environmental impact statement · project title: white rock solar farm environmental impact...

suite 1, 216 carp st (po box 470) bega nsw 2550 australia t 61 2 6492 8333

www.nghenvironmental.com.au e [email protected]

unit 17, 27 yallourn st (po box 1037) fyshwick act 2609 australia

t 61 2 6280 5053 f 61 2 6280 9387

unit 18, level 3, 21 mary stsurry hills nsw 2010 australia

t 61 2 8202 8333

suite 1, 39 fitzmaurice st (po box 5464)wagga wagga nsw 2650 australia t 61 2 6971 9696 f 61 2 6971 9693

suite 7, 5/18 griffin dr (po box 1037)dunsborough wa 6281 australia

t 61 8 9759 1985

Environmental Impact Statement WHITE ROCK SOLAR FARM

SSD 16_7487

MARCH 2016

suite 1, 216 carp st (po box 470) bega nsw 2550 australia t 61 2 6492 8333

www.nghenvironmental.com.au e [email protected]

unit 17, 27 yallourn st (po box 1037)fyshwick act 2609 australia

t 61 2 6280 5053 f 61 2 6280 9387

unit 18, level 3, 21 mary stsurry hills nsw 2010 australia

t 61 2 8202 8333

suite 1, 39 fitzmaurice st (po box 5464)wagga wagga nsw 2650 australia t 61 2 6971 9696 f 61 2 6971 9693

suite 7, 5/18 griffin dr (po box 1037)dunsborough wa 6281 australia

t 61 8 9759 1985

Document Verification

Project Title: White Rock Solar Farm Environmental Impact

Statement

Project Number: 6589

Project File Name: White Rock Solar Farm EIS final v1 3 100316.docxRevision Date Prepared by (name) Reviewed by (name) Approved by (name)

Draft v1 19/02/16 Jane Mills Jenny Walsh Nick Graham‐Higgs Brooke Marshall

Final v1.3 10/03/16 Jane Mills Brooke Marshall (minor changes)

Brooke Marshall Nick Graham‐Higgs

NGH Environmental prints all documents on environmentally sustainable paper including paper made from bagasse (a by‐

product of sugar production) or recycled paper.

NGH Environmental Pty Ltd (ACN: 124 444 622. ABN: 31 124 444 622) and NGH Environmental (Heritage)

Pty Ltd (ACN: 603 938 549. ABN: 62 603 938 549) are part of the NGH Environmental Group of Companies.

Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm

6589 Final v1.3 i

Certification

I certify that I have prepared the contents of this Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with

Schedule 2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000. To the best of my knowledge,

this assessment contains all available information that is relevant to the environmental assessment of the

project and that information is neither false nor misleading.

Name: Jane Mills

Qualifications: B Applied Science

M Env. Mgmt. and Rest.

Signature:

Date: 03032016


6589 Final v1.3 ii

CONTENTS TERMS AND DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................................. X

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... I

ES 1 ‐ PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................................................ I

ES 2 – WRSF PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................ I

ES 3 ‐ NEED FOR THE WRSF PROJECT .............................................................................................................. II

ES 4 ‐ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONSULTATION ........................................................................ II

Summary of results for key issues.................................................................................................................... iii

ES 5 ‐ OVERALL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................. IV

ES 6 ‐ CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................................... V

1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................1

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS DOCUMENT .........................................................................................1

1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................1

1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVE .............................................................................................................................2

1.4 BACKGROUND TO THE WRSF PROJECT ................................................................................................2

1.5 THE WRSF PROPONENT .......................................................................................................................5

1.6 ARENA ADVANCING RENEWABLES PROGRAM ....................................................................................5

2 NEED AND JUSTIFICATION OF THE PROJECT .......................................................................................6

2.1 CLIMATE CHANGE AND RENEWABLE ENERGY .....................................................................................6

2.1.1 Greenhouse gas emission benefits – electricity generation .................................................................. 7

2.1.2 Greenhouse gas emission benefits ‐ life cycle analysis.......................................................................... 7

2.2 ENERGY CONTEXT IN AUSTRALIA AND NSW ........................................................................................8

2.2.1 Electricity generation in NSW ................................................................................................................ 8

2.2.2 National Electricity Market .................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 STRATEGIC DIRECTION OF THE REGION AND STATE ............................................................................9

2.3.1 Australia’s Renewable Energy Target .................................................................................................... 9

2.3.2 NSW 2021: A Plan to Make NSW Number One ................................................................................... 10

2.3.3 NSW Renewable Energy Action Plan ................................................................................................... 10

2.4 WHITE ROCK SOLAR FARM BENEFITS.................................................................................................11

2.5 NEED AND JUSTIFICATION .................................................................................................................13

3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .............................................................................................................14

3.1 CAPACITY OF THE WRSF PROJECT ......................................................................................................14

3.1.1 Option 1: Do nothing ........................................................................................................................... 14

3.1.2 Option 2: Construct a 20 MW hybrid wind/solar farm ........................................................................ 14

3.1.3 Option 3: Construct a larger MW hybrid wind/solar farm (maximum capacity) ................................. 14

3.1.4 Analysis of WRSF Project capacity options .......................................................................................... 14

3.1.5 Preferred capacity option .................................................................................................................... 15


6589 Final v1.3 iii

3.2 ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS ..................................................................................................................15

3.2.1 Option 1: Development Site 1 ............................................................................................................. 16





3.2.6 Analysis of solar farm location options ................................................................................................ 17

3.2.7 Preferred location option .................................................................................................................... 20

3.3 ALTERNATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN AND LAYOUTS ..................................................................20

3.3.1 Option 1 ............................................................................................................................................... 20

3.3.2 Option 2 ............................................................................................................................................... 20

3.3.3 Analysis of Infrastructure and Layout Options .................................................................................... 21

3.3.4 Preferred infrastructure layout option ................................................................................................ 21

3.4 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF PROJECT OPTIONS ................................................................................21

4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT .........................................................................................................22

4.1 TERMINOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................22

4.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW ...........................................................................................................................23

4.3 RELATIONSHIP TO THE WHITE ROCK WIND FARM ............................................................................25

4.4 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................................25

4.5 LOCATION OF THE ACTIVITY AND PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ..............................................................26

4.6 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WRSF INFRASTRUCTURE ......................................................................26

4.6.1 Solar panels and framework ................................................................................................................ 27

4.6.2 Power Conversion Blocks (PCBs) including inverters, step up transformers and switchgear ............. 27

4.7 DESCRIPTION OF ASSOCIATED CIVIL WORKS .....................................................................................27

4.7.1 Connection to WRWF substation ......................................................................................................... 27

4.7.2 Internal access tracks ........................................................................................................................... 28

4.7.3 Fencing ................................................................................................................................................. 28

4.8 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ...............................................................................................................30

4.8.1 Pre‐construction activities ................................................................................................................... 30

4.8.2 Construction program .......................................................................................................................... 30

4.8.4 Proposed construction equipment ...................................................................................................... 32

4.8.5 Source and quantity of materials ........................................................................................................ 32

4.8.6 Timing of work ..................................................................................................................................... 32

4.8.7 Staffing requirements .......................................................................................................................... 33

4.9 OPERATION ........................................................................................................................................33

4.10 DECOMMISSIONING ...........................................................................................................................33

4.11 ACCESS AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ...............................................................................................34

4.12 INDICATIVE TIMELINE .........................................................................................................................34


6589 Final v1.3 iv

5 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ........................................................................................................36

5.1 AGENCY CONSULTATION ...................................................................................................................36

5.1.1 Department of Planning and Environment .......................................................................................... 36

5.1.2 Office of Environment and Heritage .................................................................................................... 36

5.1.3 Glen Innes Severn Council ................................................................................................................... 37

5.1.4 Inverell Shire Council ........................................................................................................................... 37

5.1.5 Department of Primary Industries (DPI) – Agriculture ........................................................................ 38

5.1.6 Department of Primary Industries (DPI) ‐ Water ................................................................................. 38

5.1.7 Environment Protection Authority ...................................................................................................... 39

5.1.8 Rural Fire Service ................................................................................................................................. 39

5.1.9 Roads and Maritime Services. ............................................................................................................. 39

5.2 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION ...........................................................................................................39

5.3 ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION .............................................................................................................40

6 PLANNING CONTEXT .........................................................................................................................42

6.1 ASSESSMENT CONTEXT ......................................................................................................................42

6.1.1 Permissibility ........................................................................................................................................ 42

6.1.2 State Significant Development (SDD) .................................................................................................. 42

6.2 EVALUATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................44

6.2.1 The provisions of any environmental planning instrument ................................................................. 45

6.2.2 The provisions of any development control plan ................................................................................ 49

6.2.3 The provisions of any relevant planning agreement ........................................................................... 49

6.2.4 The provisions of the EP&A Regulation ............................................................................................... 49

6.2.5 The likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on both the natural built

environments, and the social and economic impact in the locality ............................................... 49

6.2.6 Suitability of the site for the development .......................................................................................... 50

6.2.7 Any submissions made on the development ....................................................................................... 50

6.2.8 The public interest ............................................................................................................................... 50

6.3 NSW LEGISLATION ..............................................................................................................................51

6.3.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ............................................................................. 51

6.3.2 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 .......................................................................... 51

6.3.3 Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 ........................................................................................ 52

6.3.4 Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) .......................................................................................... 53

6.3.5 Native Vegetation Act 2003 ................................................................................................................. 53

6.3.6 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 .................................................................................................. 53

6.3.7 Noxious Weeds Act 1993 (NW Act) ..................................................................................................... 54

6.3.8 Roads Act 1993 .................................................................................................................................... 54

6.3.9 Crown Lands Act 1989 ......................................................................................................................... 54

6.3.10 Heritage Act 1977 ................................................................................................................................ 54


6589 Final v1.3 v

6.3.11 Mining Act 1992 ................................................................................................................................... 55

6.4 COMMONWEALTH LEGISLATION .......................................................................................................55

6.4.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ...................................................... 55

6.4.2 Native Title Act 1993............................................................................................................................ 56

6.4.3 Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 ............................................................................................. 57

6.5 OTHER RELEVANT POLICIES AND PLANS ............................................................................................57

6.5.1 Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) ....................................................................................... 57

6.5.2 Strategic Regional Land Use Plan – New England North West ............................................................ 59

6.6 SUMMARY OF LICENSES AND APPROVALS ........................................................................................60

7 SCOPING ............................................................................................................................................61

7.1 RISK ASSESSMENT ..............................................................................................................................61

7.2 CONSTRAINTS MAPPING ....................................................................................................................63

8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT – KEY ISSUES ...................................................................65

8.1 BIODIVERSITY (FLORA AND FAUNA) ...................................................................................................65

8.1.1 Approach ............................................................................................................................................. 65

8.1.2 Existing environment ........................................................................................................................... 66

8.1.3 Site surveys .......................................................................................................................................... 71

8.1.4 Potential impacts ................................................................................................................................. 72

8.1.5 Environmental safeguards ................................................................................................................... 74

8.2 ABORIGINAL HERITAGE ......................................................................................................................75

8.2.1 Approach ............................................................................................................................................. 75


8.2.3 Site survey ............................................................................................................................................ 76



8.3 VISUAL IMPACTS ................................................................................................................................78

8.3.1 Approach ............................................................................................................................................. 78




8.4 NOISE IMPACT ....................................................................................................................................83

8.4.1 Approach ............................................................................................................................................. 83


8.4.3 Policy setting and criteria .................................................................................................................... 84



8.5 LAND USE ...........................................................................................................................................88



6589 Final v1.3 vi

8.5.2 Potential Impacts ................................................................................................................................. 92


9 ASSESSMENT OF ADDITIONAL ISSUES ..............................................................................................95

9.1 SOILS AND LANDFORMS .....................................................................................................................95




9.2 WATER ................................................................................................................................................97


9.2.2 Potential impacts ............................................................................................................................... 100

9.2.3 Environmental safeguards ................................................................................................................. 102

9.3 TRAFFIC, TRANSPORT AND ROAD SAFETY....................................................................................... 102

9.3.1 Existing Environment ......................................................................................................................... 102

9.3.2 Traffic and the WRWF Project ........................................................................................................... 102



9.4 HEALTH AND SAFETY ....................................................................................................................... 106

9.4.1 Electromagnetic interference ............................................................................................................ 106

9.4.2 Aviation .............................................................................................................................................. 109

9.4.3 Bushfire .............................................................................................................................................. 110


9.5 RESOURCE USE AND WASTE GENERATION ..................................................................................... 113

9.5.1 Existing environment ......................................................................................................................... 113



9.6 HISTORIC HERITAGE ........................................................................................................................ 116

9.6.1 Approach ........................................................................................................................................... 116




9.7 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................. 118




9.8 SOCIOECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ............................................................................................. 121





6589 Final v1.3 vii

9.9 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................................................... 124



10 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................. 127

10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................................... 127

10.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS ..................................................................................................... 127

11 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 133

12 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 134

APPENDIX A SEARS ........................................................................................................................A‐I

APPENDIX B BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................... B‐I

APPENDIX C ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................................ C‐I

APPENDIX D VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................................................................................... D‐I

APPENDIX E NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................... E‐I

APPENDIX F DRAFT NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................................................................... F‐I

APPENDIX G DRAFT EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN ...................................................... G‐I

APPENDIX H DRAFT TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN ....................................................................... H‐I


6589 Final v1.3 viii

TABLES

Table 2‐1 Existing major power station capacity by technology in NSW. ......................................................8

Table 2‐2 Operational consumption over the short, medium and long term in NSW ...................................9

Table 4‐1 Property details and project infrastructure of the WRSF Development Envelope. ......................26

Table 4‐2 Key WRSF infrastructure components and associated construction activities .............................31

Table 4‐3 Phases of WRSF implementation relative to WRWF ....................................................................35

Table 6‐1 Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements for WRSF ................................................43

Table 6‐2 Summary of Matters of National Environmental Significance (50km search radius). .................56

Table 6‐3 Summary of other matters protected by the EPBC Act (50km search radius). ............................56

Table 6‐4 Summary extra information (50km search radius). .....................................................................56

Table 6‐5 Summary of licenses and approvals required for WRSF. .............................................................60

Table 7‐1 Risk assessment rating matrix. .....................................................................................................61

Table 7‐2 Risk analysis of adverse environmental issues. ...........................................................................62

Table 7‐3 Threatened species returned from the BCC as requiring survey ..................................................69

Table 7‐4 Additional species potentially present at the site .......................................................................69

Table 7‐5 Potential biodiversity impacts as a result of the proposal. ...........................................................72

Table 7‐6 RBL at background monitoring location R1 ..................................................................................84

Table 7‐7 The ICN management levels ........................................................................................................85

Table 7‐8 Predicted construction noise levels ..............................................................................................85

Table 7‐9 Assumed sound power spectrum for inverter/transformer units ...............................................87

Table 9‐1 Predicted traffic management volumes during construction .................................................... 103

Table 9‐2 ICNIRP reference levels (ICNIRP 2010) ....................................................................................... 107

Table 9‐3 Summary of total heritage listings. ............................................................................................ 116

Table 9‐4 Comparison of CO2 equivalent emissions produced per kilowatt hour .................................... 119

Table 9‐5 Forecast changes to various climate characteristics within New England Region ................... 123


6589 Final v1.3 ix

FIGURES

Figure 1‐1 WRSF Development Envelope in relation to WRWF project boundary ........................................4

Figure 2‐1– Indicative profile for average daily wind and solar generation profiles ....................................11

Figure 3‐1 Locations of five alternative development sites in relation to the WRWF ..................................18

Figure 4‐1 Images representative of proposed WRSF infrastructure components ......................................29

Figure 7‐1 Constraints map for the WRSF Development Envelope ..............................................................64

Figure 7‐2 Endangered ecological community map for the WRSF Development Envelope. ........................68

Figure 7‐3. SAL land within and surrounding the WRSF Development Envelope (NSW Crown Copyright ‐

Planning and Environment) ..........................................................................................................................90

Figure 9‐1 Drainage depression looking towards the north of the WRSF Development Envelope. ............98

Figure 9‐2 View to the south showing general path of drainage depression ..............................................98

Figure 9‐3 Waterbodies, drainage depressions and groundwater bores within and surrounding the WRSF

Development Envelope.................................................................................................................................99

Figure 9‐4 Comparative reflection analysis (Spaven 2011) ....................................................................... 110

Figure 9‐5 Renewable energy projects in proximity to the WRSF Development Envelope (base map: Epuron

2011) .......................................................................................................................................................... 122


6589 Final v1.3 x

TERMS AND DEFINITIONS AC Alternating current

ACHA Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment

AEMO Australian Energy Market Operator

Applicant

AR5

Entity applying for development consent under the EP&A Act (refer also proponent)

Assessment Report 5 (IPCC)

ARPANSA Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency

BAR Biodiversity Assessment Report

BCC Biobanking Credit Calculator

BOM Australian Bureau of Meteorology

BRMP Bush Fire Risk Management Plan

CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan

CHMP Cultural Heritage Management Plan

Cwth Commonwealth

DA Development Application

dB Decibel

dB(A) A measure of A‐weighted (c.f.) sound levels.

DC

DCCEE

Direct Current

Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (Commonwealth)

DECCW Refers to OEH

DEMP Decommissioning Environmental Management Plan

DP&E Department of Planning and Environment (NSW)

DPI Department of Primary Industries (NSW)

DoE (Cwth) Department of Environment.

EEC Endangered Ecological Community – as defined under relevant law applying to the proposal

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ELF Extremely low frequency, in relation to Hz (c.f.)

EMFs Electric and Magnetic Fields

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwth)

EPA (NSW) Environment Protection Authority

EPL Environment Protection Licence, issued under the POEO Act (c.f.)

EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)

EP&A Regulation Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (NSW)

ESD Ecologically Sustainable Development

GHG Greenhouse gas

GISC Glen Innes Severn Council


6589 Final v1.3 xi

GWCA

GWI

Goldwind Capital Australia

Goldwind International Holdings (HK) Limited

GWh Gigawatt hours

ha hectare

Heritage Act Heritage Act 1977 (NSW)

Hz Hertz

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ISC Inverell Shire Council

km kilometre

LALC Local Aboriginal Land Council

LCA Life Cycle Analysis, an assessment and quantification of the energy and material flows associated with a given process or product to identify the resource impacts of that process.

LEP Local Environment Plan

LGA

LGCs

LRET

Local Government Area

Large‐Scale Generation Certificates

Large‐Scale Renewable Energy Target

m metres

NEFR National Electricity Forecasting Report

NEM National Electricity Market

NWBFMC North West Bush Fire Management Committee

OEMP Operational Environmental Management Plan

MNES Matters of National Environmental Significance, under the EPBC Act (c.f.)

MRET Mandatory Renewable Energy Target

MW Megawatt

MWh Megawatt hours

NNTT National Native Title Tribunal

NW Act Noxious Weeds Act 1993 (NSW)

NSW New South Wales

OEH (NSW) Office of Environment and Heritage, formerly Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW)

OEMP Operational Environmental Management Plan

POEO Act Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW)

Proponent The entity proposing this development, in this instance, WRSFPL.

PV Photovoltaic

RBL Rating Background Level ‐ the level of background noise

RE Act Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 (Commonwealth)

REC Renewable Energy Certificate

RET Renewable Energy Target


6589 Final v1.3 xii

RFS NSW Rural Fire Service

Roads and Maritime

(NSW) Roads and Maritime Services, formerly Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA)

Roads Act

SAT

Roads Act 1993 (NSW)

Spot Assessment Technique

SEARs Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements

SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy (NSW)

SEPP (Infrastructure)

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (NSW)

Sound pressure level

The noise at a given distance from plant or equipment

SRD SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 (NSW)

SIS

SPM

Species Impact Statement

Summary for Policy Makers

SSD State Significant Development, as defined by Section 89C of the EP&A Act (c.f.)

TSC Act Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW)

µT Microtesla , multiples of a unit of magnetic field

V Volts

VIA

WG1

Visual Impact Assessment

Working Group 1 (IPCC)

WHO World Health Organisation

WMP Waste Management Plan

WRSF

WRSF Project

WRSFPL

White Rock Solar Farm as defined in Section 4.1 ‐ Terminology

White Rock Solar Farm Project as defined in Section 4.1 ‐ Terminology

White Rock Solar Farm Pty Ltd (the Proponent)

WRWF White Rock Wind Farm

WRWFPL

White Rock Wind Farm Pty Ltd (WRWF Proponent)


6589 Final v1.3 i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) identifies and assesses the environmental issues associated

with the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed White Rock Solar Farm Project

(WRSF Project). NGH Environmental has prepared the EIS on behalf of the proponent, White Rock Solar

Farm Pty Ltd (WRSFPL).

The EIS has been prepared in accordance with Part 4 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment

Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and Schedule 2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A

Regulations). The structure and content of the EIS address the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment

Requirements (SEARs), provided by NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) on 3 February

2016.

ES 1 ‐ PROJECT LOCATION

The WRSF Project would be located in the New England Tablelands, approximately 20 km west of Glen

Innes, NSW. It is located about 500 km north of Sydney and 400 km south‐west of Brisbane. The WRSF

would have a nominal capacity of up to approximately 20 megawatts (MW) (Alternating Current) and would

be built to enhance renewable energy generation at the White Rock Wind Farm (WRWF). The location of

the proposed WRSF Development Envelope is shown relative to the approved WRWF, Figure ES 1, below.

The WRSF Development Envelope (approximately 150 hectares (ha)) is located predominantly in the

western part of the Glen Innes Severn Local Government Area (LGA), within the Border Rivers‐Gwydir

catchment. A small part of the WRSF Development Envelope at the western extent is within the Inverell

LGA and only a short section (about 200 m) of WRSF access track would be within Inverell LGA. The WRSF

Development Envelope is zoned RU1, Primary Production under the Glen Innes Severn and Inverell Local

Environmental Plans (LEPs). The WRSF Development Envelope comprises rural land currently utilised for

grazing and cropping and is largely cleared of overstorey vegetation. The WRSF Development Footprint

would comprise only about 50 ha of the WRSF Development Envelope (as described in Section 4.1).

ES 2 – WRSF PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Infrastructure components proposed for the WRSF are listed below (and further outlined in Section 4.1).

An indicative WRSF layout is shown in Figure ES 2, below.

Solar panel arrays:

o Approximately 75,000 polycrystalline panels.

Mounting framework:

o The solar panels would be secured on a galvanised steel structure that consists of a frame secured to posts that have been pile driven into the ground.

o In the unlikely event that the posts cannot be pile driven, a ballasted solution may be investigated.

o A fixed panel arrangement to enable panels, at a tilt of between 15 and 30 degrees to the horizontal, to optimise solar incidence and achieve optimum efficiency.

Internal Direct Current (DC) wiring between panels and inverter systems within groups of panels.

Connection of groups of panels to Power Conversion Blocks (PCBs) within the area of the solar arrays.

Typically eight PCBs with a total output up to approximately 20 MW (AC) including:

o Inverter modules (container based modules) of the order of 1 to 2.75 MW.


6589 Final v1.3 ii

o Typically eight step‐up transformers to 33 kV (one transformer per PCB).

o 33 kV switchgear at each PCB.

