

Dibden, J. 2015. Kybeyan Radio Tower and Tuross Falls Road Maintenance, Wadbilliga National Park, via Cooma and Nimmitabel, NSW: Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report. Report to Bombala Area, PWG, NSW OEH.

Feary, S., 1996. ‘An Aboriginal Burial with Grave Goods near Cooma, NSW’ in Australian Archaeology 43: 40-42.

Flood, J. 1980. The Moth Hunters: Aboriginal Prehistory of The Australian Alps. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

Flood, J., David, B., Magee, J. & English, B. 1987. ‘ Birrigai: A Pleistocene Site in southeastern highlands’. Archaeology in Oceania. 22: 9-26.

Gould, R.A. 1977. 'Ethnoarchaeology; or, Where Do Models Come From?' In Wright, R.V.S.1977: 162-8

Hiscock, P., and Mitchell, S. 1993. Stone Artefact. Quarries and Reduction Sites in Australia: Towards a Type Profile. Australian Heritage Commission Technical Publications Series No.4. AGPS, Canberra

Jennings, J. and J. Mabbutt 1977 ‘Physiographic outlines and regions’. In: Jeans, D. (ed): Australia: a Geography. Sydney University Press; Sydney: PP 38 – 52.

Jones R, and White, N. 1988. 'Point Blank: Stone Tool Manufacture at the Ngilipidji Quarry, Arnhem Land 1981.' In Meehan and Jones (eds) 1988 Archaeology with Ethnography: an Australian perspective. Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, ANU, Canberra. pp 51-87

Lampert, R.J. 1971. Burrill Lake and Currarong: Coastal Sites in Southern New South Wales. Terra Australis No 1. Canberra.


June 2019 Page 18

Lewis, P.C. and Glen, R.A. 1995. Bega-Mallacoota 1:250,000 Geological Sheet SJ/55-8. Geological Survey of NSW, Sydney

McBryde, I. 1984. 'Kulin greenstone quarries: the social contexts of production and distribution at the Mt. William site'. In World Archaeology 16(2): 267-85.

Pain, C., Gregory, L., Wilson, P., and McKenzie, N. 2011. The Physiographic Regions of Australia: Explanatory Notes. Australian Collaborative Land Evaluation Program and National Committee on Soil and Terrain.

Taylor, G. 1994. ‘A History of the Geological Exploration of the Monaro with Particular Reference to the Cainozoic and Landscape Evolution’. in K.G. McQueen (ed) The Tertiary Geology and Geomorphology of the Monaro: The Perspective in 1994. Centre for Australian Regolith Studies, Occasional Publication No.2. pp 1-19.

Williams, D. 2017. Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence Assessment: Lot 1 DP 1192576, Kybeyan, South East NSW. Report to Mr G.Dawson.

Williams, D. 2018. Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Assessment: Proposed Granite Hills Wind Farm, Nimmitabel, NSW. Report to Granite Hills Wind Farm Pty Ltd.

Attachment 1

AHIMS Site Search

AHIMS Web Services (AWS)Search Result Purchase Order/Reference : ElysianBAsic

Client Service ID : 388993

Date: 14 December 2018Access Archaeology and Heritage Pty Ltd

PO Box 816

MORUYA New South Wales 2537

Dear Sir or Madam:

AHIMS Web Service search for the following area at Lat, Long From : -36.4248, 149.3168 - Lat, Long To :

-36.2242, 149.6348 with a Buffer of 50 meters, conducted by Doug Williams on 14 December 2018.

Email: [email protected]

Attention: Doug Williams

The context area of your search is shown in the map below. Please note that the map does not accurately

display the exact boundaries of the search as defined in the paragraph above. The map is to be used for

general reference purposes only.

A search of the Office of the Environment and Heritage AHIMS Web Services (Aboriginal Heritage Information

Management System) has shown that:

74

0

Aboriginal sites are recorded in or near the above location.

Aboriginal places have been declared in or near the above location. *

If your search shows Aboriginal sites or places what should you do?