33 kV cabling to link the WRSF output to the WRWF collections circuits.

Access tracks for access to the site during construction and to the PCBs during operation.

Fencing around the solar farm for security and safety.

Monitoring equipment.

Small permanent site building, approximately 12 m by 12 m in area.

Co‐use of the WRWF Operations and Maintenance Building for the operational phase.

WRSFPL is seeking development consent for the WRSF by mid‐2016 with the objective to commence

construction in first half of 2017 and be operating towards the end of 2017. The WRSF Project would

require approximately 6 months for construction with peak construction activity occurring over only about

3 months. The WRSF Project would operate for approximately 25 years.

ES 3 ‐ NEED FOR THE WRSF PROJECT

There is substantial scientific evidence that the Earth’s climate is changing. The 5th Assessment Report

(AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Working Group 1 (WG1), Summary for

Policy Makers (SPM), concluded that:

“Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of

the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse

gas emissions”…

The Quarterly update of the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (Department of Environment 2014) states

that energy generation is the largest individual contributor of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions in Australia,

accounting for 32% of emissions in the year to March 2014. Australia has committed to reducing its GHG

emissions to 26‐28% below 2005 levels, by 2030. Thus, there is an important role for the development of

renewable energy generation projects in lowering national emissions to combat climate change.

The central objective of the WRSF Project is to generate renewable electricity using solar PV technology.

The WRSF Project would form part of a hybrid wind/solar facility and export electricity generated onsite to

the national grid using the substation infrastructure to be constructed for the WRWF. While the Australian

Energy Market Operator (AEMO) does not predict that NSW will experience a shortfall of electricity over

the next couple of years, the WRSF Project would assist in meeting the Australian Government’s Renewable

Energy Target (RET) and would be important in the implementation of the NSW Renewable Energy Plan,

particularly due to the hybrid nature of the WRSF Project that provides cost effective delivery of the

required renewable energy to the grid.

ES 4 ‐ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONSULTATION

The detailed investigation of risks and impacts was undertaken for the construction, operation and

decommissioning phases of the WRSF. Additional to addressing the project‐specific SEARs, a risk

assessment was carried out to identify key environmental risks of the proposal, to guide the depth of

investigation that would be undertaken in this EIS. The risk assessment identified five environmental

aspects as key risks, and detailed investigations were subsequently undertaken in these areas:

Biodiversity impacts and, if relevant offsetting requirements

Aboriginal heritage impacts

Visual impacts


6589 Final v1.3 iii

Noise impacts

Land use impacts

Biodiversity, Aboriginal heritage, visual and noise impacts were investigated by specialists. Summaries of

these reports are included in Section 8 and the full reports are attached as Appendices B‐E. Land use has

been assessed in Section 8.5 with guidance provided in Primefact 1063 (DPI 2013). Additional issues that

did not constitute ‘Key Issues’ are considered in Section 9 of this EIS.

Where relevant to the assessment of the various issues and potential impacts, consultation was undertaken

with government agencies and community stakeholders as described in Section 5. Mitigation measures

identified in Sections 8 and 9 are compiled in Section 10.

Summary of results for key issues

Biodiversity impacts were assessed against the Framework for Biodiversity Assessment (FBA), the NSW

biodiversity offsets policy developed for Major Projects (OEH 2014) and the requirements of the SEARs.

The specialist report found no requirement to offset the biodiversity impacts of the development.

Mitigation measures are provided to further minimise impacts to vegetation and habitat. Based on the

specialist assessment, a referral under the EPBC Act is not considered to be required. Preparation of a

Species Impact Statement, under the TSC Act is not considered to be required.

Aboriginal cultural heritage impacts were assessed in accordance with the Guide to Investigating,

Assessing and Reporting on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in NSW (OEH 2011); the Code of Practice for the

Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (OEH 2010a), and Aboriginal Cultural

Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents 2010 (OEH 2010b). A search of the NSW OEH

Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) found that there are no recorded sites

within or adjacent to the proposed WRSF Development Envelope. Consultation with Aboriginal

stakeholders identified no places with cultural or spiritual significance and the field survey conducted with

registered Aboriginal stakeholders found no heritage sites throughout the WRSF Development Envelope.

The specialist report concluded that the WRSF Development Envelope holds low potential for unrecorded

heritage sites. Mitigation measures are provided to further minimise impacts in the design phase and a

Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) would be prepared to address the potential for finding

Aboriginal artefacts during the construction phase.

Visual Impacts were assessed by a Registered Landscape Architect with extensive experience of visual

impact assessments of infrastructure projects. The Visual Impact Assessment identified a total of 12

residential dwellings located within an approximate 4km viewshed surrounding the WRSF site. Sinclair

Lookout, Matheson Church and a small number of local roads were also identified as visual receivers for

the site. The specialist report found that majority of pre‐construction, construction and decommissioning

activities would be unlikely to result in an unacceptable level of visual impact due to their duration and

temporary nature. It also determined an overall very low level of visual impact during the operation phase

in relation to landscape character, impacts of residential dwellings, impacts on roads and other sensitive

receivers. Mitigation measures are provided to further minimise impacts in the design and operational

phases of the solar farm.

Noise Impacts for construction and operation were assessed by an acoustic specialist. The specialist

Environmental Noise Assessment (ENA) was undertaken with reference to the NSW Industrial Noise Policy

2000 (INP) and the Department of Environment & Climate Change Interim Construction Noise Guideline

2009 (ICN Guideline). The Noise Assessment modelled noise levels at 550 metres from the WRSF Project;

this is the distance of the closest dwelling to the proposed WRSF. At this distance, no receivers would be


6589 Final v1.3 iv

considered to be highly noise affected as defined by the ICN Guideline during construction. During

operation, the predicted noise levels comply with the criteria conservatively established in accordance with

INP, without any acoustic treatment. To further reduce impacts due to noise, a draft Noise Management

Plan has been developed for the solar farm and would be completed prior to Project implementation, to

ensure the noise impacts are managed appropriately.

Land Use impacts. The proposal would be located on land identified as Strategic Agricultural Land by the

Department of Primary Industries (DPI). Potential agricultural impacts considered in the EIS include

resource loss and fragmentation, disturbance to farming operations and livestock, and potential increased

in biosecurity, pest, weed and bushfire risks. Consultation with the landowner has resulted in avoidance

of an area considered to be of high agricultural value. Solar farm developments are considered to be highly

reversible and would not result in the permanent loss of agricultural land, after the decommissioning phase

of the WRSF Project. During decommissioning, all above ground infrastructure would be removed from the

site and the land returned to existing or alternative land uses.

Additional issues considered within Section 9 of this EIS included:

Soil and landforms.

Water Supply, hydrology and quality.

Traffic, transport and road safety.

Health and safety including electromagnetic interference, risks to aviation and bushfire risk.

Resource use and waste generation.

Historic heritage.

Climate and air quality.

Socioeconomic and community.

Cumulative impacts.

Where relevant, management measures to avoid or mitigate environmental impacts are outlined in the

relevant sections and compiled for all issues in Section 10.2.

ES 5 ‐ OVERALL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

A preliminary constraints analysis was used to inform the location of infrastructure in the early planning

phase of the WRSF Project, to avoid environmental impacts as far as reasonably and practically possible.

Impacts of the proposed WRSF relate primarily to the construction phase of the WRSF Project. Primary

impacts include clearing of vegetation (mostly for the access tracks, 33 kV cable trench and construction

laydown area), construction noise, construction traffic and dust. The main impacts associated with

operation relate to visual impact and reduction in agricultural production at the site for the duration of the

WRSF Project. Decommissioning impacts are generally of a similar nature but to a lesser extent than

construction impacts.

Mitigation measures and safeguards have been developed and are compiled in Chapter 10. The

management measures aim to minimise impacts of the proposal. They include prescriptions to further

reduce impacts where possible as well as standard protocols to manage activities that carry a pollution risk

(such as management of fuels and excavation activities). They are precautionary in that, where uncertainty

was present regarding risk, a mitigation measure has been included. There is a high degree of certainty

regarding the ability of the measures to manage the risks identified.


6589 Final v1.3 v

This EIS also includes the following draft management plans:

Draft Noise Management Plan (Appendix F)

Draft Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (Appendix G)

Draft Traffic Management Plan (Appendix H)

Development of a draft Landscaping Management Plan (requested by the SEARs) to minimise visual

impacts on affected landowners has been assessed by the Landscape specialist as not necessary for WRSF

based on, consultation with affected landowners, review of view field, existing screening by terrain and

vegetation and considering the low levels of visual impact predicted by the assessment.

Based on the assessments undertaken and with the implementation of the management measures

identified in this EIS, it has been reliably demonstrated that:

Potential impacts are manageable and would not result in a significant impact to the environment,

including any Matters of National Environmental Significance.

ES 6 ‐ CONCLUSIONS

The WRSF Project involves the construction and operation of a 20 MW Solar Farm that will provide a

beneficial contribution to Australia’s transition to a low emission energy generation economy.

Development of the solar farm would make use of existing WRWF grid connection and access infrastructure

through a hybrid wind / solar project that optimises use of the infrastructure and enables cost effective

delivery of additional supply of renewable energy.

This EIS has assessed the potential environmental impacts of the WRSF and, as applicable, identified

management measures to minimise the impacts. Overall, the WRSF Project has been assessed as able to

comply with relevant Acts and Regulations, is compatible with existing land uses and highly reversible and,

upon decommissioning, the site can be returned to its previous agricultural capacity or alternative land

use.

The WRSF Project is considered to be consistent with the principles of Ecologically Sustainable

Development. Specifically, it would address the need to mitigate the risk of climate change to current and

future generations by reducing the carbon emissions intensity of electricity generation.

In light of the benefits of the WRSF Project, the assessed low level of environmental impact, the high level

of manageability related to these impacts and their reversibility after the decommissioning phase of the

WRSF Project, the WRSF Project is considered to be justified.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!. !.

!.

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")")

")

")

")

98

65

432

8382

81

80

79

78

7675

73

7271

6968

65

6463

62

61

60

59

55

5453

5251

48

47

44

4140

3938

3736

34

3130

292827

2522

212019

14

13

1110

113112111110

109

7

1

77

58

5756

35

26

15

Jenkins Rd

Kelley

sR

d

I lparran Rd

Kelleys Rd

SpringMountain Rd

GWYDIRHIGHWAY

Maybole Rd

I180 J180

H40

L80L82

L83

I40

F131

N180

N190

F132

M80

N191

M60

E50

K30

E140

N90

O191

P190

Q170

P70

R190

Q81

Q80

Q110

Q70

Q82

J181

L170

L180K170

H140

L100

L90

L70

L71

L101

F120

K51

K50

O190

N100

P170

R121

R130

R120

357500 360000 362500 365000 36750066

9250

066

9500

066

9750

067

0000

067

0250

067

0500

067

0750

0

PROJECT

TITLE

DRAWING No. REV

White Rock Wind Farm and Solar FarmProject LocationsWRWF and WRSF

LEGEND

Disclaimer:This plan was prepared for the purpose and exclusive use of Goldwind Australia.Goldwind Australia gives no warranty in relationto the data (including accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability) and accepts no liability for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage) relating to any use of the data in this map.

Projection: GDA94 MGA56

±0 1,000 2,000500 Metres

Approved

16/02/2016

1:50,000 @ A3

STATUS

DATE

SCALE

WRSOL_OVR_017_6A

J.Gardner

I.Mackey

J.Bembrick

APPROVED

PRODUCED

CHECKED

06A

Wind Farm Project Boundary

Cadastral Boundary

!. Turbine Layout 66

#0 Permanent Met Mast

") WRWF Involved Residence

") WRWF Uninvolved Residence

") WRWF Neighbour Agreement

Existing 132kV Transmission Line

33kV Overhead Line (Proposed)


Access Tracks (Proposed)

Substation / Switchyard

Wind Farm Facilities (Modified Layout)Operation & Maintenance Facility

Temporary Construction Compound

Laydown Area

Concrete Batching Plant

WR Solar Farm Development AreaSolar Farm - Development Area

Note: All WRWF infrastructure subject to a 100m micrositing allowance under the WRWF Project Approval

Lot 32DP 753319

Lot 27DP 753319

Lot 30DP 753319

Lot 78DP 753260

Lot 31DP 753319

Lot 29DP 753319

Figure ES 1 WRSF Project Area in relation to WRWF Project boundary


6589 Final v1.3 vii

Figure ES 2 Indicative WRSF layout (subject to detailed design and site constraints).

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

!(

!(

78

132

30

3132

27

29

119

7001

26

DP753260

DP753319

DP753319

DP753319DP753319

DP753319

DP753260

DP753319

DP93978

DP665915

2

1

°0 200 400100 Meters

www.nghenvironmen tal.com.au

Ref: 6589 4.1 v7Author: JB

Notes:- Infrastructure data and aer ial courtesyof Goldwind, received 2016

10m contours

Farm dam

Cadastre

Existing 132kV overhead powerline

Proposed solar farm

Development envelope

Solar array

Construction office and laydown area") Power Conversion Blocks

Indicative 33kV cable route

Alternative 33kV cable route

Fence

WRSF access tracks

Wind farm infrastructure!( Wind turbine

Wind farm access track

WRWF 33kV cabling and communications

Proposed 132kV overhead powerline

WRWF facilities

Gwydir Highway


6589 Final v1.3 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS DOCUMENT

This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) identifies and assesses the environmental issues associated

with the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed White Rock Solar Farm (WRSF).

NGH Environmental has prepared the EIS on behalf of the proponent, White Rock Solar Farm Pty Ltd

(WRSFPL), a subsidiary of Goldwind International Holdings (HK) Limited (GWI).

This EIS has been prepared in accordance with Part 4 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment

Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and Schedule 2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A

Regulation). The structure and content of the EIS addresses the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment

Requirements (SEARs), provided by NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) on 3 February

2016 in respect of WRSF Project SSD 16_7487.

By virtue of the EP&A Act and State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011

(SRD SEPP), the WRSF is State Significant Development (SSD). Accordingly, the application for development

consent will be assessed and determined by the Minister for Planning (or delegate) under Part 4.1 of the

EP&A Act.

1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW

The WRSF would be located in the New England Tablelands, approximately 20 km west of Glen Innes, about

500 km north of Sydney and 400 km south‐west of Brisbane. The WRSF would have a nominal capacity of

up to approximately 20 megawatts (MW) Alternating Current (AC) and would be built to enhance

renewable energy generation at the White Rock Wind Farm (WRWF).

WRWF received project approval in July 2012 allowing for the installation and operation of 119 wind

turbines. WRWF Stage 1 involves 70 turbines and is scheduled to start construction in late March 2016.

The WRSF would be located within and adjacent to the WRWF project area. Figure 1‐1 shows the WRSF

Development Envelope of approximately 150 hectare (ha) in relation to the WRWF. Only a portion of the

Development Envelope would be used for infrastructure and form the WRSF Development Footprint

(approximately 50 ha). The hybrid wind/solar renewable energy facility comprising the WRSF and the

WRWF would share significant infrastructure, including the WRWF grid connection, WRWF access tracks

and a WRWF cable corridor. These aspects, herein referred to as WRSF Shared Infrastructure, have been

assessed for the WRWF project and are not addressed in this EIS.

The WRSF Development Envelope is located predominantly in the western part of the Glen Innes Severn

Local Government Area (LGA) within the Border Rivers‐Gwydir catchment. A small part of the Development

Envelope at the western extent is within the Inverell LGA and only a short section (about 200m) of WRSF

access track would be within Inverell LGA. The WRSF Development Envelope is zoned RU1, Primary

Production under both the Glen Innes Severn Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Glen Innes LEP) and the

Inverell Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Inverell LEP). The WRSF Development Envelope comprises rural

land currently utilised for grazing and cropping and is largely cleared.

The capital cost of the WRSF Project is estimated at approximately $45 million. Subject to approval,

construction is proposed to commence in 2017 and the WRSF Project would be expected to take up to six

months to reach operational status.


6589 Final v1.3 2

The WRSF Project is expected to have a 25 year operating life and would employ additional operations and

maintenance personnel in conjunction with the WRWF operation. At the end of its operating life, the WRSF

could be either decommissioned or, subject to planning approvals and landowner agreements, be

retrofitted with new equipment. If decommissioned, all above ground infrastructure would be removed

and the site would be rehabilitated to allow for a return to agricultural or other land use.

This EIS has assessed the WRSF Development Envelope of approximately 150 (ha) where infrastructure

may be located, to allow for some flexibility in the solar farm design. When quantifying impacts in this

assessment, the indicative WRSF Development Footprint of approximately 50 ha has been used.

Infrastructure within the WRSF Development Footprint includes the solar panel arrays, associated

inverters, step‐up transformers, monitoring equipment, 33 kV cabling and access tracks.

An indicative WRSF Project design is included in Section 4. The final design would be informed by the final

environmental constraints, mitigation measures determined in this EIS, any additional development

consent conditions and technical aspects from the detailed design phase.

1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of the WRSF Project is to generate renewable electricity using solar PV technology.

In addition, the WRSF Project involves development of a hybrid wind/solar facility, exporting electricity

generated to the grid through the infrastructure to be constructed for the WRWF. The objective is to

maximise the amount of renewable electricity that can be produced at the site without the need for

additional connecting infrastructure.

This reduces the potential environmental impact of the solar farm development by minimising the

disturbance footprint (no standalone substation is required for the WRSF), reducing visual and noise

impacts as a result of less infrastructure and the efficient use of resources. The sharing of infrastructure

between the wind and solar farms also enables a more cost effective delivery of electricity that contributes

to lower electricity pricing.

1.4 BACKGROUND TO THE WRSF PROJECT

The WRWF will include up to 119 wind turbines and associated infrastructure including access tracks, a 33

kV/132 kV substation and approximately 8 km of 132 kV transmission line to connect to TransGrid’s existing

132 kV Glen Innes to Inverell transmission line. The proponent for WRWF is WRWFPL. The WRWF was

acquired from Epuron, in 2013, by Goldwind Capital Australia (GWCA) and is owned by Goldwind

International (GWI). WRWFPL has scheduled construction of WRWF to commence from approximately

March 2016 with operation of the wind farm due to begin from approximately mid‐2017.

Associated with the construction of the WRWF, GWI has identified an opportunity to supplement the

renewable energy generation from the wind farm with energy produced from a solar farm. It is indicated

that wind/solar hybrid renewable energy plants are a relatively new trend internationally and, in Australia

several such projects are in the planning/approval stages. Gullen Solar Farm Pty Ltd, has submitted a

Development Application (DA) for the Gullen Solar Farm that once approved will enable development of a

wind‐solar hybrid plant at Gullen Range Wind Farm. The advantage of combining wind and solar generation

profiles at the same location is that the combined electricity generation profile can be maximised. As

WRWF generates a greater percentage of energy at night and the wind farm substation will have spare

capacity during day time periods when solar generation capacity is available (refer to Figure 2‐1) the two


6589 Final v1.3 3

forms of renewable energy generation are compatible. This assists in providing the community with a more

consistent and reliable supply of electricity and a clean alternative to coal‐fired power.

The WRSF together with the WRWF, would comprise an area referred to as the White Rock Renewable

Energy Precinct and the Precinct would have a total wind and solar generation capacity of 195 MW. Whilst

this would exceed the total capacity for the grid connection (nominally 170MW), modelling demonstrates

that there is only a small percentage of the time (<2%) that part of the output of the solar farm would be

constrained by total generation capacity exceeding the connection capacity.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!. !.

!.

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")")

")

")

")

98

65

432

8382

81

80

79

78

7675

73

7271

6968

65

6463

62

61

60

59

55

5453

5251

48

47

44

4140

3938

3736

34

3130

292827

2522

212019

14

13

1110

113112111110

109

7

1

77

58

5756

35

26

15

Jenkins Rd

Kelley

sR

d

I lparran Rd

Kelleys Rd

SpringMountain Rd

GWYDIRHIGHWAY

Maybole Rd

I180 J180

H40

L80L82

L83

I40

F131

N180

N190

F132

M80

N191

M60

E50

K30

E140

N90

O191

P190

Q170

P70

R190

Q81

Q80

Q110

Q70

Q82

J181

L170

L180K170

H140

L100

L90

L70

L71

L101

F120

K51

K50

O190

N100

P170

R121

R130

R120

357500 360000 362500 365000 36750066

9250

066

9500

066

9750

067

0000

067

0250

067

0500

067

0750

0

PROJECT

TITLE

DRAWING No. REV

White Rock Wind Farm and Solar FarmProject LocationsWRWF and WRSF

LEGEND



±0 1,000 2,000500 Metres

Approved

16/02/2016

1:50,000 @ A3

STATUS

DATE

SCALE

WRSOL_OVR_017_6A

J.Gardner

I.Mackey

J.Bembrick

APPROVED

PRODUCED

CHECKED

06A


Cadastral Boundary













Laydown Area


WR Solar Farm Development AreaSolar Farm - Development Area


Lot 32DP 753319

Lot 27DP 753319

Lot 30DP 753319

Lot 78DP 753260

Lot 31DP 753319

Lot 29DP 753319

Figure 1.1 WRSF Project Area in relation to WRWF Project boundary


6589 Final v1.3 5

1.5 THE WRSF PROPONENT

The proponent for the WRSF Project is WRSFPL. WRSFPL is ultimately owned by Goldwind International

(GWI); an international, multi‐faceted wind power company. Based in China, GWI is a global leader in

manufacturing wind turbine generators and in providing comprehensive wind power solutions. Within

Australia, Goldwind is involved with the sales of Goldwind turbines and the development of wind and solar

projects.

Since establishment in Australia in 2009, Goldwind has developed and now operates:

Mortons Lane Wind Farm (VIC), 13 turbines, generating capacity up to 19.5 MW of electricity.

Gullen Range Wind Farm (NSW), 73 turbines, generating capacity up to 165.5MW of electricity.

WRWF is Goldwind’s third Australian wind farm development and, it’s second in NSW. In addition,

Goldwind has now progressed planning of two solar projects, Gullen Solar Farm (11MW) and White Rock

Solar Farm (20 MW).

1.6 ARENA ADVANCING RENEWABLES PROGRAM

ARENA is the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, a commercially oriented government agency. It was

established on 1 July 2012 by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011.

ARENA has two objectives:

To improve the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies.

To increase the supply of renewable energy in Australia.

ARENA’s timeframe for delivering its objectives is 2022, with an intent to provide competitive energy

solutions up to 2030‐40.

ARENA has approximately $2.5 billion in funding, which is legislated and extends until 2022. ARENA funds

activities that are expected to advance renewable energy technologies towards commercial readiness,

improve business models or reduce overall industry costs.

Goldwind Australia has been invited to submit an application for the WRSF Project to ARENA in the

competitive round of the Large Scale Photovoltaics (PV). ARENA has allocated $100 million in funding to

support large‐scale solar PV projects selected through the round. Twenty two high merit projects including

WRSF have been short‐listed to submit full applications for this funding by 15 June 2016. Individual projects

cannot seek more than $30 million in funding.


6589 Final v1.3 6

2 NEED AND JUSTIFICATION OF THE PROJECT

2.1 CLIMATE CHANGE AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

There is substantial scientific evidence that the Earth’s climate is changing. Some impacts of this are already

being observed (increases in air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising

sea levels) with other indicators including altered rainfall patterns and more frequent or intense weather

patterns such as heatwaves, drought, and storms (DCCEE 2010). Climate change impacts in Australia are

anticipated to affect water supply and quality, ecosystems and conservation, agriculture and forestry,

fisheries, settlements and industry and human health, while trade and commodity prices may also be

impacted by the global impacts of climate change (DCCEE 2010).

Natural and anthropogenic substances and processes that alter the Earth’s energy budget are drivers of

climate change. These drivers have been studied in detail for many years. Radiative forcing quantifies the

change in energy fluxes caused by changes in these drivers for 2011 relative to 1750. The significance of

1750 is that it represents the commencement of the Industrial Age and utilisation of hydrocarbon fuels to

support development and modern lifestyles.

The 5th Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Working Group

1 (WG1), Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), concluded that:

“The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in atmospheric concentration

of carbon dioxide since 1750” (IPCC 2013).

The AR5 WG1 SPM 2013 further concluded that:

“Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of

the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse

gas emissions”; and

“Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and

beyond. Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped.

This represents a substantial multi‐century climate change commitment created by past, present and future

emissions of CO2.”

Most people that take the time to review the material presented in AR5, WG1 SPM will appreciate the

need for a response to anthropogenic climate changes. There is a range of responses to Climate Change

that are complementary and are likely to be needed together to achieve effective mitigation of climate

change trends and effects. One important measure is the transition to less carbon intensive generation

technologies that will reduce emissions intensity and growth in CO2 emissions. Renewable energy

technologies such as wind, solar, hydro that have very low CO2 emissions are crucial to efforts to redress

the current adverse changes. The significant global increase in take‐up of renewable energy technologies

is testimony to the importance of these forms of energy generation.


6589 Final v1.3 7

2.1.1 Greenhouse gas emission benefits – electricity generation

The quarterly update of the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (Department of Environment 2014), states

that energy generation is the largest individual contributor of GHG emissions in Australia, accounting for

32% of emissions in the year to March 2014. Thus, there is an important role for the development of

renewable energy generation projects in lowering electricity generation’s contribution to national

emissions intensity, and as a result, combating climate change.

Reducing GHG emissions globally is likely to be able to reduce the rate and magnitude of climate change.

The WRSF Project would produce an estimated 20 MW per year of renewable electricity that would assist

in meeting the LRET and providing a GHG emission‐free source of electricity to the Australian electricity

grid. Where renewable energy supplies displace carbon based electricity generation then it results in

greenhouse gas emissions savings, providing added benefit of renewable energy technology.

2.1.2 Greenhouse gas emission benefits ‐ life cycle analysis

Life cycle emissions take into account emissions produced during the manufacture, construction, operation

and decommissioning of, in this case, electricity generation technologies. When compared with existing

conventional fossil‐fuel based electricity generation, solar PV technology generates far less life‐cycle GHG

emissions per GWh than conventional fossil‐fuel‐based electricity generation technologies (Fthenakis et al

2008).

Unlike fossil fuel systems, most of the GHG emissions for solar technology occur upstream of the lifecycle,

with the majority of the emissions (50‐80%) arising during the production of the module (Weisser n.d).

Other lifecycle emissions relate to construction and decommissioning activities. During plant operation,

the production of electricity with photovoltaic modules emits no pollution, produces no GHGs, and uses no

finite fossil‐fuel resources. Support activities, such as maintenance works, may however generate

emissions but the amount would be regarded as being very low. End of life and associated transport

activities do not result in meaningful cumulative GHG emissions (Weisser n.d).

Emissions from conventional fossil fuel based energy generation can therefore be avoided by replacing

conventional methods of fossil fuel energy generation with solar PV energy generation. The WRSF Project

is expected to supply on average approximately 41,000 MWh of electricity per year over a 25 year operating

period with an energy payback period of 2 years1. Approximately 36,900 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per

annum would be avoided while the WRSF Project is operational, when compared to fossil‐fuel based energy

generation.2

1 Data sourced from U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, PV Faqs datasheet, dated January 2004. This correlates with a more recent research paper produced by M.J. de Wild‐Scholten titled ‘Energy payback time and carbon footprint of commercial photovoltaic systems’, dated December 2013, and found in Volume 119 of Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells.

2 Based on a CO2 equivalent intensity factor of 0.9 (AEMO 2016).


6589 Final v1.3 8

2.2 ENERGY CONTEXT IN AUSTRALIA AND NSW

2.2.1 Electricity generation in NSW

Electricity in NSW is generated from a range of fuel sources, including black coal, natural gas, coal seam

methane gas and to a lesser extent from renewable energy sources such as hydro, wind, biomass and solar

(NSW T&I 2015).

NSW has over 18,000 MW of installed electricity generation capacity. Table 2‐1 shows the installed

capacity of power stations with greater than 30MW capacity, relative to the fuel used by the power station.

Interconnectors with Queensland and Victoria provide additional capacity of about 1,100 MW and 1,500

MW respectively.

Table 2‐1 Existing major power station capacity by technology in NSW.

Technology and energy source Capacity (MW)

Fossil fuel technologies

Steam/Coal 10,760

12,860

Open Cycle Gas Turbine 1,388

Combined Cycle Gas Turbine 460

Diesel 156

Coal Seam Methane 96

Renewable energy sources

Hydro 4510

5,390 Wind 657

Solar 155

Bagasse 68

Total 18,250

Note: Table only includes major power stations with capacities over 30 MW.

Source: Modified from NSW T&I 2015

In addition to the installed capacity described above, there are over 17,500 MW of power plant proposals

in NSW (including over 8,500 MW from renewable sources) at various phases of development, from

concept to construction.

2.2.2 National Electricity Market

The National Electricity Market (NEM), Australia’s wholesale electricity market for the supply of electricity

to retailers and end‐users, has operations in five interconnected regions – Queensland, New South Wales

and the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. The independent Australian

Energy Market Operator (AEMO) manages operation of the NEM. AEMO published the 2015 National

Electricity Forecasting Report (NEFR) in June 2015.

The NEFR provides AEMO’s independent electricity consumption and maximum demand forecasts for the

NEM and each of the five regions over a 20 year outlook period. For NSW, AEMO (2015) forecasts a

recovery in operational consumption in the short term driven by the residential and commercial sector,


6589 Final v1.3 9

which represents the largest proportion of the total state load. Medium and long term forecasts indicate

a stronger recovery in operational consumption, again driven by the residential and commercial sector

(refer Table 2‐2). For 2015 reporting period, NSW is the only NEM region to have a slight increase in the

per capita consumption, thought to be driven by a relative fall in electricity prices and increase in average

income.

Table 2‐2 Operational consumption over the short, medium and long term in NSW

Timeframe Forecast (GWh) Average annual change

Short term

(2014‐15 to 2017‐18)

66,935 to 68,151 0.6%

Medium term

(2017‐18 to 2024‐25)

68,151 to 73,878 1.2%

Long term

(2024‐25 to 2034‐35)

73,878 to 84,030 1.3%

Source: AEMO 2015

While operational consumption in NSW is predicted to rise, the AEMO medium term outlook for NSW (as

of 19/01/2016) indicates that the state will not experience a shortfall of electricity over the next couple of

years. Growth in generation from renewable energy sources is, however, essential to meet State and

Australian Government renewable energy targets (discussed below in Section 2.3.1).

2.3 STRATEGIC DIRECTION OF THE REGION AND STATE

Australia is a signatory to various international agreements, conventions and protocols. Most recently, at

the Paris climate change conference, Australia committed to reducing its emissions to 26‐28% below 2005

levels by 2030.

The Australian and NSW Governments have each developed strategies and set targets in relation to

renewable energy generation that will assist in meeting energy demand while at the same time reducing

GHG emissions. Key plans, strategies and targets, and how the proposal relates to them, are discussed

below.

2.3.1 Australia’s Renewable Energy Target

In 2001, the Commonwealth Government introduced the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET)

Scheme to increase the amount of renewable energy being used in Australia’s electricity supply. The initial

aim was to source two per cent of the nation’s electricity generation from renewable sources. Compliance

is demonstrated by surrendering renewable energy certificates (RECs), where one REC is equivalent to one

additional megawatt‐hour (MWh) of electricity generated from renewable energy sources. In 2009, the

MRET was expanded from a target of 9,500 GWh of Australia’s electricity supply produced from renewable

energy sources in 2010, to a target of 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity supply by 2020, or 45,000 GWh.

The large increase in the target was expected to accelerate the development and deployment of a broad

range of renewable energy technologies including solar, biomass and geothermal energy.

From January 2011, the existing target was divided into two components, separating large and small‐scale

projects, which combined were expected to exceed the 45,000 GWh target. At this time, RECs were also

reclassified as either large‐scale generation certificates (LGCs) and small‐scale technology certificates

(STCs). The Large‐scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET) aims to create a financial incentive for the


6589 Final v1.3 10

establishment and growth of megawatt scale renewable energy power stations, such as wind and solar

farms, or hydro‐electric power stations through the creation of large‐scale generation certificates.

In June 2015, the Australian parliament passed the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2015.

As part of the amendment bill, the Large Scale Renewable Energy Target was reduced from 41,000 GWh to

33,000 GWh in 2020 with interim and post 2020 targets adjusted accordingly. The current projection is

that about 23.5% of Australia’s electricity generation in 2020 will be from renewable sources.

At the commencement of operation, the WRSF Project would produce an estimated 46,000 MWh/year of

renewable electricity and supply over 1 million MWh over its life. This would assist Australia to meet the

LRET and WRSF would constitute approximately 0.18 per cent of the annual LRET target for 2018 (26,031

GWH) (Clean Energy Regulator 2015), the year it is proposed to become operational, and approximately

0.14 per cent of the overall LRET target. This is additional to the renewable energy that would be generated

by the WRWF.

2.3.2 NSW 2021: A Plan to Make NSW Number One

This plan was released in 2011, replacing the State Plan as the NSW Government’s strategic business plan,

setting priorities for action and guiding resource allocation. Goal 22 of this plan seeks to protect our natural

environment, and includes a specific target to increase renewable energy. A commitment is made to:

Contribute to the national renewable energy target [i.e. 20% renewable energy supply] by promoting

energy security through a more diverse energy mix, reducing coal dependence, increasing energy

efficiency and moving to lower emission energy sources (NSW Government 2011).

Specific initiatives under this target that directly support building solar power plants included the Solar

Flagships Program, in partnership with the Commonwealth Government, established in 2009 (now closed).

Additionally, a strategic move towards renewable energy generation is supported through the

establishment of a Joint Industry Government Taskforce to develop a Renewable Energy Action Plan for

NSW, which would identify opportunities for investment in renewable energy sources (refer to Section

2.3.3).

2.3.3 NSW Renewable Energy Action Plan

In 2013, the NSW Government released the NSW Renewable Energy Action Plan to guide NSW’s renewable

energy development (NSW Government 2013). The Government’s vision is for a secure, affordable and

clean energy future for NSW.

The Plan positions the state to increase energy from renewable sources, at least cost to the energy

customer and with maximum benefits to NSW. The strategy is to work closely with NSW communities and

the renewable energy industry to increase renewable energy generation in NSW.

The Plan details three goals and 24 actions to efficiently grow renewable energy generation in NSW:

1. Attract renewable energy investment and projects.

2. Build community support for renewable energy.

3. Attract and grow expertise in renewable energy.

The plan recognises hybrid systems as being a cost effective way to extend the life of existing infrastructure

and create a reliable energy supply from a variable energy source. The NSW Government understands the

opportunities available from hybrid systems and will examine proposals that maximise the use of

renewable resources through integrated energy technologies (NSW Government 2013).


6589 Final v1.3 11

2.4 WHITE ROCK SOLAR FARM BENEFITS

The central objective of the WRSF Project is to generate electricity using solar PV technology. The WRSF

Project would form part of a hybrid wind/solar facility and export electricity generated to the grid, using

infrastructure to be constructed for the WRWF. The solar infrastructure would be located within and

adjacent to the WRWF project area. The WRSF Project would complement the energy generation from

WRWF and reduce the variability of output. This is shown in the indicative average daily generation profile

in Figure 2‐1.

Figure 2‐1– Indicative profile for average daily wind and solar generation profiles

This proposed hybrid wind/solar facility would be an important demonstration project. It would be at the

forefront of renewable energy systems technology in Australia and demonstrate the advantages of co‐

locating energy infrastructure, resulting in costs savings and reduced environmental impacts associated

with the development of a solar farm site. The WRSF would utilise other infrastructure already in place

that would be maintained as part of the WRWF, including electrical infrastructure (substation), access

tracks, operation and maintenance building and transport routes. Subject to suitable contract

arrangements, the same construction site facilities may be shared with WRWF. However, as this has not

been confirmed, this EIS identifies separate construction facilities at the WRSF site.

The WRSF Project would include a Knowledge Sharing Plan (KSP) to capitalise on key lessons learned from

the WRSF Project. The KSP would be available to industry, education facilities and the general public. It

would include a website showing live performance data, providing valuable knowledge to the wider

renewable energy industry.

During its operational life, the WRSF Project would provide additional work for a larger WRWF onsite

maintenance and operations staff. The onsite staff would acquire new transferrable skills and experience,

and there is some potential for further employment for local skilled workers.

The WRSF also presents an opportunity for a WRWF host landowner to further diversify the income streams

of their property. Renewable energy generation is a ‘drought proof’ income stream, compatible with

agricultural enterprises.


6589 Final v1.3 12

Overall, the expanded renewable energy facility will deliver further economic benefits to the local economy

during construction and operations.

The WRSF Project would provide power to supply an estimated 7,200 average NSW homes3 and would

assist to:

Reduce GHG emissions and move towards cleaner electricity generation. The WRSF Project would

avoid the release of approximately 36,900 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per annum, by replacing fossil

fuel based energy with solar generated energy.

Utilise existing infrastructure and thereby reduce potential environmental impacts from new

infrastructure.

Maximise renewable electricity generation and supply into the Australian grid.

Develop the solar power industry and supply chain in Australia.

Develop Australian intellectual property and know‐how in solar power and hybrid wind/solar

technology.

Assist in meeting NSW and Australian Government targets for renewable energy generation and

reductions in GHG emissions.

Specific to community benefits, the WRSF Project would:

Generate approximately 50 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) jobs during construction and a small number

of additional jobs during operation.

Provide flow‐on economic benefits to the local area and encourage regional development.

Diversify the skills and experience of WRWF operations and maintenance staff.

Maximise the use of local contractors, manufacturing facilities and materials during construction,

through liaison with local industry representatives.

3 Household Energy Consumption Survey, Australia, 2012, found that the average Australian home without solar power used 122.3 kWh of energy per week, totalling 6359.6 kWh annually. The study ‘Electricity Bill Benchmarks’ by ACIL Allen Consulting for the Australian Energy Regulator in 2014 found that the average Australian home used 5915 kWh annually, while the average NSW home used 6,220 kWh.


6589 Final v1.3 13

2.5 NEED AND JUSTIFICATION

The WRSF would generate approximately 46 gigawatt hours (AC) or 46,000 megawatt hours of electricity

in the first year of operation. This is enough electricity to supply the equivalent of approximately 7,200

average NSW homes4. The generation of non‐polluting renewable energy assists with the transition from

fossil fuel generated electricity to a cleaner more sustainable alternative in line with the Government’s

Renewable Energy Target. This is in keeping with national and international agreements to which Australia

is a party.

The WRSF Project is justified due to its ability to:

Utilise existing energy infrastructure to supply additional renewable electricity through a hybrid

wind/solar facility.

Generate additional renewable energy at the WRWF location.

Provide for further reduction in GHG emissions intensity for generation in the NEM.

Provide further investment in a local community which has previously shown support for

renewable energy.

Improves the cost effectiveness of the renewable energy by utilising the wind‐solar hybrid project.

4 Refer footnote 3 above.


6589 Final v1.3 14

3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

During the development of the WRSF, a number of alternative options and infrastructure layouts were

considered in respect of project objectives and an overview of the considerations are described below.

Alternatives considered relate to:

The capacity of the WRSF.

The selection of the WRSF Development Envelope.

Alternative infrastructure designs and layout configurations.

3.1 CAPACITY OF THE WRSF PROJECT

3.1.1 Option 1: Do nothing

Under this option, no solar farm development would take place and the opportunity to generate additional

renewable energy from a hybrid wind/solar system would be lost.

3.1.2 Option 2: Construct a 20 MW hybrid wind/solar farm

Under this option, a solar farm capable of generating up to 20 MW of electricity would be constructed. The

solar farm would complement the operations of the WRWF (a hybrid wind/solar farm) and would increase

the amount of renewable energy that could be generated from the WRWF infrastructure.

3.1.3 Option 3: Construct a larger MW hybrid wind/solar farm (maximum capacity)

The maximum output of the WRWF grid connection supports about 170 MW of generation capacity. The

WRSF and the WRWF together constitute about 195 MW of generating capacity, which exceeds the

maximum possible output. However, due to different generation profiles, the combined generation only

exceeds the maximum for less than 2% of the time. Installation of additional solar farm generating capacity

would result in increased time when the maximum output is exceeded and where output cannot be

exported. As a result, the value in increasing the scale of the solar farm development is reduced.

3.1.4 Analysis of WRSF Project capacity options

Option 1, not constructing a solar farm, would be the cheapest option for WRSFPL and would not cause

any of the potential environmental impacts that would generally result from a solar farm development.

The option would not however, capitalise on the opportunity to produce additional renewable energy from

infrastructure that will be constructed for the WRWF. The consequences of not proceeding with the WRSF

would not meet the objectives of the WRSF Project, resulting in:

Loss of opportunity to reduce GHG emissions intensity and move towards cleaner electricity

generation.

Loss of additional renewable energy sourced electricity generation and supply into the Australian

grid.

Loss of opportunity to increase the utilisation of the existing wind farm grid connection.

Loss of social and economic benefits through the provision of direct and indirect employment

opportunities locally and regionally during construction and operation of the solar farm.


6589 Final v1.3 15

Doing nothing would avoid potential environmental impacts associated with the development and

operation of the proposed solar farm, which include temporary construction noise, traffic and dust, visual

impacts and a reduction in agricultural production at the site. However, there is likely to be an increased

adoption of megawatt scale renewable energy at other locations, perhaps without the benefit of co‐

locating with wind energy facilities and sharing infrastructure. Potential environmental impacts have been

assessed in this EIS, are considered to be manageable and would not result in a significant impact to the

environment. As such, and given the benefits of the WRSF Project, the do nothing option is not considered

to be a preferred option. Doing nothing does not assist in meeting the WRSF Project’s primary objective

which is to generate renewable energy using solar PV technology.

Option 2 would generate up to approximately 20 MW of renewable energy that can be exported to the

grid using the WRWF infrastructure. The sizing of the WRSF Project is slightly more than could be

accommodated by the shared grid connection facilities but is seen as appropriate based on the energy

generation profiles for the wind and solar components and considering the available sites and potential

impacts. This option would meet the WRSF Project’s objectives.

Option 3. Development of a larger solar farm was considered during the early planning stages and would

also meet the WRSF Project’s objectives. A larger system would maximise the total amount of electricity

that would be produced at the site. However, a larger system would increase the percentage of time that

the combined wind/solar facility would exceed grid connection capacity and would waste the additional

power created by the solar farm. As such, the larger system would not be as efficient financially or in its

use of land during the development and operation of the solar farm, in comparison to the smaller 20 MW

site at this time. The construction of a solar farm with a larger generating capacity does not match the

energy generation profiles for wind and solar components at the site.

3.1.5 Preferred capacity option

Option 2 is the preferred capacity option as it is the only option that fully meets the WRSF Project’s

objectives. The proposed size is considered optimal for the co‐location with WRWF and in respect of its

ability to be integrated at the locality. Environmental impacts resulting from the WRSF Project would be

addressed by the appropriate use of environmental safeguards. Both environmental impacts and

safeguards are identified in this EIS.

3.2 ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS

Five locations within and adjacent to the WRWF were considered for the development of a solar facility in

conjunction with the WRWF. Figure 3‐1 shows the geographic relationships of the potential Development

Envelopes to WRWF and the WRWF Stage 1 infrastructure.

Site suitability for the WRSF has been considered based on the following technical aspects and

environmental objectives:

Technical / Commercial aspects

Ability to connect to the proposed WRWF substation.

The project area is available for the solar farm purpose (can be leased or acquired).

Land has a suitable slope, aspect and ground conditions for construction and operation.

Access to transport network will enable delivery of components and materials.

The project area has sufficient space to enable up to approximately 20 MW of solar capacity.


6589 Final v1.3 16

Environmental aspect objectives

Achieve a low visual impact.

Minimise and as necessary offset any significant adverse impact to biodiversity.

Minimise and manage any significant adverse impact on known heritage items and sites.

Minimise land use conflicts (e.g. minimise loss of agricultural land or impact on neighbours).

Minimise any significant adverse impact on rural residence locations.

3.2.1 Option 1: Development Site 1

Development Site 1 is 53.9 ha and is located at the western end of Kelleys Road within Inverell LGA. The

site is located on a neighbouring property to the WRWF site and is 7 km from the WRWF substation.

Site 1 would be accessed via the public road network and the internal tracks of the WRWF site, specifically

the track to be constructed between wind turbine 48 and wind turbine 109. The site is currently used for

sheep and cattle grazing and is mapped as Strategic Agricultural Land; highly productive land that has

unique natural resource characteristics or socio‐economic values (DP&E 2016, refer to Section 6.5.2). A

large portion of the area has been cleared and was previously cropped, predominately for carrots and peas.

Parts of Site 1 have conservation significant vegetation that would either form a constraint or, if cleared,

would be likely to require biodiversity offsets.


Development Site 2 is 42.8 ha and is located on the same property as Development Site 1. The site would

be accessed via the same transport routes as Development Site 1. The site is currently used for sheep and

cattle grazing and has been previously cleared for cropping. It is also mapped as Strategic Agricultural Land

and is approximately 6 km from the WRWF substation.


This area is 34.4 ha and is located to the east of Development Sites 1 and 2, on a different property. The

property is a host landowner of the WRWF supporting Stage 1 wind turbines 109, 110, 111, 112, 113,

associated access tracks and the 33 kV collection circuit. The property is 7 km from the WRWF substation.

The development site would be accessed at the western end of Kelley’s Road using the internal WRWF

access tracks. The site is currently used for sheep and cattle grazing and has a history of cropping, including

peas, carrots, canola and lucerne. It is located within land that is mapped as Strategic Agricultural Land.

Subsequent discussion with the landowner has resulted in the location being withdrawn from further

consideration.


Development Site 4 is 199.9 ha and is owned by WRWFPL. The site is located 2 km from the WRWF

substation. Access to the site would be via Spring Mountain Road, a public road within the Inverell Shire

Council. The land is currently grazed but has a high proportion of woodland vegetation and large areas of

Endangered Ecological Communities.