Important information about your AHIMS search

You can get further information about Aboriginal places by looking at the gazettal notice that declared it.

Aboriginal places gazetted after 2001 are available on the NSW Government Gazette

(http://www.nsw.gov.au/gazette) website. Gazettal notices published prior to 2001 can be obtained from

Office of Environment and Heritage's Aboriginal Heritage Information Unit upon request

Aboriginal objects are protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 even if they are not recorded

as a site on AHIMS.

You must do an extensive search if AHIMS has shown that there are Aboriginal sites or places recorded in the

search area.

If you are checking AHIMS as a part of your due diligence, refer to the next steps of the Due Diligence Code of

practice.

AHIMS records information about Aboriginal sites that have been provided to Office of Environment and

Heritage and Aboriginal places that have been declared by the Minister;

Information recorded on AHIMS may vary in its accuracy and may not be up to date .Location details are

recorded as grid references and it is important to note that there may be errors or omissions in these

recordings,

Some parts of New South Wales have not been investigated in detail and there may be fewer records of

Aboriginal sites in those areas. These areas may contain Aboriginal sites which are not recorded on AHIMS.

This search can form part of your due diligence and remains valid for 12 months.

The information derived from the AHIMS search is only to be used for the purpose for which it was requested.

It is not be made available to the public.

3 Marist Place, Parramatta NSW 2150

Locked Bag 5020 Parramatta NSW 2220

Tel: (02) 9585 6380 Fax: (02) 9873 8599

ABN 30 841 387 271

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.environment.nsw.gov.au

AHIMS Web Services (AWS)Extensive search - Site list report

SiteID SiteName Datum Zone Easting Northing Context SiteFeatures SiteTypes Reports

Your Ref/PO Number : ElysianDetailed


Site Status

62-2-0307 Kybeyan Road 2 AGD 55 715760 5969890 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site 98354

PermitsUnknown AuthorRecordersContact

62-2-0308 Kybeyan Road 1 AGD 55 716530 5971470 Open site Valid Artefact : - Isolated Find 98354

PermitsUnknown AuthorRecordersContact

62-3-0320 TR 116;Two Rivers; AGD 55 725930 5978100 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site

PermitsCharles Dearling Archaeological and Cultural Heritage ConsultantsRecordersContact





62-3-0393 TR 100;Wadbilliga National Park; AGD 55 732870 5981880 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site 4447

3579PermitsCharles Dearling Archaeological and Cultural Heritage ConsultantsRecordersContact

62-3-0395 TR 102;Wadbilliga National Park(Tuross Falls); AGD 55 727770 5987720 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site 4447


62-3-0396 TR 108;Wadbilliga National Park; AGD 55 730630 5980770 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site 4447


62-3-0397 TR 109;Wadbilliga National Park; AGD 55 730730 5980670 Open site Valid Artefact : - Isolated Find 4447


62-3-0398 TR 110/111/112/113;Wadbilliga National Park; AGD 55 730210 5980210 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site 4447


62-3-0422 TR 96;Wadbilliga National Park; AGD 55 734370 5982050 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site








62-3-0319 TR 106;Wadbilliga National Park; AGD 55 730490 5980720 Open site Valid Artefact : - Isolated Find


62-3-0103 Wadbilliga National Park Razor Back 1 AGD 55 731100 5973900 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site 196

PermitsASRSYSRecordersContact

62-3-0106 Wadbilliga National Park Bun Berry Ck Fire Trail 1 AGD 55 728800 5984000 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site 196


Report generated by AHIMS Web Service on 14/12/2018 for Doug Williams for the following area at Lat, Long From : -36.4248, 149.3168 - Lat, Long To : -36.2242, 149.6348 with a Buffer of 50

meters. Additional Info : Preliminary Desktop Assessment. Number of Aboriginal sites and Aboriginal objects found is 74

This information is not guaranteed to be free from error omission. Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW) and its employees disclaim liability for any act done or omission made on the information and consequences of such

acts or omission.