6589 Final v1.3 17


Development Site 5 is 149.7 ha and is located within a single property predominantly in the Glen Innes

Severn LGA but with a small part of the potential Development Envelope within Inverell LGA. The property

is a host landowner of the WRWF, supporting wind turbines 1 and 2, the operations and maintenance

facility, temporary construction site compound and the concrete batching plant, associated access tracks

and the 33 kV connection route. The site is 8 km from the WRWF substation.

Development site 5 would be accessed by the Gwydir Highway and internal access tracks of the WRWF.

The site is currently used for cattle grazing and has been previously cultivated. Crops include soybeans,

corn and triticale. A large portion of the site is mapped as Strategic Agricultural Land.

3.2.6 Analysis of solar farm location options

A preliminary assessment of the five potential solar farm development sites was undertaken as part of a

scoping report prepared in January 2016. The assessment was based on a desktop assessment, information

known through the WRWF planning studies and preliminary site visits. A summary of the relative merits

and anticipated environmental and social impacts of each site is provided in Table 3.1.

During the early planning stages, Development Site 4 was the favoured location for the WRSF Project.

Benefits of Development Site 4 include ownership by WRWFPL and close proximity to the WRWF

substation, potentially reducing costs associated with cabling and connection. However, the site contains

a substantive area of vegetation of conservation significance, some of which may require clearing to

accommodate the WRSF development. It is also likely that significant upgrades would be required on a

public road (Spring Mountain Road in Inverell Shire) to access the site during the construction and

operation phases of the WRSF. Given these biodiversity and access constraints, the suitability of

Development Site 4 is reduced. The site has at this stage been discounted as a potential solar farm site and

is not currently proposed for development of the WRSF or considered further in this EIS.

Development Site 3 comprises mostly exotic pasture and planted windbreaks comprising pines and some

eucalypts. The preliminary assessment identified the area as having a low biodiversity value. Potential

visual impacts are considered to be low and there are few sensitive receivers in proximity to the site. The

site is generally flat and would be suitable for a solar farm development. Development Site 3 was however,

discounted as a potential solar farm site following the site inspection and subsequent landowner

negotiations. The site is not considered further in this EIS.

Development Sites 1 and 2 are owned by the same landowner. Both areas have an agricultural history of

grazing and cultivation. Potential visual impacts are considered to be low and there are few sensitive

receivers in close proximity to the site. Topography within Development Site 1 is undulating but would not

constrain the development of a solar farm. The preliminary assessment identified the areas as having a

moderate to low biodiversity value however, parts do include conservation significant vegetation. Both

sites were included in all environmental assessments that were undertaken for the WRSF Project. Sites 1

and 2 were discounted later in the planning stages due to a combination of biodiversity constraints and

landowner negotiations. The sites are not considered further in this EIS.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!. !.

!.

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")")

")

")

98

65

432

8382

81

80

79

78

7675

73

7271

6968

65

6463

62

61

60

59

5554

5352

51

48

47

44

4140

3938

3736

34

3130

292827

2522

212019

14

13

1110

113112111110

109

7

1

77

58

5756

35

26

15

Jenkins Rd

Kelley

sR

d

I lparran Rd

Kelleys Rd

SpringMountain Rd

GWYDIRHIGHWAY

Maybole Rd

I180 J180

H40

L80L82

L83

I40

F131

L200

N180

N190

F132

M80

N191

M60

E50

E140

N90

D121

O191

P190

Q170

P70

R190

Q81

Q80

Q110

Q70

Q82

J181

L170

L180K170

H140

L100

L90

L70

L71

L101

F120

K51

K50

O190

N100

P170

R121

R120

357500 360000 362500 365000 36750066

9250

066

9500

066

9750

067

0000

067

0250

067

0500

067

0750

0

PROJECT

TITLE

DRAWING No. REV

White Rock Wind Farm and Solar Farm SitesProject Locations

WRWF and WRSF Site Options

LEGEND



±0 1,000 2,000500 Metres

Approved

5/01/2016

1:50,000 @ A3

STATUS

DATE

SCALE

WRSOL_OVR_017_5A

J.Gardner

I.Mackey

J.Bembrick

APPROVED

PRODUCED

CHECKED

05A


Lot 99/DP753292

Lot 154/DP753260

Cadastral Boundary













Laydown Area


WR Solar Farm Development Area OptionsSolar Farm - Development Area 1

Solar Farm - Development Area 2


Potential Cabling and Access Tracks




Lot 99DP 753292

Lot 154DP 753260

T1

T2

T3

T4

T5

Lot 77DP 753292

Lot 32DP 753319

Lot 27DP 753319

Lot 30DP 753319

Lot 78DP 753260

Lot 31DP 753319

Lot 29DP 753319

Figure 3-1 Five alternative development sites in relation to WRWF


6589 Final v1.3 19

Table 3‐1 Review of indicative siting factors for the five potential WRSF sites

Site Distance of site to WRWF Substation

Landowner association status

Key environmental issues and potential WRSF impacts

Biodiversity Agriculture Heritage Visual Noise Access/Traffic Summary of site suitability

1 7 km WRWF Neighbour, associated

Moderate to Low

Good grazing

Strategic Agricultural Land (SAL)

Low to moderate

Low

Need to

assess

cumulative

impact at up

to 4

residences

Direct access from Kelleys Rd

Suitable but insufficient area alone and moderate biodiversity values

2 6km WRWF Neighbour, associated

Low to Moderate

Good grazing

SAL

Low Low Direct access from Kelleys Rd

Suitable but insufficient area alone

3 7km WRWF

Host landowner

Low Cultivated and

grazed

SAL

Low Low Direct access from Kelleys Rd

Not available as landowner has withdrawn

4 2km

Closest to the substation

Acquired by WRWFPL

Moderate to High

Grazing Moderate potential

Low Low Spring Mtn Road access, possible upgrade required.

Least suitable due to biodiversity impacts

5 8 km

Furthest from the substation

Host for WRWF

Low Cultivated and

grazed

SAL

Low Low,

Partly visible from Gwydir Hwy

Need to assess cumulative impact at up to 2 residences

Direct access from WRWF track network

Preferred site with low impact and least cost option


6589 Final v1.3 20

Development Site 5 is the most distant site from the substation at 8 km however, is located close to the

Gwydir Highway, WRWF Operations and Maintenance building and wind turbine 1. The property has

pastoral uses including cultivation and grazing and the WRSF Project would likely have a low impact on

biodiversity. Initial review concluded the development site would be visible from parts of the Gwydir

Highway (filtered by roadside vegetation and terrain) affording short term glimpses of the WRSF Project.

There are sensitive receivers (residences) within approximately 2 km of the area however, the residences

were anticipated not to have direct views to Development Site 5. The site is gently sloping and open and

would be suitable for a solar farm development.

3.2.7 Preferred location option

The construction of a 20 MW (AC) solar farm within Development Site 5 is identified as the preferred

location option for the WRSF Project. The preferred location has been selected based on the following

factors:

Outcomes of negotiated landowner agreements.

Development feasibility.

Site development costs.

Environmental assessment ‐ environmental constraints, impacts and mitigation measures as

described in this EIS.

Development Site 5 is the only site assessed further in this EIS. Subsequently referred to as WRSF

Development Envelope.

3.3 ALTERNATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN AND LAYOUTS

The design has considered various placement of blocks of solar panels within the site constraints, use of

fixed and tracking systems for solar panels, various sizes of inverters, solar farm footprint and landowner

preferences.

3.3.1 Option 1

A conceptual 20 MW (AC) layout design provides a simple cost effective technology. This design option

indicatively involves typically eight Power Conversion Blocks (PCBs) and eight groups of solar arrays utilising

a fixed solar panel array. The total area for the solar farm for this option is approximately 50 ha. A

construction site office and laydown area is located at the solar farm site. Operations and Maintenance is

based at the WRWF O&M facility.

3.3.2 Option 2

A conceptual 20 MW (AC) layout incorporating tracking systems for mounting of the solar panels. Similar

to Option 1, the design could involve eight groups of solar panels and typically eight PCBs. The total area

of the solar farm with tracking systems may increase to 70 to 80 ha. The design would increase the power

output from the solar farm but involves increased complexity and increased costs for installation and

operations and maintenance.


6589 Final v1.3 21

3.3.3 Analysis of Infrastructure and Layout Options

The benefits of Option 1 are that it is a compact installation that is relatively straightforward to install and

maintain and has been assessed as cost effective for a solar farm of this capacity. The design is consistent

with the WRSF Project description that was included in the ARENA funding submission and that was

provided to the noise and environmental consultants.

The compact design for Option 1 has been determined as the optimal arrangement for a cost competitive

solar array that can integrate with WRWF to provide a hybrid wind/solar facility. The design for Option 1

can be accommodated within site constraints and meets the landowner’s request for a corridor to be left

for stock to cross from east to west and avoids an area to the east that is considered by the landowner to

be of higher agricultural value.

Option 2 offers a benefit of increased renewable energy output over the day, marginally increasing

generation earlier and later in the day. However, the additional complexity for design and for operational

maintenance increases the cost. Compared to returns from the additional power produced, the cost of

power is increased under this option and renders Option 2 less competitive for the ARENA funding

submission.

3.3.4 Preferred infrastructure layout option

Option 1 is the preferred option. The indicative design is consistent with the ARENA funding submission,

has a smaller environmental and agricultural footprint, while retaining some flexibility, and minimises the

impact on higher value agricultural land.

Subject to gaining development consent, the final layout and solar farm design would be outlined in the

WRSF Construction Environmental Management Plan which would be prepared prior to construction.

3.4 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF PROJECT OPTIONS

The proposed WRSF involves a fixed panel PV solar farm, of up to approximately 20 MW (AC) capacity,

located to the northeast of turbine 1 of WRWF. The WRSF indicative design comprises eight groups of solar

panels with each group having a PCB comprising inverters, step‐up transformer and switchgear.

The solar farm output would utilise an underground 33 kV cable between the solar farm and the WRWF

substation. The cable route would run generally from the southern part of the WRSF to a point near

Turbines 1 and 2 and then follow the WRWF 33 kV cable corridor to the WRWF Substation. Separate

communications cabling from WRSF would follow the 33 kV cable route to a point where it would align

with the WRWF communications cables from Wind Turbine 1 to the nearby WRWF Operations and

Maintenance Building that will be used for both the WRWF and WRSF Projects.


6589 Final v1.3 22

4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

4.1 TERMINOLOGY

WRSF Project

WRSF

WRSF Shared

Infrastructure

The WRSF Project comprises:

The infrastructure for the White Rock Solar Farm located within

the WRSF Development Envelope (refer “WRSF Development

Envelope” below) but excludes any “Approved WRWF

Infrastructure” being White Rock Wind Farm infrastructure

approved under the Part 3A Project Approval (MP10_0160, as

modified) (“WRSF ”). The WRSF is the subject of this EIS and the

Development Application SSD 16_7487; and

Approved WRWF Infrastructure that is proposed to be shared by

the White Rock Wind Farm and White Rock Solar Farm (“WRSF

Shared Infrastructure”) for the purposes of enabling the export

of the electricity generated by the White Rock Solar Farm. The

WRWF Infrastructure is approved under the Part 3A Project

Approval (MP10_0160, as modified). A modification application

currently being assessed by the DP&E seeks further approval for

the WRSF Shared Infrastructure.

WRSF Development

Envelope

The WRSF Development Envelope is approximately 150 ha and includes

the solar array, power conversion blocks, fencing, temporary construction

facilities, permanent storage shed, solar monitoring equipment, WRSF

access tracks and WRSF 33kV underground cabling to connect WRSF to

the WRWF collection circuits.

The WRSF Development Envelope is the area assessed in this EIS and,

within which WRSF Infrastructure would be located. It is a larger area than

the WRSF Development Footprint to allow some design flexibility

regarding the final infrastructure placement.

WRSF Development

Footprint

Solar infrastructure

Solar ancillaries

The WRSF Development Footprint is a sub‐area of the WRSF

Development Envelope which is proposed to be approximately 50ha in

size and includes:

indicative groups of solar panels and power conversion

equipment as shown in Figure 4‐1 within the area bounded by

the “Development Footprint fence” (shown in yellow); and

the “WRSF access track” and the “Indicative WRSF 33kV cable

route” or “Alternative WRSF 33kV cable route” as shown in

Figure 4‐1.


6589 Final v1.3 23

4.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW

The WRSF would be a PV solar farm facility generating up to approximately 20 MW (AC) from solar panels

collectively rated at up to approximately 25 MW (DC). The WRSF would generally comprise the following

components:

Solar panel arrays:

o Approximately 75,000 polycrystalline panels.

Mounting framework:

o The solar panels would be secured on a galvanised steel structure that consists of a frame

secured to posts that have been piled into the ground.

o In the unlikely event that the posts cannot be piled into the ground, a ballasted solution

may be investigated.

o A fixed panel arrangement to enable panels at a tilt of between 15 and 30 degrees to the

horizontal to optimise solar incidence and achieve optimum efficiency.

Internal DC wiring between panels and inverter systems within groups of panels.

Connection of groups of panels to Power Conversion Blocks (PCBs) within the area of the solar

arrays.

Typically eight PCBs with a total output up to approximately 20 MW (AC) including:

o Inverter modules (container based modules) of the order of 1 to 2.75 MW.

o Typically eight step‐up transformers to 33 kV (one transformer per PCB).

o 33 kV Switchgear at each PCB.

33 kV cabling to link the solar farm output to the WRWF collections circuits near Turbine 1 or 2.

Access tracks for access to the site during construction and to the PCBs during operation.

Fencing around the solar farm for security and safety.

Monitoring equipment.

Small permanent site building (12 m by 12 m in area).

Potential WRSF site screening for WRSF Development Footprint, dependent on final design and

need for screening.

Temporary construction facilities and laydown area.

An indicative layout (WRSF Development Footprint) within the WRSF Development Envelope is shown in

Figure 4.1. The indicative layout (which is subject to detailed design) is based on 2.5 MW (AC) inverter

units and eight modules of solar panels and typically eight PCBs. The layout also shows the approximate

location of key project elements and infrastructure approved by the WRWF project approval within the

Development Envelope, including WRSF Shared Infrastructure.

The indicative WRSF design (based on a fixed frame arrangement of panels) has an annual generation

capacity of up to approximately 46,000 MWh at start of operation. Over a 25 year operating life this would

be reduced to approximately 80%. On average over 25 years, the average output would be approximately

41,000 MWh/year. The cumulative generation over the lifetime of the WRSF will be in excess of 1 million

MWh.


6589 Final v1.3 24

Figure 4.1 Indicative WRSF layout (subject to detailed design and site constraints).

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

!(

!(

78

132

30

3132

27

29

119

7001

26

DP753260

DP753319

DP753319

DP753319DP753319

DP753319

DP753260

DP753319

DP93978

DP665915

2

1

°0 200 400100 Meters

www.nghenvironmen tal.com.au


Notes:- Infrastructure data and aer ial courtesyof Goldwind, received 2016

10m contours

Farm dam

Cadastre

Existing 132kV overhead powerline

Proposed solar farm


Solar array

Construction office and laydown area") Power Conversion Blocks

Indicative 33kV cable route

Alternative 33kV cable route

Fence

WRSF access tracks

Wind farm infrastructure!( Wind turbine

Wind farm access track

WRWF 33kV cabling and communications

Proposed 132kV overhead powerline

WRWF facilities

Gwydir Highway


6589 Final v1.3 25

4.3 RELATIONSHIP TO THE WHITE ROCK WIND FARM

The WRSF is located on land within and adjacent to the WRWF site. The potential for the WRSF and the

WRWF to share facilities maximises the use of available facilities without generating further impacts

through the development of similar facilities elsewhere. It also increases the value of the WRSF Project.

The WRSF’s output via 33 kV underground cable aligned with the WRWF collections circuits would be

exported through the WRWF substation, located approximately eight kilometres to the south of the

Development Envelope. The WRWF collector circuits between turbine 1 and the WRWF Substation would

include an additional 33 kV cable to handle the output of the WRSF generation. The additional cable would

be within 2m of the WRWF 33 kV cable corridor and within the disturbance corridor that was assessed as

part of the WRWF Project Approval. There would be no additional increase in environmental impact from

the installation of this cable. Existing facilities proposed to be shared between the WRSF Project and the

WRWF include:

Connection of WRSF using a 33 kV cable installed within WRWF cable route to WRWF substation.

33 kV Switchgear for WRSF at WRWF substation within the WRWF switchroom.

Control and monitoring functions within WRWF Operations and Maintenance facility.

Access from Gwydir Highway using the upgrade undertaken for WRWF.

Access via internal access tracks constructed for WRWF and only 800m of WRSF access track

between WRSF and WRWF access track.

The construction and operation of the WRWF components has been assessed for the WRWF Project

Application and approved under Part 3A of the EP&A Act. Environmental impacts associated with the

previously assessed and approved WRWF components that would be shared by the WRSF (WRWF Shared

Infrastructure) are not included in this WRSF EIS. Goldwind has requested that DP&E modify the WRWF

Project Approval MP10_160 to allow for WRWF infrastructure to be used for the Solar Farm purpose as

well for WRWF. That request is under review by DP&E.

In addition to sharing facilities, it is anticipated that some personnel, including operation and maintenance

technicians, may carry out maintenance for both the wind and solar farm. Control and monitoring

equipment at the WRWF Operations and Maintenance building would also be shared.

4.4 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION

The WRSF is located in the south‐eastern part of the Border Rivers‐Gwydir catchment, an area of 5,000 ha

that is part of the Murray Darling Basin Area. The WRSF Development Envelope slopes to the northeast

towards Wellingrove Creek that is within the Severn River sub‐catchment. The Severn River is

approximately 30 kilometres north. There are no major rivers or creeks within the Development Envelope.

Surface elevations within the WRSF Development Envelope range between 970 m and 1030 m above sea

level (ASL). The terrain comprises a ridge line along the western boundary of the Development Envelope

which slopes into a relatively flat area within the valley floor.

The land has been substantially cleared but retains areas of remnant woodland. Settlement is scattered

through the locality.


6589 Final v1.3 26

4.5 LOCATION OF THE ACTIVITY AND PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

The WRSF Development Envelope is located predominantly within the Glen Innes Severn LGA, in the

Matheson locality. It comprises 149.7 ha, is on a single property, and is located on land within and

adjoining the WRWF project boundary.

Turbine 1 and 2 of the WRWF and part of the WRWF 33 kV collections circuit are located in the south‐

western corner of the WRSF Development Envelope. Other WRWF infrastructure such as the WRWF

Operations and Maintenance Facility, wind turbine 2 and the WRWF access track from Gwydir Highway are

located within or adjacent to the western boundary of the Development Envelope and within Inverell LGA.

The Development Envelope is from 650m to 1300m south of the Gwydir Highway and at the indicative

location, infrastructure would be intermittently visible from part of the Highway due to existing vegetation

and terrain screening.

The WRSF can be accessed from the Gwydir Highway using the WRWF access tracks and an additional track

to be constructed between the WRWF track and the WRSF Development Footprint. Approximately 200 m

of the proposed WRSF access track is within the Inverell LGA. The land within WRSF Development Envelope

is zoned RU1 under both the Glen Innes Severn and Inverell LEPs.

The property details and WRSF Project components in relation to the WRSF Development Envelope are

shown in Table 4‐1 and in Figure 4.1. The land within the WRWF boundary is currently leased from the

landowner for the WRWF purpose. Similar leasing arrangements, would be established for the WRSF

Project, be they inside or outside the WRWF boundary.

Table 4‐1 Property details and project infrastructure of the Development Envelope.

Infrastructure / works / associated facilities Lots DP

Solar arrays, power conversion blocks, internal access tracks, underground cabling, fencing, site buildings. Direct access from WRWF access track network.

33 kV underground cable to link to WRWF 33 kV collections circuit.

27, 29, 30, 31 753319

78 753260

No above ground infrastructure, possible 33 kV underground cabling crossing the crown land and access track consistent with the Crown Land permitted usage. A licence would be sought for any works within Crown Land.

Crown land – paper road

The Development Envelope is located on agricultural land that is used for grazing and cropping purposes.

The land is considered to be Strategic Agricultural Land, that is, land with high quality soil and water

resources capable of sustaining high levels of productivity (DP&E 2015, refer Section 6.5.2 for more

information on Strategic Agricultural Land).

4.6 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WRSF INFRASTRUCTURE

The key infrastructure components of the WRSF are described below. Images considered representative

of the key infrastructure components are provided in Figure 4‐1.

The design intent is to create a simple layout that aids in construction and operation, particularly in

consideration of access through the site to the key electrical equipment.


6589 Final v1.3 27

4.6.1 Solar panels and framework

Solar panels would be installed in arrays with the panels mounted on a metal framework above the ground.

The metal framework would be hot dip galvanised (or equivalent) to increase the durability and design life

of the structure. The front clearance of the framework would be a minimum of 600 mm, while the height

of the rear of the framework may be up to 3.5 m above ground level. The panels would be tilted to the

order of 15 to 30 degrees. Typically, the dimensions of such panels are approximately 1 m by 2 m and they

have a 25 year design life.

The posts that form part of the framework will be rammed into the ground to a depth of up to

approximately 2 m.

The final number and dimension of the panels would be dependent on availability and commercial

considerations at the time of construction.

4.6.2 Power Conversion Blocks (PCBs) including inverters, step up transformers and

switchgear

The arrays of solar panels would be connected to inverters that convert the electricity from (DC) to

Alternating Current (AC) and step up transformers would increase the WRSF output voltage to 33 kV. These

components may have various ratings and design arrangements. The inverter units are to be in the order

of 1‐2.75MW rating. One or two inverters may be co‐located with a single step up transformer and

switchgear to form a Power Conversion Block (PCB) module that inverts DC to AC and transforms the

electricity to 33 kV for transmission to the substation. Cooling fans are associated with the inverter units.

Typically, the PCB modules can be delivered in container like structures that allow efficient modular

construction of the solar farm. The output from each of the PCBs would be connected by 33 kV cabling to

a hub near the southern extent of the solar farm from which a single 33 kV underground cable would carry

the power to the WRWF substation. The 33 kV cable route would be toward the southwest to a point

between Turbine 1 and 2. At that point the WRSF cable will align with the WRWF cable corridor.

The WRSF Shared Infrastructure that is not assessed in this EIS includes, single 33kV cable to the south of

the Development Envelope through to the Substation and additional 33 kV switchgear to be installed inside

the WRWF switchroom. The WRWF substation transformer would step up the voltage from 33 kV to 132

kV, for connection into the grid.

4.7 DESCRIPTION OF ASSOCIATED CIVIL WORKS

4.7.1 Connection to WRWF substation

The WRSF would be connected to the WRWF substation using a single 33 kV underground cable. The route

of the additional 33 kV cable would be from the southern part of WRSF generally in a southwest direction

to a point near Turbine 1 or 2. An indicative route is shown in Figure 4.1 but may be varied to a more direct

route while still avoiding environmentally sensitive features such as hollow bearing trees. As the cable

route approaches the WRWF cable corridor between Wind Turbine 1 and the WRWF substation (at a point

near Turbine 1 or 2) it would align with the WRWF 33 kV cable corridor route. Only the area where the

WRSF cable is outside the WRWF cable corridor has been assessed in this EIS.

No additional cabling routes within the WRWF collection system are required to integrate the WRSF with

WRWF. Use of WRWF cabling routes would not require a significant variation to the WRWF infrastructure

and would not increase impacts of the WRWF. These works are not assessed in this EIS.


6589 Final v1.3 28

Cabling works between WRSF and the WRWF Shared Infrastructure would require trenching works,

approximately 1 m deep and 0.75 m wide. The 33kV cable would be laid on bedding sand and back filled

with fine materials followed by the subsoil material that would be excavated from the trench and stockpiled

separately from the topsoil. At the completion of the cable installation, the cable trench would be

backfilled and stabilised using a grass mix appropriate to the area.

4.7.2 Internal access tracks

The WRSF Project would require the construction of a new access track from the proposed WRWF main

access track from the Gwydir Highway to the solar farm site (refer Figure 4.1 for location of WRSF access

track). The proposed WRSF access track would be located generally along the northern boundary of the

Development Envelope. Approximately 800 m of access track would be required. It would be up to 5

metres wide and unsealed.

Additional access tracks (internal to WRSF) would be constructed to provide access to the solar arrays and

PCB equipment located within the Development Enevelope. An indicative location of the tracks is shown

in Figure 4.1 but would be subject to detailed design considerations. Access tracks would be unsealed and

would typically comprise 200‐300mm mm thick crushed rock road base with a 50 mm thick durable layer

on top. Minor excavation works would be required to level tracks and undertake drainage works as

necessary.

4.7.3 Fencing

The WRSF Development Footprint would be entirely fenced by an approximately 1.8m ‐2.4m high chain

mesh fence. The fencing is primarily for the purpose security and public safety but would also allow for a

managed grazing regime within the WRSF Development Footprint.


6589 Final v1.3 29

a) Typical Solar array panels.

b) SMA (example) Inverters.

c) Example pile driving rig in operation.

Figure 4‐1 Images representative of proposed WRSF infrastructure components


6589 Final v1.3 30

4.8 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

4.8.1 Pre‐construction activities

Prior to the site establishment and commencement of the construction activities, there would be a range

of site investigation activities undertaken to inform the design and the planning of the construction

program. These activities include:

Site survey to confirm infrastructure positions in relation to site features and environmental

investigations.

Geotechnical Investigation for PCB footings and insertion of posts.

Earthing study.

Prior to these tasks being undertaken, the consultant or contractor would undertake a risk assessment and

develop a task specific environmental management plan for review and approval of WRSFPL. These

investigation activities would only commence after the required management plan has been approved by

WRSFPL as suitable for the tasks to be undertaken, risks identified and ability to deliver the required

environmental performance objectives.

4.8.2 Construction program

The sequence of the construction program would likely be as follows:

Detailed design and procurement of materials.

Site establishment and preparation for construction;

o Construction of access tracks.

o Establishment of construction site compound

Site office.

Containers for storage of tools and equipment.

Designated areas for parking of machinery and site vehicles.

Portable pump out toilet.

Fencing as necessary.

o Location and marking of any underground services.

o Delineation of any stockpile sites.

o Fencing of any ‘no go’ zones (if applicable).

Delivery of materials and equipment.

Ramming of piles into the ground to provide supports for the panel mounting framework.

Installation of the foundations (excavation and footings) for the PCB.

Installation of 33 kV underground cabling between the solar arrays and WRWF collection

circuit.

Assembly of the panel frames and mounts on top of the piles.

Installation of the PV panels.

Installation of the PCBs (inverter, transformer and switchgear units) on concrete pads or

footings.

Installation of monitoring equipment.

Installation of underground 33 kV cabling between the PCBs and WRWF collection circuit.


6589 Final v1.3 31

Electrical works to connect the solar farm to the WRWF Substation (these occur within the

switch room of the substation with no additional visible external substation infrastructure

required). This item is part of the WRSF Shared Infrastructure.

Testing and commissioning of the solar farm.

Removal of temporary construction facilities, tidying of site and completion of restoration

works.

Table 4‐2 describes the indicative WRSF construction works that would take place for each infrastructure

component and civil works.

Table 4‐2 Key WRSF infrastructure components and associated construction activities

Component Construction activities

Install access tracks Clear tracks up to approximately five metres wide including

drainage.

Site compound and laydown area Earthworks for office and laydown areas and drainage

structures.

Solar panel supporting structures Install posts (pile driven)

Attach support structures to footings or posts.

Attach low voltage DC wiring ready for attachment to panels.

Install solar panels Mount panels on support structure, attach wiring.

Power Conversion Blocks

(Inverters, step up transformers

and switchgear)

Earthworks/formwork for footings or pads.

Footings installed for inverters and transformers, mount

inverters and transformers on footings.

Connect DC electrical wiring from solar panels.

Install/connect 33 kV cables.

Connection to WRWF collection

circuit

Trenching (disturbance corridor up to approximately ten metres

wide), laying of 33 kV cable and communications lines and

backfill trench.

Internal access tracks (final form) Rehabilitation of disturbed areas adjacent to completed tracks

and complete drainage works.

Small permanent site building Concrete footings for 12 m x 12m site building.

Construct building, for storage of components.

Rehabilitation of site Provide stable ground cover across site and flow controls.

Fencing of WRSF Development

Footprint

Excavate and form footings (concrete).

Install posts and attach mesh.


6589 Final v1.3 32

4.8.4 Proposed construction equipment

Proposed construction equipment would include:

Cable trenching equipment.

Cable laying equipment.

Post driving equipment to install posts in ground to depths of about 2m

Earthmoving equipment such as excavators, bulldozers, pile drivers, backhoes, compactors,

rollers and graders.

Trucks for delivery of solar farm components.

Materials handling equipment such as small cranes and forklifts.

Water truck.

4.8.5 Source and quantity of materials

Sourcing of materials such as gravel and services such as earthworks and fencing would be local where

feasible, maximising the local economic benefits of the WRSF Project. The WRSF Project would promote

opportunities for local business involvement through the WRSF web site.

Materials would include:

Gravel and road base for forming the gravel roads, imported from local quarries.

Concrete will be sourced locally, most likely from Glen Innes (anticipated to require a low

number of delivery trucks over the construction period).

Solar panels, steelwork for supporting structures, power conversion block modules and

cabling will come from metropolitan areas via the New England Highway.

Water for dust suppression and cleaning of panels would be sourced locally as required.

Water sources would likely be the farm dams within the WRSF site or on a neighbouring

property, subject to landowner approval. Non potable water would be sourced for this

activity.

4.8.6 Timing of work

Construction would mostly be undertaken during standard construction hours:

Monday to Friday: 7am to 6pm.

Saturday: 8am to 1pm.

Sunday and Public Holidays: No work.

No night works are proposed. It is unlikely that any works or deliveries would be required outside standard

construction hours. Works carried out outside of these hours will only entail works that do not cause noise

emissions to be audible at any nearby residences not located on the site. It is expected that the construction

program for the WRSF Project would be up to six months, with a peak construction period of three months.

Any variations to the above listed work hours will be discussed and agreed with the relevant local

authorities and impacted residents.


6589 Final v1.3 33

4.8.7 Staffing requirements

During construction, it is expected an average of 40 workers would be required onsite with a construction

peak of approximately 100 workers. Peak construction periods would have the greatest potential to

employ local contractors and labourers.

4.9 OPERATION

WRSF’s operational life is anticipated to be 25 years. After this time, components may be decommissioned

and removed from the site, or the solar farm replaced/upgraded for continued operation.

Operational activities would include monitoring and facility maintenance, such as panel cleaning and

landscaping works, and the management of faults and repairs. These requirements are likely to be largely

met by a marginally increased operational staff at the wind farm. It is currently intended for maintenance

activities to be undertaken during the day, however some electrical switch out and maintenance works

may take place at night when the site is not generating due to operational and safety requirements. The

Operational Environmental Management Plan would include protocols for any maintenance work to be

undertaken outside daytime hours.

Grazing by sheep may be used as a ground cover management strategy under and around the array. This

would be to assist management of the fuel load but may provide the additional benefit of grazing income.

This will be dependent on the suitability of the site for grazing by sheep. The lease agreements with the

landowner have been negotiated taking into account the lost revenue from agricultural activities due to

the WRSF Project utilising pastoral lands. However, the co‐use has mutual benefits for the proponent and

landowner.

4.10 DECOMMISSIONING

All aboveground infrastructure would be removed from the site at the decommissioning phase.

Infrastructure and materials removed from the site would be recycled or otherwise disposed of at approved

facilities. All areas of soil disturbed during decommissioning would be rehabilitated, appropriate to the

existing species composition in consultation with and in consideration of landowner requirements.

Recycling and re‐use of the materials are key to the decommissioning strategy of the site. Key

decommissioning elements relevant to the WRSF include the following:

The PV power plant would be disconnected from the electrical grid.

PV modules and all equipment would be disconnected.

PV modules would be collected and recycled at a dedicated recycling facility.

Ancillary equipment would be removed and materials recycled, wherever possible.

Posts, frames and above ground cabling would be removed and recycled where possible.

Site rehabilitation to former grazing condition.

The WRSF is highly reversible. After operation, the land could be returned to its former agricultural landuse

or an alternative land use with negligible impact on production capacity.

There is also potential for the WRSF to continue to operate as a solar farm after the 25 year WRSF design

life although it is not possible to confirm whether this outcome will apply at the time. Continued operation

of the WRSF would require:


6589 Final v1.3 34

Retention of some WRSF Shared Infrastructure while WRWF continues to operate (currently

required to be removed during the WRWF decommissioning phase).

Further agreement between proponent and landowner.

Planning approval for the future use as a solar farm.

4.11 ACCESS AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

Access to the WRSF is via the Gwydir Highway, the WRWF internal access tracks and the new track to be

constructed between the WRWF northern access track and the solar farm site.

Traffic and access would be managed in accordance with the Draft Traffic Management Plan that is included

as Appendix H and would be incorporated into a WRSF Construction Environmental Management Plan.

Management of relevant issues is generally consistent with the existing WRWF Stage 1 Traffic and Access

Management Plan that forms Annex D of the approved WRWF Stage 1 Construction Environmental

Management Plan (ERM, 2015).

4.12 INDICATIVE TIMELINE

WRWF Stage 1 is scheduled to commence construction towards the end of the first quarter in 2016 and to

be commissioned and operational during 2017. Civil works for access tracks, the substation, 33 kV cabling

and turbine sites at WRWF are expected to be mostly complete during 2016.

Subject to gaining approval for WRSF in mid‐2016, it is proposed to commence construction of the solar

farm in the first quarter of 2017. Commencement of construction on WRSF would likely occur as the

construction of WRWF is nearing completion and wind farm construction activities are scaling down.

The proposed planning, construction and operations timeframe for WRSF is shown in Table 4‐3. WRSFPL

wishes to be in a position to commence construction of the WRSF in first half of 2017.


6589 Final v1.3 35

Table 4‐3 Phases of WRSF implementation relative to WRWF

Timing 2016 2017

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

WRSF Project Phases Timeframe

WRWS DA

DA Review

Approval

Contracts

Pre‐construct preparation

Construction

Operation

WRWF Project Phases Timeframe

Construction

Commissioning

Operation


6589 Final v1.3 36

5 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

5.1 AGENCY CONSULTATION

5.1.1 Department of Planning and Environment

WRSFPL has consulted with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) at various stages

throughout the planning of the WRSF Project.

As the WRSF is State Significant Development, WRSFPL was required to request the SEARs under Clause

78A (8A) of the EP&A Act. The SEARs are intended to guide the structure and content of the EIS and reflect

the responsibilities and concerns of NSW government agencies in relation to the environmental

assessment of WRSF.

An initial meeting was held between DP&E and WRSFPL on 16 December 2015 to discuss the WRSF. The

aim of the meeting was to discuss the preparation of the scoping report which would be submitted to

inform the development of the SEARs. Based on the information provided during that meeting, and

WRSFPL’s subsequent project review and preliminary planning investigations, the WRSF Scoping Report

was submitted to DP&E on 11 January 2016 as part of WRSFPL’s request for the SEARs.

Following submission of the Scoping Report, a DP&E representative from the Armidale office attended a

meeting on 2 February 2016 with the proponent and other representatives from government agencies (see

below) to discuss the WRSF Project. The meeting included a meeting in Glen Innes followed by a site visit

to the WRSF Development Envelope (Site 5) as well as potential Development Sites 1 and 2 (prior to these

sites being discounted).

The SEARs for WRSF were issued on 3 February 2016. They are included as Appendix A and in Table 6‐1.

Specific to consultation, the SEARs require the following:

Consultation with relevant local, state or commonwealth government authorities,

infrastructure and service providers, community groups and affected landowners.

Detailed consultation with affected landowners surrounding the development, and relevant

local Council(s)

The EIS must describe the consultation that was carried out, identify the issues raised during

this consultation, and explain how these issues have been addressed in the EIS.

A further meeting with DP&E was held on 8 February 2016 to specifically discuss the WRSF’s timeline to

ensure the development application was lodged with sufficient time to allow the DP&E DA assessment

phase to occur within the timeframe specified in the ARENA funding. The meeting included representatives

from DP&E, WRSFPL and NGH Environmental.

The consultation with specific Government agencies that has occurred during the development of the

SEARs and the preparation of this EIS is summarised below.

5.1.2 Office of Environment and Heritage

Consultation with the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) has included the following:

A site meeting with two representatives from the OEH north‐east offices on 2 February 2016

to introduce and discuss the WRSF. A meeting at Glen Innes Severn Council office was


6589 Final v1.3 37

followed by a site visit to the WRSF Development Envelope (Site 5) and potential

Development Sites 1 and 2 (prior to them being discounted).

Teleconference between OEH, NGH Environmental and WRWFPL on 5 February 2016 that

discussed Sites 1, 2 and 5 in relation to biodiversity assessment methodology and initial

mapping, basis for vegetation categories, reference to NSW Scientific Committee

determinations and basis for offset calculations.

Teleconference between OEH, NGH Environmental and WRWFPL on 10 February 2016 that

followed previous teleconference on 5 February 2016. This reviewed classifications for

vegetation, whether cleared grassland areas constitute derived grassland and how many

biometric plots are required.

Provision of stratified vegetation mapping to OEH prior to NGH Environmental revisiting the

WRSF Development Envelope and two potential southern Development Sites 1 and 2 on 15

and 16 February 2016 to confirm details of vegetation mapping and obtain additional

biometric plot data.

The Biodiversity assessment summary (Section 8.1 of this EIS) outlines the assessment methodology

used for the WRSF Development Envelope and addresses the matters raised by OEH.

5.1.3 Glen Innes Severn Council

Consultation with the Glen Innes Severn Council (GISC) has included the following:

A site meeting with two GISC representatives on 2 February 2016 to introduce and discuss

the WRSF Project.

Information requests regarding mapping for flood prone land and bushfire prone land.

A GISC representative attended WRWF Community Consultative Committee on 4 February

2016 that discussed the proposed WRSF.

NGH Environmental was provided with bushfire prone land mapping on 11 February 2016. There are no

areas of bushfire prone land within the Development Envelope, however a bushfire assessment is

contained within Section 9.4.3 of this EIS. No mapping of flood prone land was provided by GISC.

5.1.4 Inverell Shire Council

Consultation with the Inverell Shire Council (ISC) was undertaken in relation to the WRSF Development

Envelope and Development Sites 1 and 2 (now discounted and that are located within Inverell LGA). A

short section of the WRSF access track within the WRSF Development Envelope is also located within the

ISC LGA. Consultation included the following:

A site meeting with one ISC representative on 2 February 2016 to introduce and discuss the

WRSF Project.

An Inverell Council representative attended the WRWF Community Consultative Committee

on 4 February 2016 that discussed the proposed WRSF Project.

Inverell Council had greater interest in the Development Sites 1 and 2 due to their location

within the Inverell LGA but noted that the bulk of roads used to access these sites are within

GISC LGA. Inverell Council appeared supportive of the solar farm development at any of the

proposed sites due to the WRSF Project’s additional contribution to the regional economy.

It is understood that there are no specific issues outstanding with ISC in relation to the proposed WRSF

Project.


6589 Final v1.3 38

5.1.5 Department of Primary Industries (DPI) – Agriculture

Consultation with Department of Primary Industries (DPI) was undertaken by way of a teleconference on

4 February 2016. Representatives from DPI, WRSFPL and NGH Environmental participated in the

teleconference. The purpose of the consultation was to introduce the WRSF Project and WRSF Project

team, and to discuss the SEARs in relation to land use impacts. Of particular importance, was a discussion

about the siting of the WRSF Project on land that is mapped as Strategic Agricultural Land and the

implications of this from an agricultural impact perspective and in relation to an application for

development consent.

During the consultation, DPI highlighted the following issues:

Basalt soils (on which the WRSF Project would be constructed) have a high natural fertility

and are not common.

SAL maps provided by DP&E are general and have not been fine‐tuned or ground truthed.

Discussions with the landowner on the agricultural productivity value is highly

recommended.

The importance of consultation with adjacent farmers in relation to whether the WRSF

Project would impact on agricultural activities in surrounding areas.

The importance of using the guideline Primefact 1063: Infrastructure proposals on rural land

(DPI) to guide the assessment of land use impacts in the EIS.

DPI advised that, in general, solar farms tend to be considered to be low impact projects in relation to

agriculture due to their reversibility post‐decommissioning. However, each site must be assessed

individually based on the location of the WRSF and the value of the agricultural land.

Impacts to agricultural land use have been discussed in Section 8.5 of the EIS.

5.1.6 Department of Primary Industries (DPI) ‐ Water

NGH Environmental consulted with DPI on 11 February 2011 (Section 9.2.2) regarding the north‐east

trending drainage depressions located in the WRSF Development Envelope and the WRSF Development

Footprint. Based on the indicative WRSF layout, the solar arrays would be constructed above this drainage

depression.

The drainage depression is mapped as a watercourse on topographical maps (Six Maps, NSW Land and

Property Information 2016) and is visible on aerial photography of the site. It was not however, obvious

on the ground, during the environmental assessment site inspections other than as shallow depressions in

the land surface. There was no evidence of substantive flow along these depressions.

Advice was sought in relation to whether the drainage depressions would be considered a ‘river’ under the

Water Management Act 2000 and would therefore require a Controlled Activity Approval (CAA) to

undertake any works within 40 metres of the watercourse. Photos of the drainage depression and a brief

email were sent followed by a phone call. DPI advised that, while the drainage depression may be

identified as a minor watercourse (1st or 2nd order Strahler classification) on the 1:25000 topographical

map, there are no definable channel banks and or a channel bed, nor are there any fluvial bedforms evident

(pools riffles sediment bars etc.). The drainage depression is not a river for the purpose of defining

waterfront land and would not require a CAA.

It is understood that there are no specific issues outstanding with DPI in relation to the proposed WRSF,

however an assessment of potential impacts on water are included in Section 9.2 of this EIS.


6589 Final v1.3 39

5.1.7 Environment Protection Authority

While an Environment Protection Licence (EPL) is required for WRWF, the solar farm does not constitute

scheduled premises and an EPL is not required. Works for connection to the substation that are within the

WRWF footprint will be subject to requirements of the EPL as they are in the designated area for the EPL.

5.1.8 Rural Fire Service

A Bushfire Risk Management has been developed for WRWF in consultation with Rural Fire Service (RFS).

The Plan forms part of the approved WRWF Stage 1 CEMP. Further consultation would be undertaken with

the RFS as part of pre‐construction planning. Subject to the outcomes of the consultation there may be a

need to either update the Bushfire Risk Management Plan for the WRWF in respect of WRWF and WRSF or

to prepare a plan focussed on WRSF only.

5.1.9 Roads and Maritime Services.

The WRSF would be accessed by the main entry point for WRWF, direct from Gwydir Highway. WRWFPL

and its Stage 1 contractor for Balance of Plant have been consulting with Roads and Maritime Service (RMS)

to agree on the design for the upgrade of the WRWF entry point from the Gwydir Highway. The approved

upgrade works are required to be implemented prior to WRWF construction commencing, well before the

WRSF construction phase and no further roadworks are anticipated for WRSF. Roads and Maritime will be

notified of the proposed WRSF development and expected timeframes with WRSFPL seeking Roads and

Maritime Service’s advice on any additional requirements for access in respect of the WRSF Project.

An assessment of access and traffic is included in Section 9.3 of this EIS. Additionally, a draft Traffic

Management Plan is provided in Appendix H.

5.2 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

WRSFPL is committed to engaging the local community and ensuring information is available for the

proposed development. A Community Engagement Plan (CEP) has been developed for WRSF to guide all

engagement activities. The CEP identifies objectives and aims, the WRSF stakeholders, proposed

consultation strategies, challenges and opportunities, and specific engagement tools.

The objectives of the CEP include:

To establish and maintain a level of acceptance or approval of the WRSF within the local

community.

To have a culture of openness, inclusiveness, responsiveness and accountability.

To enable better community integration of the WRSF.

For WRSF to be considered as an integrated and valued component of the social and

economic fabric of the community.

For a low or infrequent level of complaints and conflicts and no regulatory issues.

In line with the CEP, a range of engagement tools have been used with regards to the WRSF. These include:

Establishment of dedicated telephone line, email address and postal address.

Development of a WRSF factsheet for distribution as required to the community.

Development of a WRSF website (www.whiterocksolarfarm.com) to provide information

and updates.

Direct engagement with all potentially involved landowners.


6589 Final v1.3 40

Direct engagement with neighbours to 3 km through phone calls, email and face to face

meetings.

Media release to the local Glen Innes newspaper, resulting in an article on the 21 January

2016.

Information provided to Federal and State politicians (through distribution of media

release) on proposed WRSF Project.

Presentation to the WRWF Community Consultative Committee (CCC) on 4 February 2016,

providing an overview of the proposed WRSF. It is anticipated that a single CCC may be

suitable for WRWF and WRSF to provide efficiency in community engagement and ensure

consistent consultation.

A community information session for WRSF is scheduled to be held in Glen Innes on 21 March 2016. The

timing has been arranged to coincide with the anticipated public exhibition period for the WRSF EIS that

would be separately arranged by DP&E. The session will provide all stakeholders the opportunity to find

out more about the WRSF, talk one‐on‐one with the project planning staff and provide feedback.

Information on the WRSF and Development Application process will also be circulated to the local

community via newsletter.

Engagement activities will continue throughout the WRSF determination period, as set out in the CEP.

The CEP will be reviewed regularly, as well as at key transition phases between different stages of WRSF

development (e.g. prior to construction or operation). The Plan will continue to guide engagement

activities at all phases of the WRSF, ensuring that engagement is appropriate and in line with good practice.

To date, consultation activities appear to have been well received by the local community. No objections

or concerns have been received but questions have been received on:

Timescales for the WRSF progression.