Page 1 of 5





Site Status

62-3-0111 Wadbilliga National Park Bourkes Rd 5 AGD 55 734500 5982200 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site 196


62-3-0114 Wadbilliga National Park Bourkes Rd 8 AGD 55 735100 5982500 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site 196


62-3-0116 Bourkes Rd 10 Wadbilliga National Park AGD 55 734000 5982000 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site 196




62-3-0297 TR 105;Wadbilliga National Park (Tuross Falls); AGD 55 727610 5986940 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site


62-3-0298 TR 104;Wadbilliga National Park (Tuross Falls); AGD 55 727650 5987310 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site






















62-3-0061 Back River 30/129; AGD 55 732400 5973400 Open site Valid Grinding Groove : - Axe Grinding

Groove

PermitsMiss.Marjorie SullivanRecordersContact




acts or omission.

Page 2 of 5





Site Status

62-3-0063 Wadbilliga River;Queens Pound 30/158a; AGD 55 734500 5982300 Open site Valid Modified Tree

(Carved or Scarred) :

-

Scarred Tree 443


62-3-0064 Wadbilliga River;Queens Pound 30/158b; AGD 55 734500 5982100 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site












62-2-0283 Numeralla River 1;Carliminda; AGD 55 711150 5987710 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site

PermitsMr.Doug Williams,Doctor.Sue FearyRecordersContact

62-2-0284 Numeralla River IF #2;Carliminda; AGD 55 710850 5987860 Open site Valid Artefact : - Isolated Find


62-2-0285 Numeralla River IF #1;Carliminda; AGD 55 711400 5988200 Open site Valid Artefact : - Isolated Find


62-2-0051 Numeralla River 1; AGD 55 711150 5987710 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site 2819


62-2-0328 Kybeyan 4 AGD 55 714800 5973750 Open site Valid Artefact : 2

PermitsMs.Jacqui Duncan,Doctor.Tim StoneRecordersContact













acts or omission.

Page 3 of 5





Site Status


62-2-0340 Dangelong NR 1 AGD 55 708600 5973200 Open site Valid Artefact : 4

4178PermitsMiss.Jackie TaylorRecordersContact

62-2-0341 Mowles Creek 1 AGD 55 709897 5974292 Open site Valid Artefact : 25

PermitsMiss.Jackie TaylorRecordersContact

62-2-0357 Lone Pine 1 AGD 55 723656 5969657 Open site Valid Artefact : 3 99392

PermitsDoctor.Julie DibdenRecordersSearleContact











62-3-0104 Wadbilliga National Park Razor Back Fire Trail 2 AGD 55 725000 5974600 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site 196


62-3-0105 Razor Back Fire Trail 3 Wadbilliga National Park AGD 55 724100 5975500 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site 196


62-3-0631 Wadbilliga SU8/L1 GDA 55 736404 5983190 Open site Valid Artefact : 1

3579PermitsDoctor.Julie DibdenRecordersContact



62-3-0633 WK1 GDA 55 724809 5976630 Open site Valid Artefact : -

PermitsMr.Charles DearlingRecordersContact











acts or omission.

Page 4 of 5





Site Status






62-2-0414 WK8 GDA 55 723485 5974723 Open site Valid Artefact : 1 100777

PermitsMs.Sarah RobertsonRecordersContact

62-2-0429 KR1; GDA 55 710764 5981296 Open site Valid Artefact : -

4178PermitsDoctor.Julie Dibden,NSW Archaeology Pty LtdRecordersContact

62-2-0430 KR6; GDA 55 710098 5976582 Open site Valid Artefact : -


62-2-0432 MC3; GDA 55 708877 5974160 Open site Valid Artefact : -





acts or omission.

Page 5 of 5



SMEC is recognised for providing technical excellence and consultancy expertise in urban, infrastructure and management advisory. From concept to completion, our core service offering covers the life-cycle of a project and maximises value to our clients and communities. We align global expertise with local knowledge and state-of-the-art processes and systems to deliver innovative solutions to a range of industry sectors.

Date post:	12-Dec-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Preliminary Environmental Assessment

Documents