Involvement of ARENA.

The hybrid nature of the wind/solar farm arrangement and sharing of facilities for grid

connection.

These questions are being addressed during the consultation activities and are also covered within this EIS.

5.3 ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION

The consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders was undertaken in accordance with clause 80C of the

National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Aboriginal Objects and Aboriginal Places) Regulation 2010. It

followed the consultation steps outlined in the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for

Proponents 2010 (ACHCRP) guide provided by OEH. The guide outlines a four stage process of consultation

as follows:

Stage 1 – Notification of WRSF proposal and registration of interest.

Stage 2 – Presentation of information about the proposed WRSF.

Stage 3 – Gathering information about cultural significance.

Stage 4 – Review of WRSF draft cultural heritage assessment report.

The full list of consultation steps, including those groups and individuals that were contacted and a

consultation log is provided in Appendix C. A summary of actions carried out in following these stages are

as follows.


6589 Final v1.3 41

Stage 1. Letters outlining the WRSF development proposal and the need to carry out an ACHA were sent

to the Anaiwan and Glen Innes Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC), and various statutory authorities

including OEH. An advertisement was placed in three local newspapers; the Northern Daily Leader on 4

January 2016, the Glen Innes Examiner on 7 January 2016 and the Inverell Times on 8 January 2016, seeking

registrations of interest from Aboriginal people and organisations. A further series of letters was sent to

other organisations identified by OEH in correspondence to NGH Environmental. In each instance, the

closing date for submission was 14 days from receipt of the letter.

As a result of this process, four groups contacted the consultant to register their interest in the WRSF

proposal. The Registered Aboriginal Groups (RAPs) who registered interest were:

Anaiwan Local Aboriginal Land Council.

Glen Innes Local Aboriginal Land Council.

Anaiwan Traditional Owners.

Jukambal.

No other party registered their interest, including the entities and individuals recommended by OEH or who were part of the previous consultation for WRWF Project.

Stage 2. An Assessment Methodology document for the WRSF was sent to the RAPs and other Aboriginal

stakeholders named by OEH. This document provided details of the background to the proposal, a

summary of previous archaeological surveys and the proposed heritage assessment methodology for the

proposal. The document invited comments on proposed methodology and sought information regarding

known Aboriginal cultural significance values associated with the Development Envelope and/or any

Aboriginal objects contained therein. No written responses were received. The Anaiwan LALC and Glen

Innes LALC indicated by phone that they were satisfied with the methodology and were happy to proceed

to conducting fieldwork.

Stage 3. The Assessment Methodology outlined in Stage 2 included a written request to provide any

information that may be relevant to the cultural heritage assessment of the WRSF Development Envelope.

It was noted that sensitive information would be treated as confidential. No response regarding cultural

information was received.

The fieldwork was organised and the Anaiwan and Glen Innes LALCs were asked to participate in the

fieldwork as the Development Envelope crossed both Land Council boundaries. Senior site officers from

both LALCs attended the survey with the archaeologist and assisted in conducting the survey, providing

input into transect placement and cultural significance.

Stage 4 In February 2016, a draft Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report was forwarded to the

RAPs and a timeframe of 28 days allowed for responses to the document. Section 8.2 of this EIS summarised

the final report, which is provided in full in Appendix C.


6589 Final v1.3 42

6 PLANNING CONTEXT

6.1 ASSESSMENT CONTEXT

6.1.1 Permissibility

SEPP (Infrastructure) applies to the whole of the State. Clauses 34(7) and 34(8) of SEPP (Infrastructure)

provide that development for the purpose of a solar energy system may be carried out by any person with

consent on any land (other than on land in a prescribed residential zone).

Relevantly, a ‘solar energy system’ includes a photovoltaic electricity generating system. The WRSF

Development Envelope is not located within a prescribed residential zone. Accordingly, the construction,

operation and decommissioning of the WRSF may be carried out with development consent.

6.1.2 State Significant Development (SDD)

Section 89C of the EP&A Act provides that development will be SSD if it is declared to be SSD by a State

Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP).

The SRD SEPP declares the WRSF to be SSD as it is development for the purpose of electricity generating

works with a capital investment value of greater than $30 million (clause 20, Schedule 1). This is considered

further in Section 6.2.1 below.

Section 78A (8A) of the EP&A Act requires a development application for SSD to be accompanied by an EIS

prepared in accordance with the EP&A Regulation.

On 11 January 2016, the proponent made a written application to the Secretary requesting SEARS for the

proposed WRSF as required by clause 3 of Schedule 2 of the EP&A Regulations. The proponent’s application

was accompanied by a Scoping Report, which provided detailed information about the proposed WRSF

Project including key environmental issues. The request for SEARs was registered as SSD 16_7487.

In formulating the environmental assessment requirements, the Secretary consulted with relevant public

authorities and agencies and considered key issues raised by those authorities. The preparation of SEARs

was assisted by a meeting between WRSFPL and agencies on 2 February 2016 that included an office based

meeting to discuss the WRSF Project and its potential impacts and site visits to the two potential solar farm

Development Envelopes.

On 3 February 2016, the Secretary issued the SEARs for the WRSF (Appendix A). Table 6‐1 outlines the

SEARs and provides a cross reference to where each item is addressed within this EIS. This EIS complies

with the SEARs and the environment assessment requirements contained in Schedule 2 of the EP&A

Regulation.


6589 Final v1.3 43

Table 6‐1 Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements for WRSF

Issue summary Addressed in EIS

General requirements

The (EIS) for the development must comply with the requirements in Schedule 2 of the

EP&A Regulation 2000 and include the following:

a full description of the development, including:

Details of construction, operation and decommissioning; Sections 4.6 to 4.11

A site plan showing all infrastructure and facilities (including any infrastructure that would be required for the development, but the subject of a separate approvals process)

Figure 1.1 and Figure 4.1

Indicative WRSF layout. Not

Final, subject to final design

and constraints

A detailed constraints map identifying the key environmental and other land use constraints that have informed the final design of the development;

Figure 7‐1

a strategic justification of the development focusing on site selection and the suitability of the proposed site;

Section 3

an assessment of the likely impacts of the development on the environment, focusing on the specific issues identified below, including:

a description of the existing environment likely to be affected by the development;

an assessment of the likely impacts of all stages of the development (which is commensurate with the level of impact), taking into consideration any relevant legislation, environmental planning instruments, guidelines, policies, plans and industry codes of practice;

a description of the measures that would be implemented to avoid, mitigate and/or offset the impacts of the development (including draft management plans for specific issues as identified below);

Sections 8 and Section 9

a description of the measures that would be implemented to monitor and report on the environmental performance of the development;

Section 10.2 and Draft

Management Plans

a consolidated summary of all the proposed environmental management and monitoring measures, identifying all the commitments in the EIS; and

Section 10.2

the reasons why the development should be approved having regard to the biophysical, economic and social costs and benefits of the development.

Section 2

the development application must be accompanied by a signed report from a suitably qualified person that includes an accurate estimate of the capital investment value of the development (as defined in Clause 3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

Separate report to be

submitted to DP&E with

Development Application

Specific issues

The Eis must address the following specific issues:

Biodiversity – including an assessment of the likely biodiversity impacts of the development, having regard to the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Policy for Major Projects, and in accordance with the Framework for Biodiversity Assessment, unless otherwise agreed by the Department

Section 8.1 and Appendix B


6589 Final v1.3 44

Issue summary Addressed in EIS

Heritage – including an assessment of the likely Aboriginal and historic heritage (cultural and archaeological) impacts of the development, including adequate consultation with the local Aboriginal community;

Sections 8.2 and 9.6,

Appendix C

Land – including an assessment of the impact of the development on agricultural land and flood prone land, paying particular attention to compatibility of the development with the existing land uses on the site and consistency with the zoning provisions applying to the land;

Section 8.5

Visual – including an assessment of the likely visual impacts of the development (including any night lighting) on surrounding landowners and key vantage points in the public domain, and a draft landscaping plan developed in consultation with affected landowners;

Section 8.3, Appendix D

Noise ‐ including an assessment of the construction noise impacts of the development in accordance with the Interim Construction Noise Guideline and sub‐station noise impacts in accordance with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy, and a draft noise management plan if the assessment shows construction noise is likely to exceed applicable criteria;

Section 8.4 and Appendix E

and F

Transport – including an assessment of the likely transport impacts of the development on the capacity, condition, safety and efficiency of the local and State road networks, and a draft traffic management plan for the construction phase of the development;

Section 9.3 and Appendix H

Water – including an assessment of the likely impacts of the development on surface water resources (including any nearby watercourses), details of water supply arrangements, and a draft erosion and sediment control plan prepared in accordance with Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction (Landcom 2004); and

Section 9.2 and Appendix G

Electromagnetic interference – an assessment of the proposed transmission line and substation against the International Commission on Non – Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Guidelines for limiting exposure to Time‐varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields.

Section 9.4.1

Consultation

Consultation with relevant local, state or commonwealth government authorities, infrastructure and service providers, community groups and affected landowners.

Detailed consultation with affected landowners surrounding the development, and relevant local Council (s)

The EIS must describe the consultation that was carried out, identify the issues raised during this consultation, and explain how these issues have been addressed in the EIS.

Section 5

6.2 EVALUATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

Section 89H of the EP&A Act provides that Section 79C applies to the determination of development

applications for SSD.

Under Section 79C of the EP&A Act, the consent authority is required to consider a number of matters

when determining a development application under Part 4. These matters include:

The provisions of:

o any environmental planning instrument;

o any proposed instrument that is or has been the subject of public consultation

under the EP&A Act and that has been notified to the consent authority.


6589 Final v1.3 45

Any development control plan.

Any planning agreement that has been entered into under Section 93F, or any draft planning

agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under Section 93F.

The regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for consideration).

Any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979).

That apply to the land to which the development application relates.

The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the

natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality.

The suitability of the site for the development.

Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations.

The public interest.

Each of these matters are considered further below.

6.2.1 The provisions of any environmental planning instrument

The following environmental planning instruments include provisions relevant to the WRSF Project:

SEPP (State and Regional Development) 2011.

State Environmental Planning Policy(Infrastructure) 2007 (SEPP (Infrastructure) ).

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands 2008).

State Environmental Planning Policy 44 – Koala Habitat Protection.

Glen Innes Severn Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Glen Innes LEP).

SEPP (State and Regional Development) 2011

The aims of the State and Regional Development (SRD) SEPP are to identify development that is SSD, State

Significant Infrastructure and Critical State Significant Infrastructure and to confer functions on joint

regional planning panels to determine development applications.

State Significant Development

Clause 8 of the SRD SEPP provides that development is declared to be SSD for the purposes of the EP&A

Act if:

a) the development is not permissible without consent under Part 4 of the EP&A Act; and

b) the development is specified in Schedule 1 or 2 of the SRD SEPP.

Clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the SRD SEPP provides:

“Development for the purpose of electricity generating works or heat or their co‐generation

(using any energy source, including gas, coal, bio‐fuel, distillate and waste and hydro, wave, solar

or wind power), being development that:

(a) has a capital investment value of more than $30 million, or

(b) has a capital investment value of more than $10 million and is located in an

environmentally sensitive area of State significance.”

The WRSF is a development for the purpose of electricity generation and would have a capital investment

value in excess of $30 million. Accordingly, the WRSF is declared to be SSD for the purposes of the EP&A

Act.


6589 Final v1.3 46

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

The SEPP (Infrastructure) was introduced to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the

State by improving regulatory efficiency through a consistent planning regime for infrastructure and

services across NSW.

Clause 34(7) of SEPP (Infrastructure) provides that development for the purpose of ‘solar energy systems’

may be carried out with consent on any land, except as prescribed by subclause 34(8). Clause 34(8) provides

that development for the purpose of a photovoltaic electricity generating system may be carried out by a

person with consent on land in a prescribed residential zone only if the system has the capacity to generate

no more than 100kW. Clause 34(8) does not apply to the WRSF Project as the WRSF Development Envelope

is not within a prescribed residential zone.

Accordingly, the WRSF is permissible with development consent. Further information regarding

permissibility is considered below in the context of applicable local environmental plans.

Traffic generating development

Clause 104 of the SEPP (Infrastructure) requires certain developments (identified in Column 1 of the Table

in Schedule 3) to be referred to Roads and Maritime (known as traffic generating development). In the case

of traffic generating development, the consent authority is required to take into account any submission

made by Roads and Maritime in relation to the development.

Electricity generation is not included in column 1 in the Table. Clause 104 of the SEPP applies to other

development where there are 200 or more motor vehicles. Since the WRSF Project would result in the

generation of fewer than 200 vehicles per day during construction or operation, the requirements under

clause 104 of the SEPP do not apply.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 ‐ Remediation of Land

SEPP No. 55 aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the purpose of reducing the risk of

harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment. The SEPP applies to the whole of the State.

Under Clause 7 of the SEPP No. 55, a consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of

development on land unless:

It has considered whether the land is contaminated;

If the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable for the purposes of the

proposed development in its contaminated state; or

If the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purposes of the proposed

development, whether it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used

for that purpose.

A search of the OEH contaminated land public record (OEH 2016) was undertaken for contaminated sites

within the Glen Innes Severn LGA on 22 January 2016. There were no records returned.

The online List of NSW contaminated sites notified to EPA (OEH 2015) was also searched on 22 January

2016. Eight sites were found in the Glen Innes area however, all were service stations or former commercial

industry sites located within the Glen Innes township.

There is a minor risk that contamination associated with agricultural activities (e.g., pesticides) could be

present however, given no contaminated sites are recorded on or adjacent to the proposed development

and that no evidence of contamination was observed during the site visit or mentioned during

conversations with the land owner, it is considered highly unlikely that significant contamination exists in


6589 Final v1.3 47

areas that would be affected by the WRSF. Furthermore, the construction activities would not significantly

disturb soil or groundwater at the site.

Given the historical use of the Development Envelope and the nature of the WRSF (both during

construction and operation), there is no reason to believe that the land is not suitable for the proposed

WRSF.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands 2008)

One of the primary aims of this SEPP is ‘to identify State significant agricultural land for the purpose of

ensuring the ongoing viability of agriculture on that land, having regard to social, economic and

environmental considerations’.

The objects of Part 4 (State significant agricultural land) are:

a) to identify State significant agricultural land and to provide for the carrying out of

development on that land,

b) to provide for the protection of agricultural land:

(i) that is of State or regional agricultural significance, and

(ii) that may be subject to demand for uses that are not compatible with agriculture,

(iii) if the protection will result in a public benefit.

Clause 13 of the SEPP identifies land as being State significant agricultural land if it is listed in Schedule 2.

Schedule 2 does not identify any land. However, the WRSF is located on land that is identified as Strategic

Agricultural Land (refer Section 6.5.2). The EIS assesses the impact the WRSF may have on this land (refer

Section 8.5.2)

State Environmental Planning Policy 44 ‐ Koala Habitat Protection

The aim of the State Environmental Planning Policy 44 – Koala Habitat Protection is to encourage the proper

conservation and management of areas of natural vegetation that provide habitat for koalas to ensure a

permanent free‐living population over their present range and reverse the current trend of koala

population decline.

The SEPP applies to each local government area listed in Schedule 1. The Glen Innes Severn and Inverell

LGAs are not listed in Schedule 1 of SEPP 44. As such, this SEPP does not apply to the Development

Envelope.

Regardless, the biodiversity field surveys included an assessment of the potential for the species to occur

within the Development Envelope. No koalas or suitable habitat were recorded during targeted surveys

and targeted Spot Assessment Technique (SAT) surveys. The biodiversity assessment concluded that the

species is more likely to be inhabiting the more contiguous habitat in larger patches, such as on the slopes

and valleys surrounding the Development Envelope and in National Parks, such as the Guy Fawkes River

National Park to the east.

Local Environmental Plan Provisions

Glen Innes Severn Local Environmental Plan 2012

The majority of the WRSF Development Envelope is located within the Glen Innes Severn Local Government

Area and is subject to the Glen Innes Severn Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP). The LEP aims:

1) to encourage the proper management, development and conservation of natural and

human resources in Glen Innes Severn by protecting, enhancing and conserving the

following:


6589 Final v1.3 48

a. land of significance to agricultural production

b. timber, minerals, soil, water and other natural resources

c. areas of significance for nature conservation

d. areas of high scenic or recreational value

e. landscapes, places and buildings of archaeological or heritage significance including

aboriginal relics and places

f. communities and settlements

2) to facilitate growth and development that:

a. minimises the cost to the community of fragments and isolated development of

rural land, and

b. facilitates the efficient and effective delivery of amenities and services, and

c. facilitates stimulation of demand for a range of residential, enterprise and

employment opportunities and promotes agricultural diversity, and

d. maximises the efficient use of existing infrastructure

Inverell Local Environmental Environment Plan 2012

Approximately 200 metres of the access road is located within the Inverell Local Government Area and is

subject to the Inverell Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP). The LEP aims:

1) to encourage sustainable economic growth and development

2) to protect and retain productive agricultural land

3) to protect, conserve and enhance natural assets

4) to protect built and cultural heritage assets

5) to provide opportunities for growth

Permissibility

Both LEP’s state that the consent authority must have regard to the development objectives of planning

zones identified in the LEP when determining development applications. The Development Envelope lies

within land zoned RU1 ‐ Primary Production in both LGA’s.

The objectives of the RU1 zone are the same for both LGA:

a) to encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural

resource base

b) to encourage diversity in primary industry enterprises and systems appropriate for the area

c) to minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands

d) to minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones.

The WRSF is consistent with the above objectives and, for the operational life of the WRSF, would harness

a natural resource (solar energy). While the activity would impact on land availability for primary

production, the land would meet objects b) and c) as identified above; it would allow for diversity in land

use, appropriate to the area and it would not fragment resource lands. Being fully reversible and involving

limited ground disturbance, it would not remove the potential to use the land for primary production in

the long term.

Under the LEPs, electricity generation is not a permissible use in the RU1 Zone. However, clause 34(7) of

SEPP Infrastructure prevails over the LEPs and provides that development for the purpose of ‘solar energy

systems’ may be carried out with consent on any land, except as prescribed by subclause 34(8).


6589 Final v1.3 49

Clause 34(8) of the SEPP states that development for the purpose of a photovoltaic electricity generating

system may be carried out by a person with consent on land in a prescribed residential zone only if the

system has the capacity to generate no more than 100 kW. A solar energy systems include a photovoltaic

electricity generating system however, as the proposed Development Envelope is not in a prescribed

residential zone, clause 34(8) does not apply.

Section 36 of the EP&A Act provides that where there is an inconsistency between environmental planning

instruments, there is a general presumption that a State environmental planning policy prevails over a local

environmental plan or other instrument made before or after that State environmental planning policy.

Clause 8 of SEPP Infrastructure relevantly provides that if there is an inconsistency between SEPP

Infrastructure and any other environmental planning instrument, whether made before or after the

commencement of SEPP Infrastructure, SEPP Infrastructure prevails to the extent of the inconsistency.

WRSF is permissible with consent under SEPP (Infrastructure.

6.2.2 The provisions of any development control plan

Clause 11 of the SRD SEPP provides that development control plans do not apply to state significant

development.

6.2.3 The provisions of any relevant planning agreement

There are no planning agreements that have been entered into, nor are any planning agreements

proposed, that relate to the WRSF.

6.2.4 The provisions of the EP&A Regulation

Clause 92 of the EP&A Regulations outlines the additional matters that requires consideration. These

include:

the Government Coastal Policy for development applications in certain local government areas;

the provisions of AS 2601 for development applications involving the demolition of structures; and

the provisions of a subdivision order and any development plan for development of land that is subject to a subdivision order.

The WRSF does not involve either types of development and the LGA is not listed in the table under this

clause. The additional provisions provided by the EP&A Regulation are not relevant to the WRSF.

6.2.5 The likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on both

the natural built environments, and the social and economic impact in the locality

The likely impacts of the WRSF, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built

environments, and the social and economic impacts in the locality, are detailed in Sections 8 and 9 of this

EIS. This EIS demonstrates that the environmental impacts of the WRSF have to the extent, reasonably and

feasibly possible, been avoided or minimised through careful project design.


6589 Final v1.3 50

6.2.6 Suitability of the site for the development

The WRSF Development Envelope has a number of characteristics that make it suitable for the

development of a solar farm. Most notably, is its location within and adjacent to the WRWF site which

facilitates the development of the proposed hybrid wind/solar facility by sharing the existing (to be) WRWF

infrastructure such as the substation and grid connection. Utilising existing facilities reduces the WRSF

Development Footprint of the WRSF Project and establishes a compact renewable energy precinct.

Other characteristics include:

Distance from sensitive residential receivers resulting in minimal visual and noise impacts

Gently sloping topography over the Development Envelope.

Accessibility, the site would be accessed via the same transport routes as the WRWF.

Utilisation of the WRWF substation and grid connection (WRSF Shared Infrastructure),

which would minimise impacts on the community and environment.

Further, the WRSF is largely reversible; at the end of the WRSF life, all above ground infrastructure would

be removed and current agricultural land use activities could resume.

6.2.7 Any submissions made on the development

WRSFPL would consider and, as necessary, respond constructively to any submission made in relation to

the WRSF.

6.2.8 The public interest

The WRSF is in the public interest for a number of reasons. On an annual basis the plant would produce

approximately 46,000 MWh in the first year of operation and over 1 million MWh over the 25 year project

life. This would provide energy for approximately 7,200 average Australian homes. The solar farm would

also assist to:

Generate local jobs and encourage regional development.

Boost the local economy by use of local supplies and services, where suitable

Avoid approximately 36,900 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per annum by replacing fossil fuel based

energy with solar generated energy, reducing emissions that contribute to climate change.

Assist in meeting State and Australian Government policies to increase renewable energy supply

in Australia.

Develop the solar power industry and supply chain in Australia, increasing the potential for job

creation and environmental benefits that are associated with renewable energy supply across a

broader area.

The community has been notified of the proposed development and to date no adverse comments

concerning the development have been received by WRSFPL. Development of the WRWF has been

positively received in the region and it is expected that the WRSF may experience a similar level of

community support.


6589 Final v1.3 51

6.3 NSW LEGISLATION

6.3.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Development in NSW is subject to the requirements of the EP&A Act and its associated regulations.

Environmental planning instruments prepared under the EP&A Act set the framework for development

approval in NSW.

The relevant objects of the EP&A Act are:

a) to encourage:

i. The proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources,

including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages

for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a

better environment.

ii. The promotion and coordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land.

iii. The protection, provision and coordination of communication and utility services.

vi. The protection of the environment, including the protection and conservation of native

animals and plants, including threatened species, populations and ecological communities,

and their habitats.

vii. Ecologically sustainable development.

c) To provide increased opportunity for public involvement and participation in environmental planning

and assessment.

The objects of the EP&A Act have been considered throughout this environmental assessment. The WRSF

aims to promote the orderly and economic use of the land through the provision of utility services (power

generation). The WRSF has been located and designed such that it would avoid protected areas and

generally minimise the use of natural and artificial resources while still promoting the social and economic

welfare of the local community.

Given the WRSF would support a number of the objects of the EP&A Act, and is not inconsistent with the

remaining objects of the Act, the WRSF is considered appropriate in the context of the EP&A Act.

The WRSF would be assessed under Part 4 of the EP&A Act.

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000

Clause 82 to Clause 85B of the EP&A Regulation addresses public participation in SSD.

The WRSF Development Application and accompanying information (including this EIS) will be placed on

public exhibition by DP&E for a period not less than 30 days.

6.3.2 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act) provides an integrated system of licensing for certain polluting activities within the objective of protecting the environment.

Section 148 of this Act requires notification of pollution incidents.

Section 120 of this Act provides that it an offence to pollute waters.

Schedule 1 of the POEO Act describes activities for which an Environment Protection Licence is required.


6589 Final v1.3 52

WRSFPL must ensure that all phases of the WRSF are managed to prevent pollution, including pollution of waters.

WRSFPL is obliged to notify the relevant authorities (e.g. Environment Protection Authority) when a ‘pollution incident’ occurs that causes or threatens ‘material harm’ to the environment.

Under Section 48 of the POEO Act, premises‐based scheduled activities (as defined in Schedule 1 of the

POEO Act) require an Environment Protection Licence (EPL). Clause 17 of Schedule 1 of the POEO Act

concerns electricity generation works. General electricity works is a scheduled activity and requires an EPL

where the activity has the capacity to generate more than 30 MW of electrical power. General electricity

generation works is defined as “the generation of electricity by means of electricity plant that, wherever

situated, is based on, or uses, any energy source other than wind power or solar power”. The WRSF is not

general electricity works as it generates electricity through solar power, and in any event, would not have

the capacity to generate more than 30 MW of electrical power.

The WRSF is not otherwise a scheduled activity under this Act. Accordingly, an EPL is not required under

the POEO Act for the proposed WRSF.

Legal requirements for the management of waste are also established under the POEO Act and the

Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005. Unlawful transportation and

deposition of waste is an offence under Section 143 of the POEO Act. Waste management should be

undertaken in accordance with the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001 (WARR Act). The

objectives of this Act are:

a) to encourage the most efficient use of resources and to reduce environmental harm in

accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development,

b) to ensure that resource management options are considered against a hierarchy of the

following order:

i. avoidance of unnecessary resource consumption,

ii. resource recovery (including reuse, reprocessing, recycling and energy recovery),

iii. disposal,

c) to provide for the continual reduction in waste generation,

d) to minimise the consumption of natural resources and the final disposal of waste by

encouraging the avoidance of waste and the reuse and recycling of waste,

e) to ensure that industry shares with the community the responsibility for reducing and

dealing with waste,

f) to ensure the efficient funding of waste and resource management planning, programs and

service delivery,

g) to achieve integrated waste and resource management planning, programs and service

delivery on a State‐wide basis,

h) to assist in the achievement of the objectives of the Protection of the Environment

Operations Act 1997.

Waste minimisation and management is assessed in Section 9.5 of the EIS.

6.3.3 Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

The Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) deals with the listing of threatened species,

populations and communities, the declaration of critical habitat, recovery plans, threat abatement plans,

licensing, Species Impact Statements, biodiversity certification and biobanking.


6589 Final v1.3 53

The EP&A Act specifies seven factors which must be considered by decision‐makers regarding the effect of

a proposed development or activity on threatened species, populations or ecological communities (or their

habitats) that are listed under the TSC Act. These factors are collectively referred to as the ‘Seven‐part

Test’. If the seven‐part test determines that there is likely to be a significant effect, then the WRSF Project

must be modified to remove the potential for this impact, or a Species Impact Statement (SIS) must be

prepared and the concurrence of the Chief Executive of OEH obtained by the determining authority prior

to determination.

An assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed activities on threatened species, populations and

ecological communities was undertaken, as documented in Section 8.1 of this EIS and in full in Appendix B.

A significant impact on any listed threatened species, population or ecological community is considered

unlikely due to the low condition of the vegetation and lack of habitat features. A Species Impact

Statement for WRSF is not considered to be required.

6.3.4 Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act)

The FM Act sets out to conserve fish stocks and key fish habitats, threatened species, populations and

ecological communities of fish and marine vegetation and biological diversity. Further, it aims to promote

viable commercial fishing, aquaculture industries and recreational fishing opportunities. Threatened

species, populations and ecological communities and key threatening process are listed in the FM Act’s

Schedules.

The WRSF Development Envelope is on western side of Wellingrove Creek catchment. There is an

ephemeral drainage depression within the solar farm site. There are no watercourses within the

Development Envelope considered to be Key Fish Habitat under the Act. Key Fish Habitat are those aquatic

habitats that are important to the sustainability of the recreational and commercial fishing industries, the

maintenance of fish populations generally and the survival and recovery of threatened aquatic species (DPI

2016). Key Fish Habitat has been mapped on a local government basis.

A permit under Section 201, 205 or 219 of the Act is not required by virtue of Section 89J of the EP&A Act.

6.3.5 Native Vegetation Act 2003

The Native Vegetation Act 2003 regulates the clearing of native vegetation. Clearing is defined as cutting

down, felling, thinning, logging, removing, killing, destroying, poisoning, ringbarking, uprooting or burning

native vegetation including native grasses and herbage.

An authorisation to clear native vegetation is not required for SSD (Section 89J EP&A Act). Native vegetation

clearing is addressed in Section 8.1.

6.3.6 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

Under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act), the Director General of OEH is responsible for

the care, control and management of all national parks, historic sites, nature reserves, reserves, Aboriginal

areas and state game reserves. The Director General of OEH is also responsible under this legislation for

the protection and care of native fauna and flora, and Aboriginal places and objects throughout NSW.

The provisions of the NPW Act have been considered for the WRSF. The WRSF Development Envelope is

not in or in the vicinity of any protected areas as defined in the Act.


6589 Final v1.3 54

An assessment of impacts to Aboriginal Heritage is provided in Section 8.2 of the EIS (and in full, Appendix

C). An Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) under Section 90 of the NPW Act is not required for SSD

(Section 89J EP&A Act).

6.3.7 Noxious Weeds Act 1993 (NW Act)

This Act aims to control noxious weeds in NSW. Part 3 of this Act outlined the obligations of a public

authority to control noxious weeds.

Noxious weeds and their management are discussed in Section 8.1 and 8.5 of this EIS and Appendix B.

6.3.8 Roads Act 1993

The Roads Act provides for the classification of roads and for the declaration of the Roads and Maritime

and other public authorities as roads authorities for both classified and unclassified roads. It also regulates

the carrying out of various activities in, on and over public roads. This includes the erection or removal of

structures, the excavation or disturbance to a public road surface, the pumping of water into a public road

from any land adjoining the road or the connection of a road to a classified road.

The WRSF would not involve any works in, on or over a public road. Access to the WRSF would be via

Gwydir Highway and the main access track for the construction and operation of the WRWF. Upgrading of

the site entry from Gwydir Highway (widening and safety works) would take place prior to the windfarm

construction and have been assessed as part of Works Authorisation Deed (WAD) that will need to

approved by Roads and Maritime prior to the WRWF pre‐construction works being undertaken.

A Section 138 approval would not be required for the WRSF.

6.3.9 Crown Lands Act 1989

The objective of the Crown Lands Act is to ensure that Crown land is managed for the benefit of the people

of New South Wales. The Catchments and Lands Division, DPI is responsible for the sustainable and

commercial management of Crown land. This involves the management of state‐owned land, linking with

other agencies, local government, the private sector and communities to provide social and economic

outcomes for NSW.

The northern entry to the WRWF project area from the Gwydir Highway utilises an existing farm entry point

across a Crown Reserve Lot 7001/93978. The access is the same as that which will be used for the WRWF

site and WRWFPL has obtained Licence R1 523495 for construction of an access track across the Crown

Land. The Licence has been issued under Section 34A of the Crown Lands Act, 1989.

Additionally, a paper road runs through the Development Envelope in a north‐south alignment between

Lots 29 and 30 of DP 753319. The indicative array (Figure 4.1) ensures that no above ground infrastructure

is located within the paper road but may require 33 kV underground cabling crossing this land for which

approval of Crown Lands will need to be obtained. WRSFPL will initially consult Crown Lands seeking to

licence the paper road temporarily and subsequently seek closure of the road. If closed by Crown Lands,

then fencing either side of the paper road would not be required.

6.3.10 Heritage Act 1977

This act aims to conserve heritage values. The Heritage Act 1977 defines ‘environmental heritage’ as those

places, buildings, works, relics, moveable objects and precincts of State or local heritage significance. A


6589 Final v1.3 55

property is a heritage item if it is listed in the heritage schedule of the local Council's LEP or listed on the

State Heritage Register, a register of places and items of particular importance to the people of NSW.

Section 9.6 of this EIS addresses potential impacts on heritage items or places. No heritage items or places

have been identified for the solar farm site.

6.3.11 Mining Act 1992

The main objective of the Mining Act 1992 is to encourage and facilitate the discovery and development of

mineral resources in New South Wales, having regard to the need to encourage ecologically sustainable

development.

A search of Department of Industry’s MinView database (Department of Industry 2016) found there are no

existing Mining Exploration Licences or other authorisations within the Development Envelope. A historical

exploration licence (EL7302) exists which covers the southern portion of the Development Envelope. This

was for the exploration of metallic mineral between 2009 and 2013.

6.4 COMMONWEALTH LEGISLATION

6.4.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is administered by the

Commonwealth Department of Environment (DoE). Under the EPBC Act, if the Minister determines that an

action is a ‘controlled action’ which would have or is likely to have a significant impact on a Matter of

National Environmental Significance (MNES) or Commonwealth land, then the action may not be

undertaken without prior approval of the Minster.

The EPBC Act identifies nine MNES:

World Heritage properties.

National heritage places.

Ramsar wetlands of international significance.

Threatened species and ecological communities.

Migratory species.

Commonwealth marine areas.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

Nuclear actions (including uranium mining).

A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining

development

When a person proposes to take an action that they believe may be a ‘controlled action’ under the EPBC

Act, they must refer the WRSF Project to the Department for a decision about whether the proposed action

is a ‘controlled action’.

A search for MNES and other matters protected by the EPBC Act was carried out within a 50km radius of

the WRSF Development Envelope using the Commonwealth online Environmental Reporting Tool (report

created 7 January 2016). A summary of the findings is provided in the tables below.


6589 Final v1.3 56

Table 6‐2 Summary of Matters of National Environmental Significance (50km search radius).

Matters of National Environmental Significance No.

World Heritage Properties 0

National Heritage Places 0

Wetlands of International Significance 5

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 0

Commonwealth Marine Areas 0

Threatened Ecological Communities 5

Threatened Species 61

Migratory Species 13

Table 6‐3 Summary of other matters protected by the EPBC Act (50km search radius).

Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act No.

Commonwealth Lands 5

Commonwealth Heritage Places 1

Listed Marine Species 16

Whales and Other Cetaceans 0

Critical Habitats 0

Commonwealth Reserves 0

Table 6‐4 Summary extra information (50km search radius).

Extra Information No.

State and Territory Reserves 21

Regional Forest Agreements 1

Invasive Species 39

Nationally Important Wetlands 2

Key Ecological Features (Marine) 0

Relevant matters are discussed within Section 8.1 (Biodiversity) and 9.6 (Heritage items). No MNES would

be affected by the proposed activity and a referral under the EPBC Act is not considered to be required.

6.4.2 Native Title Act 1993

The Native Title Act 1993 provides a legislative framework for the recognition and protection of common

law native title rights. Native title is the recognition by Australian law that Indigenous people had a system

of law and ownership of their lands before European settlement. Where that traditional connection to land

and waters has been maintained and where government acts have not removed it, the law recognises the

persistence of native title.


6589 Final v1.3 57

People who hold native title have a right to continue to practise their law and customs over traditional

lands and waters while respecting other Australian laws. This could include visiting to protect important

places, making decisions about the future use of the land or waters, hunting, gathering and collecting bush

medicines. Further, when a native title claimant application is registered by the National Native Title

Tribunal, the people seeking native title recognition gain a right to consult or negotiate with anyone who

wants to undertake a project on the area claimed.

Native title may exist in areas such as:

Vacant Crown land.

Some national parks, forests and public reserves.

Some types of pastoral lease.

Some land held for Aboriginal communities.

Beaches, oceans, seas, reefs, lakes, rivers, creeks, swamps and other waters that are not privately

owned.

A search of the National Native Title Register (NNTR) for the Glen Innes Severn Council returned no results.

6.4.3 Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000

The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 (RE Act) aims:

To encourage the additional generation of electricity from renewable sources.

To reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in the electricity sector.

To ensure that renewable energy sources are ecologically sustainable.

Section 17 of the RE Act defines renewable energy sources eligible under the Commonwealth government’s

Renewable Energy Target (RET); this includes solar energy.

Certificates for the generation of electricity are issued using eligible renewable energy sources. This

requires purchasers (called liable entities) to surrender a specified number of certificates for the electricity

that they acquire. In January 2011, renewable energy certificates were reclassified as either large‐scale

generation certificates or a small‐scale technology certificates following changes to the RET scheme.

WRWFPL and WRSFPL will both need to be accredited as a Renewable Energy Generators to create

Renewable Energy Certificates.

6.5 OTHER RELEVANT POLICIES AND PLANS

6.5.1 Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD)

Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) involves the effective integration of social, economic and

environmental considerations in decision‐making processes. In 1992, the Commonwealth and all state and

territory governments endorsed the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development.

In NSW, the concept has been incorporated in legislation such as the EP&A Act and Regulation. For the

purposes of the EP&A Act and other NSW legislation, the Intergovernmental Agreement on the

Environment (1992) and the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 outline principles

which can be used to achieve ESD. These principles are presented below along with a description of how

the WRSF and this EIS have considered each principle.


6589 Final v1.3 58

a) The precautionary principle, namely, that if there are threats of serious or irreversible

environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for

postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. In the application of the

precautionary principle, public and private decisions should be guided by:

i. careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to

the environment, and

ii. an assessment of the risk‐weighted consequences of various options.

The precautionary principle has been adopted in the assessment of impact; all potential impacts have

been considered and mitigated where a risk is present. Where uncertainty exists, measures have been

included to address the uncertainty.

b) Inter‐generational equity, namely, that the present generation should ensure that the

health, diversity and productivity of the environment are maintained or enhanced for the

benefit of future generations.

Potential impacts of the WRSF are likely to be localised and would not diminish the options regarding

land and resource uses and nature conservation available to future generations. Importantly, the WRSF

provides additional renewable energy that contributes to minimising the risk of climate change to

current and future generations by reducing carbon emissions intensity of electricity generation.

c) Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity, namely, that conservation of

biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration.

The impacts of the WRSF Project on biodiversity, including EPBC listed species, have been assessed in

detail in the Biodiversity Assessment in Appendix B and are summarised in Section 8.1. This has included

avoidance of areas of higher conservation value and management prescriptions to minimise and manage

residual impacts.

d) Improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms, namely, that environmental

factors should be included in the valuation of assets and services, such as:

i. polluter pays, that is, those who generate pollution and waste should bear the cost

of containment, avoidance or abatement,

ii. the users of goods and services should pay prices based on the full life cycle of costs

of providing goods and services, including the use of natural resources and assets

and the ultimate disposal of any waste,

iii. environmental goals, having been established, should be pursued in the most cost

effective way, by establishing incentive structures, including market mechanisms,

that enable those best placed to maximise benefits or minimise costs to develop

their own solutions and responses to environmental problems.

Attributes of the Development Envelope such as the existing native vegetation, soil and hydrology have

been valued in terms of their broader contribution to the catchment and catchment processes.


6589 Final v1.3 59

The aims, structure and content of this EIS have incorporated these ESD principles. The mitigation measures

in Section 10 provide an auditable environmental management commitment to these parameters. Based

on the social and environmental benefits accruing from the WRSF at a local and broader level, and the

assessed impacts on the environment and their ability to be managed, it is considered that the

development would be ecologically sustainable within the context of ESD.

6.5.2 Strategic Regional Land Use Plan – New England North West

The New England North West Strategic Regional Land Use Plan represents one component of the

Government’s broader Strategic Regional Land Use Policy which comprises multiple initiatives being staged

over time to address land use conflict in regional areas. The primary aim of the plan is to provide greater

protection for valuable agricultural land and better balance competing land uses.

The plan is particularly focused on managing coal and coal seam gas issues (DP&I 2012), however is relevant

to all developments within the New England North West region as it identifies land that is considered to

be Strategic Agricultural Land. Strategic agricultural land is defined as highly productive land that has both

unique natural resource characteristics (such as soil and water resources) as well as socio‐economic value

(such as high productivity, infrastructure availability and access to markets). Two categories of strategic

agricultural land have been identified:

1. Biophysical strategic agricultural land.

2. Critical industry clusters.

Biophysical strategic agricultural land is land with a rare combination of natural resources highly suitable

for agriculture. These lands intrinsically have the best quality landforms, soil and water resources which

are naturally capable of sustaining high levels of productivity and require minimal management practices

to maintain this high quality.

Critical industry clusters are related to the lands importance to highly significant agricultural industries (eg,

wine making, horse breeding etc). There are no critical industry clusters in the New England North West.

The WRSF is located on land that is mapped as Strategic Agricultural Land (NSW Planning Portal). Potential

impacts to this high value land are considered in this EIS along with management measures to minimise

the impact. DPI has been consulted in relation to assessment required for WRSF and the SEARs require

assessment of development on agricultural land. Attachment 1 of the SEARs in respect of Land, references

‘Primefact 1063: Infrastructure proposals on rural land (DPI)’. Section 7.5 addresses potential Land Use

issues including agricultural issues in accordance with this guideline.


6589 Final v1.3 60

6.6 SUMMARY OF LICENSES AND APPROVALS

Table 6‐5 Summary of licenses and approvals required for WRSF.

Legal Instrument License or Approval

EP&A Act, Part 4 Development consent required

Crown Lands Act Licence for access across Crown Land or works for cabling below paper road

POEO Act 1997 EPL not required as solar electricity generation is not a scheduled activity. WRWF Development Envelope is subject to an EPL. WRWFPL may need to seek exclusion of the Solar Farm site from the EPL.

EPBC Act, 1999 Based on specialist advice, a referral under the EPBC Act is not considered to be required

Note, if it is determined that additional licenses or approvals are required, WRWFPL would obtain these

prior to commencement of relevant activities.


6589 Final v1.3 61

7 SCOPING

7.1 RISK ASSESSMENT

A Scoping Report was completed, as part of the request for SEARs, to identify the key environmental issues

likely to be associated with the WRSF. The Scoping Report was prepared by WRSFPL with input and review

from NGH Environmental. It was based on desktop review of available information, site inspections and a

general familiarity with the area as a result of the environmental assessments undertaken for the adjoining

WRWF development.

An environmental consultant (from NGH Environmental) and WRSFPL Development Compliance Manager

undertook a site inspection of each potential development site on 6 January 2016. After the site

assessment, a risk assessment was undertaken to characterise the likely adverse environmental risks

associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of the WRSF. The aim of the risk

assessment was to ensure that all relevant risks were identified, investigated and mitigated as part of the

WRSFPL’s submission, relative to the degree of environmental risk they represented.

The risk rating is a factor of the consequence of an impact occurring and the likelihood of the impact

occurring. Depending on the combination of consequence and likelihood, the overall risk rating could be

low to extreme (refer Table 7‐1). Very High to extreme risks (termed ‘key risks’) have warranted a higher

level of investigation. Risks identified as low or highly manageable are discussed in less detail.

Table 7‐1 Risk assessment rating matrix.

Likelihood Consequence

Negligible Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic

Remote Low Low Low Medium Medium

Unlikely Low Low Medium High High

Possible Low Medium High Very High Very High

Likely Medium High Very High Very High Extreme

Almost certain/ inevitable Medium High Very High Extreme Extreme


6589 Final v1.3 62

Table 7‐2 summarises the results of the risk assessment. Fourteen environmental risks were investigated.

The unmitigated risk rating is the risk rating prior to assessment and is therefore precautionary. It considers

a ‘worst case’ in the absence of specific information. The mitigated risk rating is developed following

detailed assessment. It reflects the actual risks identified in consideration of the receiving environment and

the mitigation strategy proposed to manage them.

Table 7‐2 Risk analysis of adverse environmental issues.

Relevant

EIS Section Environmental risk Consequence Likelihood

Risk rating

(unmitigated)

Risk rating

(mitigated)

7.1 Biodiversity Moderate Possible High Low

7.2 Archaeology Moderate Possible High Low

7.3 Visual Moderate Possible High Low

7.4 Noise Moderate Possible High Low

7.5 Land use Moderate Likely Very High Low

8.1 Soils and

Landforms

Minor Possible Medium Low

8.2 Water Minor Possible Medium Low

8.3 Traffic Moderate Unlikely Medium Low

8.4 Health and Safety Moderate Unlikely Medium Low

8.5 Resource Use and

Waste Generation

Minor Possible Medium Low

8.6 Historic Heritage Minor Unlikely Low Low

8.7 Climate Minor Unlikely Low Low

8.8 Socioeconomic Minor Unlikely Low Low

In summary, the following environmental risks were considered to be key issues for the EIS:

Biodiversity

Archaeology

Visual impacts

Noise impacts

Land use

Biodiversity, archaeology, visual and noise impacts were investigated by specialists. Summaries of these

reports are included in Section 8. The full reports are attached as Appendices. Land use has been assessed

in Section 8.5 and addresses guidance provided in Primefact 1063 (DPI 2013). Lower risk issues are

addressed in Section 9.


6589 Final v1.3 63

7.2 CONSTRAINTS MAPPING

Early in the assessment process, following the site inspections by environmental consultants, constraints

mapping was compiled to inform the project planning and assist in the development of the solar farm

design. The map is included as Figure 7‐1. WRSF Project constraints identified at this stage primarily

involved site topography and minimising impacts to biodiversity. A drainage depression was identified

onsite and reviewed for its impact on the surrounding area. The Department of Primary Industries was

consulted with regards to the significance of this drainage depression and following this consultation, it

was determined that the drainage depression is a minor feature in the landscape and not a constraint to

the WRSF Project. No other constraints were identified during the environmental site inspections. Strategic

Agricultural land was not included on the constraints mapping as all suitable land for the solar farm

development within the Development Envelope is mapped as Strategic Agricultural Land.


6589 Final v1.3 64

Figure 7‐1 Constraints map for the WRSF Development Envelope


6589 Final v1.3 65

8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT – KEY

ISSUES

8.1 BIODIVERSITY (FLORA AND FAUNA)

8.1.1 Approach

A specialist Biodiversity Assessment Report (BAR) was prepared by NGH Environmental to investigate and

assess the potential impacts of the WRSF on biodiversity. The aim of the report was to address the

requirements of the Framework for Biodiversity Assessment (FBA), the NSW biodiversity offsets policy

developed for Major Projects (OEH 2014) and the requirements of the SEARs in relation to biodiversity.

The full report is included in Appendix B and the report is summarised below.

The assessment approach followed the FBA and involved literature reviews, database searches, and field

surveys conducted in accordance with relevant survey guidelines.

Site assessment and field surveys were undertaken on two occasions; January and February 2016. The field

survey work included;

1. Random Meander and targeted searches for threatened flora species. 2. Five biometric vegetation plots surveys, these included; 3. Fauna habitat assessment.

4. Opportunistic surveys that included recording of fauna species observed during the fauna

assessment.

5. Targeted surveys of threatened species.

A review of previous surveys completed in the local area was undertaken. This included those prepared as

part of the WRWF that occurs on land adjacent to the solar farm site.

The approach to undertaking the BAR included giving consideration to avoiding and minimising impacts to

biodiversity throughout each phase of the WRSF Project. For example, early site selection options where

assessed against key environmental, social and economic criteria, with several alignment and interchange

options being eliminated due to their impact on environmental values; notably on CEECs EECs, and

threatened species habitat. The option proposed and assessed in this EIS ensures the greatest avoidance

and minimisation of impacts on biodiversity possible.

As part of the BAR, a BioBanking development credit assessment was completed for the WRSF. The

proposal ID for the assessment is 205/2016/2392MP Version 1 and the assessment type was selected as

‘Major Project’. Section 2.10 of Appendix B of this EIS summarises the values entered into the Landscape

values section of the Biobanking Credit Calculator (BCC).


6589 Final v1.3 66

8.1.2 Existing environment

Landscape features

The WRSF Project is located within The New England Tablelands Bioregion and the Glenn Innes‐Guyra

Basalts Subregion (IBRA v.7 2012). The dominant IBRA subregion affected by the WRSF Project is the Glenn

Innes‐Guyra Basalts Subregion. The geology of the region is Silurian to Triassic (443 million years) in age,

with landforms described as mountain ranges, dissected plateaus, hills, and undulating plains. The

dominant pre‐European vegetation type is considered likely to be Eucalypt Woodlands dominated by

Eucalyptus albens and E. melliodora (ASRIS accessed 21/1/16).

The following Mitchell Landscapes occur within the study area;

Glenn Innes – Guyra Basalts occurs throughout the majority of the study area. The per cent

cleared estimate for this landscape is currently 82% (OEH 2007).

Inverell Plateau Granites occurs to the east and west of the study area and crosses a small

section of the study area in the northeast. The per cent cleared estimate for this landscape

is currently 40% (OEH 2007).

The total area of native vegetation mapped within the outer assessment circle is 1470.42 ha.

Approximately 76.27ha (47%) within the WRSF Development Footprint is cleared (non‐native vegetation)

land which provide very little in terms of fauna habitat. These areas provide suitable foraging habitat for

raptors and macropods, and introduced species such as cats, foxes and rabbits.

There are no rivers or steams present at the site. A drainage depression lies within Development Envelope

which was dry during the field surveys and does not contain permanently wet areas. Waterbodies are

limited to two man made dams with a sparse covering of aquatic vegetation. The dams provide low quality

habitat for wetland birds and amphibians. The closest Nationally Important Wetland and Ramsar Wetland

to the Development Envelope is the Little Lliangothlin Lake and Nature Reserve approximately 30

kilometres to the southeast.

No state or regionally significant biodiversity links, as defined in the FBA (OEH) occur within the

Development Envelope and within the inner and outer assessment circles.

Using the Biobanking Credit Calculator, the study area returned a landscape value score of 12.

Native vegetation

Two distinct Plant Community Types (PCTs) were observed in the Development Envelope (mapped on

Figure 7‐2):

1. Blakely’s Red Gum – Yellow Box grassy woodland of the New England Tableland Bioregion.

2. Cleared areas (cultivated exotic vegetation).

Blakely’s Red Gum – Yellow Box grassy woodland of the New England Tableland Bioregion (PCT 510)

Within the Development Envelope, the Plant Community Type (PCT) 510 occurs as highly disturbed, and

therefore low condition within the site, as several small patches on the east and one larger patch in the

western extent of the site. This vegetation community is listed as an Endangered Ecological Community

(EEC) under the TSC White Box Yellow Box Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland. It is also listed as a Critically

Endangered Ecological Community (CEEC) under the EPBC Act ‐ White Box Yellow Box Blakely’s Red Gum

Woodland, but given the highly modified state, it is classed as low condition, and no vegetation proposed

for clearing to construct the WRSF development qualifies for EPBC listing.


6589 Final v1.3 67

The dominant tree species in the community consisted of Yellow Box (E. melliodora). The midstorey

consisted of shrubs including Blackberry (Rubus fruticosus). The understorey was nearly completely

dominated by St Barnaby’s Thistle (Centaurea solstitialis). The understorey also included a diverse

assemblage of exotic species with limited examples of native species including Phalaris (Phalaris aquatic),

Prarie grass (Bromus catharticus), Perennial Rye grass (Lolium perene), Chickweed (Stellaria media),

stinging nettle (Urtica urens), Red Clover (Trifolium pratense), Tussock grass (Poa sieberiana var.

sieberiana), Bracken Fern (Pteridium esculentum) and Wallaby grass (Rytidosperma tenuius).

The vegetation community provides for some fauna. Canopy trees provide foraging and nesting/resting for

birds and arboreal fauna. Ground cover plants, logs and fallen leaves provide shelter and foraging for

terrestrial fauna as well. Where hollow‐bearing trees are present, it may provide daytime resting habitat

for bats and mammals, and roosting habitat for birds.

Cleared areas

This highly disturbed or modified vegetation community occupies the majority of the site and is found

where there is a prevalence of exotic or planted non‐local flora species that make up groundcover layers

and is confined to grazing areas. Non‐indigenous vegetation covers the majority of the Development

Envelope, making it the most abundant community in the Development Envelope. The groundcover is

mainly exotic with common grazing species including Phalaris (Phalaris aquatica), Yorkshire Fog (Holocus

lanatus), Prarie grass (Bromus catharticus), Paspalum (Paspalum diltatum) and Perennial Rye Grass (Lolium

perenne).


6589 Final v1.3 68

Figure 7‐2 Endangered ecological community map for the Development Envelope.


6589 Final v1.3 69

Threatened species

The following threatened species were identified from the BCC as potentially being present and requiring

targeted survey. The table below states whether each species was detected during onsite surveys

(methodology and results provided below) and furthermore, if they are now expected to be impacted by

the proposal.

Table 7‐3 Threatened species returned from the BCC as requiring survey

Common name Scientific name Surveys Present/presumed

present

Affected by the proposal

Bluegrass Dichanthium

setosum

Not detected. Presumed to occur on

occasion.

Unlikely – not recorded

within the Development

Envelope.

Regent Honeyeater Anthorchaera

phrygia

Not detected. No. Unlikely – not recorded


Envelope, only one

recording within 20km,

and minimal clearance of

marginal habitat.

Silky Swainson‐pea Swainsona sericea Not detected. Presumed to occur on

occasion.

Unlikely – not recorded


Envelope.

Small Snake Orchid Diuris

pedunculata

Not detected,

although not

targeted due to non‐

favourable survey

time.

Presumed to occur on

occasion.

Unlikely – elevation above

species range, marginal

and poor quality habitat

present closest record

more than 50km south,

not recorded in surveys at

adjacent and equivalent

habitat of the WRSF.

Other threatened species of note that were identified in background searches with previous recordings

within a 10km radius are included in Table 7‐4.

Table 7‐4 Additional species potentially present at the site

Common name / Status (TSC Act, EPBC Act)

Scientific name

Number of records (OEH/AoLA/WRWF)

Suitable habitat within the Development Envelope

Surveys Present/presumed present


Austral Toadflax / V, V

Thesium australe

0/4/0 Marginal Not detected

Unlikely to occur Unlikely

Blackbutt Candlegum / V

Eucalyptus rubida subsp. barbigerorum

0/1/0 No Not detected



6589 Final v1.3 70


Scientific name





Speckled Warbler / V

Chthonicola sagittata


Unlikely to occur due to habitat condition

Unlikely

Spotted Harrier / V

Circus assimilis


Presumed to occur on occasion. Habitat elements that occur onsite are common in the local area.

Unlikely

Varied Sittella / V

Daphoenositta chrysoptera


May occur on occasion. Habitat elements that occur onsite are poor quality and common in the local area.

Unlikely

Hooded Robin V

Melanodryas cucullata


Unlikely to occur, habitat elements that occur onsite are poor quality

Unlikely

Flame Robin / V

Petroica phoenicea



Unlikely

Scarlet Robin / V

Petroica boodang



Unlikely

Black‐throated Finch (southern sub‐species) / E, E

Poephila cincta cincta



Diamond Firetail / V

Stagonopleura guttata



Unlikely

Little Lorikeet / V

Glossopsitta pusilla



Unlikely


6589 Final v1.3 71


Scientific name





Spotted‐tailed Quoll / V, E

Dasyrurus maculatus



Koala / V, V

Phascolarctos cinereus



Eastern Bentwing‐bat V

Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis


May forage at site on occasion, habitat elements that occur onsite are poor quality

Unlikely

8.1.3 Site surveys

Methodology

Site surveys were undertaken by a botanist and an ecologist between the 11 and 15 January 2016. A follow

up survey occurred on 15th February 2016.

The aims of the site surveys were as follows:

1. Determine vegetation communities present within the Development Envelope, their condition and

extent.

2. Identify potential EECs within the Development Envelope and determine their condition and

extent.

3. Conduct targeted searches for threatened flora and fauna species predicted to occur in the


Assess the availability and extent of flora and fauna habitat, particularly threatened species habitat, such

as hollow‐bearing trees.

The following survey methods were utilised during the survey:

Random meander and targeted searches for threatened flora species

Biometric vegetation plots

Fauna habitat assessment

Opportunistic fauna surveys

Targeted fauna surveys for the Regent Honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia).

A full description of the survey methodology is outlined in Section 4.2.2 of Appendix B.

Results

Thirty‐two flora species and 16 fauna species were detected during the surveys.

Of all the species recorded, none are listed as threatened under the NSW TSC Act or EPBC Act.


6589 Final v1.3 72

Four threatened species returned by the BCC assessment as requiring survey (and therefore with potential

to generate species credits requiring offsets) were considered to have some potential to occur in the

Development Envelope. These include the following:

Small Snake Orchid (Diurus pedunculata), listed as endangered under the TSC Act and the

EPBC Act.

Bluegrass (Dicanthium setosum), listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act and EPBC Act.

Silky Swainson‐pea (Swainsona sericea), listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act.

Regent Honeyeater (Anthocheara phrygia), listed as critically endangered under the TSC Act

and EPBC Act.

Based on the extensive survey effort undertaken at the subject site and within the neighbouring WRWF,

combined with the modified nature of the areas that would be removed by the WRSF Project, none of

these threatened species were considered likely to be adversely impacted by the WRSF Project. It is noted

that the Small Snake Orchid (Diuris pedunculata) was not in flower during surveys and would not have been

detected due to its cryptic habit. However based on an assessment of habitat present at the site, the sites

elevation, combined with a review of surveys undertaken by RPS (2011) of the WRWF site, it has been

identified that the site is very unlikely to provide habitat of the Small Snake Orchid.

8.1.4 Potential impacts

Construction

The BAR identified the following potential direct and indirect impacts to biodiversity values of the site that

would result during the construction phase.

Table 7‐5 Potential biodiversity impacts as a result of the proposal.

Impact Frequency Intensity Consequence

Direct

Habitat clearance for permanent and temporary construction facilities (e.g. solar infrastructure, compound sites, stockpile sites, access tracks)

Regular High Direct loss of native flora and fauna habitat.

Potential clearing of habitat outside of the WRSF Development Footprint.

Injury and mortality to fauna during clearing of fauna habitat and habitat trees.

Disturbance to fallen timber, dead wood and bush rock

Indirect

Accidental spills and contamination from construction activities (including compound sites)

Rare Moderate Pollution of waterways.

Earthworks Regular Moderate Erosion and sedimentation of waterways.

Noise Regular Low Construction machinery and activities may disturb local fauna.


6589 Final v1.3 73


Direct

Dust generation Regular Low Inhibit the function of plant species and communities, waterways.

General construction activities Regular Moderate Feral pest, weed and/or pathogen encroachment.

A range of mitigation measures would be implemented to ensure that impacts on biodiversity during the

construction phase are avoided where possible, and minimised where they cannot be avoided. The

mitigation measures that would be employed during the construction phase are provided in Section 8.1.5

below. Mitigation measures have considered methods of clearing, clearing operations, timing of

construction and other measures that would minimise impacts of the WRSF Project on biodiversity values.

Operation

The BAR identified the following potential direct and indirect impacts to biodiversity values of the site

during the operational phase.


Direct

Existence of permanent solar infrastructure

Constant Moderate Permanent removal of flora and fauna habitat.

Collision risk to birds and microbats to exterior barbed‐wire fencing.

Inappropriate landscaping Constant Moderate Reduction in the quality of habitat for native flora and fauna species.

Indirect

Light spill Occasional Low Alter movements of fauna through the landscape.

Weed encroachment Regular Moderate Ingress of weeds along the boundary of the development.

Pest animals Irregular Low Increase in pest species specialising in edge habitats.

Measures to avoid and minimise impacts that may occur during the operational phase would be

implemented as part of the WRSF Project. Where practical, measures to avoid impacts on biodiversity

during operation have been identified. Where impacts are unavoidable measures to minimise impacts

would be implemented.

Requirement for biodiversity offsets

Use of the BCC for the WRSF Project concluded that there is no requirement to offset potential impacts to:

Native vegetation

Species and populations

Hollow bearing trees


6589 Final v1.3 74

8.1.5 Environmental safeguards

The following mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the impacts to biodiversity during the

construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the WRSF Project:

No. Environmental Safeguard Solar farm

C O D

BIO 1 Preparation of Flora and Fauna Management Plan (FFMP) that would incorporate mitigation strategies below. The FFMP would form part of the White Rock Solar Farm Construction Environmental Management Plan.

C

BIO 2 Native vegetation to be retained (EEC and trees) would be delineated (fencing or other method), and construction activities would be excluded from these areas. Clearing and construction contractors would be given inductions that make clear the importance of these features.

C

BIO 3 A ‘Clearing and Grubbing Plan’ would be developed. This would include;

o best practice methods for the removal of woody vegetation and non‐woody vegetation

o Where trees are to be retained, an adequate tree protection zone

o A provision for mulch reuse onsite, particularly to stabilise disturbed areas

o An unexpected threatened species finds procedure

C

BIO 4 Stockpile and compound sites would be located using the following criteria:

o Within the Development Envelope. o At least 40 metres away from the nearest

waterway. o In areas of low ecological conservation significance

(i.e. pasture land, and avoiding drip line of native trees).

C

BIO 5 The location of the underground power cable from the solar farm to WRWF would be micro‐sited to avoid hollow bearing trees.

C

BIO 6 Use non barbed‐wire on exterior fencing, unless required for public safety.

C

BIO 7 Rehabilitation would be undertaken in all areas disturbed during construction. Where plantings are be carried out they will utilise local native species to increase the diversity of the existing vegetation, as well as to improve the connectivity between patches in the landscape.

C

BIO 8 Prepare a weed management plan that; o Is consistent with DPI’s Prime Fact 1063

Infrastructure proposals on rural land (DPI 2013) o Allows for management of declared noxious weeds

in accordance to the requirements stipulated by the Noxious Weeds Act 1993

o Develops a protocol for weed hygiene in relation to plant, machinery and importation and management of fill

C O

BIO 9 Vegetation groundcover, particularly beneath the low edge of the panels, would be monitored and any bare areas or

O


6589 Final v1.3 75


C O D

erosion addressed (ie. planting, jute mesh armouring etc.) to resist erosion and weed infestation.

BIO 10 Carry out refuelling of plant and equipment, chemical storage and decanting at least 50 m away from aquatic habitats in impervious bunds. Ensure that dry and wet spill kits are readily available

C

BIO 11 Dust control measures (ie. water cart) would be implemented in response to visual cues to prevent dust spreading to nearby habitats.

C

BIO 12 If night work is unavoidable, ensure lights are directed away from wildlife or habitat corridor (biodiversity links).

C

BIO 13 Develop a pest management plan drawing on the White Rock Wind Farm Stage 1 Construction Flora and Fauna Management Plan, to cover all pest management issues at the WRSF site.

C O

8.2 ABORIGINAL HERITAGE

8.2.1 Approach

A specialist Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (ACHAR) was undertaken to provide an

assessment of the Aboriginal cultural values associated with the Development Envelope and to assess the

cultural and scientific significance of any Aboriginal heritage sites.

The full report is provided in Appendix C and is summarised below.

The ACHAR was prepared in line with the following:

Guide to Investigating, Assessing and Reporting on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in NSW (OEH 2011);

Code of Practice for the Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (OEH 2010a), and

Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation requirements for proponents 2010 (OEH 2010b) produced by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH).


The Development Envelope is located between the towns of Inverell and Glen Innes. At the time of

European settlement in the region, the area in the vicinity of Inverell was believed to have been inhabited

by Anaiwan (Nganyaywana) speaking Aboriginal people (Tindale 1974). The area closer to Glen Innes was

(probably) inhabited by a related group known as the Ngarrabul (Ngarabal, Ngarrbul) (Tindale 1974).

The Anaiwan and Ngarrabal people are thought to have utilised the majority of the area north of the

Macintyre River, making use of a broad range of natural resources. Occupation seems to have been

focused on the riverine margins, the Macintyre River and perennial creeks, but also traversed a variety of

landform units away from the major water sources for the gathering of resources and hunting (McIntyre

1998).

Most archaeological assessment that has occurred within the Glen Innes area has been for the purpose of

assessing potential impacts from proposed developments. Results of these surveys show that Aboriginal


6589 Final v1.3 76

sites are present in a range of landforms. In general, small artefact scatters tend to be present in the

proximity of small drainage or creek lines. Scarred trees tend to be located along ridge crests.

Database searches and consultation

An extensive search of the NSW OEH Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) was

undertaken on 4 January 2016 (AHIMS reference 205497) in an area 24 km (north‐south) by 20 km (east‐

west) surrounding the WRSF Development Envelope. The search found that there are no recorded sites

within or adjacent to the proposed WRSF Development Envelope. Sixteen sites were recorded in the

broader search area, comprising four modified (scarred) trees, five artefact scatters, six locations of

potential archaeological deposit (PAD) and one art (engraving) site.

The most relevant previous study relative to the WRSF Development Envelope assessments for the WRWF

Project adjacent to the WRSF Development Envelope undertaken by RPS in 2010 and ERM in 2015. RPS

recorded three modified trees and two artefact scatters during their surveys (RPS 2010). All are outside of

the current Development Envelope. ERM identified an additional Aboriginal site consisting of an isolated

artefacts located at Easting 362631, Northing 6704 300 (MGA Zone 56), also outside the Development

Envelope.

Consultation with the Aboriginal parties concerning the significance of the WRSF site has been undertaken

(refer Section 5.3). To date, no places with cultural or spiritual significance have been identified during this

consultation.

8.2.3 Site survey

Methodology

Field survey was undertaken over two days (10 ‐ 11 February 2016). The survey was led by archaeologist

Lyn O’Brien. Assistance was provided by a representative from both the Anaiwan and Glenn Innes Local

Aboriginal Land Councils.

The survey strategy followed the standard practice of delineating different survey units within the

Development Envelope, based on topography, soils or other landscape features. Three survey units were

delineated for this survey (refer Figure 3, Appendix C for location of survey units).

Survey methodology involved carrying out a series of pedestrian survey transects across the Development

Envelope, ensuring enough coverage to be able to assess and characterise the archaeology. Team members

walked in parallel lines across each paddock looking for the evidence of Aboriginal occupation. Just under

3.3 km of transects were walked across the Development Envelope. The field survey was impeded by very

poor visibility.

Overall, it is considered that the surface survey of the Development Envelope had low effective survey

coverage due to the dense grass coverage over all areas. However, the main infrastructure site area was

subject to intensive survey with numerous pedestrian transects crossing the area. Survey coverage was

sparser on the ridgeline and middle slopes units, located away from the main site area. Not all remnant

mature trees were inspected in the wider Development Envelope.

Results and conclusions

No heritage sites, including isolated artefacts or scarred trees were located during the

survey.

Due to the high level of European land use activities within the Development Envelope, and

its location away from a water sources, it is considered:


6589 Final v1.3 77

o Unlikely that any archaeological sites would remain within this area.

o The potential for the site area to contain unidentified Aboriginal sites is extremely low.

Based on the land use history of the Development Envelope and an appraisal of the area

from the field survey, there is negligible potential for the presence of intact subsurface

deposits.

Whilst not intensively surveyed, the Development Envelope is considered to hold an overall

low potential for unrecorded sites.

As the WRSF is State Significant Development, an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit would not be required

for the WRSF Project, regardless of whether Aboriginal sites were recorded.


Construction

The proposed works would involve excavation activities which can potentially impact Aboriginal objects

which may be present within the Development Envelope. Impacts associated with excavation works at this

site are considered to be low for the following reasons:

The field survey did not identify any heritage sites within the Development Envelope and

there are no recorded Aboriginal archaeological sites present.

The ACHAR concluded that there are unlikely to be other unrecorded sites or sub‐surface

deposits within the Development Envelope, and if any of these deposits was to be present,

it would be severely compromised due to past ploughing activity.

As not all mature remnant trees were surveyed in the Development Envelope (outside the Development

Envelope), there is a low potential for unrecorded scarred trees to remain and be impacted during

construction of the access track and the underground cable linking the solar farm with wind turbine 1.

Impacts associated with these works are considered to be low as the location of this infrastructure can be

microsited during construction to avoid any potential impacts to trees.

Operation

During operation, it is unlikely the WRSF Project would impact on Aboriginal archaeology.


In summary, the ACHAR concludes the:

‘development proposal should be able to proceed with no additional archaeological investigations. No

areas of potential archaeological deposits or scarred trees have been identified within the Development

Envelope and the potential for Aboriginal heritage objects within the Development Envelope has been

assessed as low’.


C O D

AH1 If removal of mature trees in relation to installation of the 33 kV cable is required, these would be checked for scars prior to removal, and if present the scar should then be examined by a qualified heritage practitioner and RAPs to assess if the scar is cultural.

If any culturally scarred trees are identified by the above process, avoidance by redesign of the cable alignment should be undertaken.

C


6589 Final v1.3 78


C O D

AH2 WRSFPL would prepare a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) to address the potential for finding Aboriginal artefacts during the construction of the WRSF. The CHMP would outline an unexpected finds protocol to deal with construction activity. Preparation of the CHMP should be undertaken in consultation with the RAPs.

C

AH3 In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered during the construction, all work must cease. OEH, the local police and the appropriate LALC should be notified. Further assessment would be undertaken to determine if the remains are Aboriginal or non‐Aboriginal.

C

AH4 Continued consultation with the RAPs for the WRSF Project should be undertaken. RAPs should be informed of any major changes in project design or scope, further investigations or finds.

C

8.3 VISUAL IMPACTS

8.3.1 Approach

A specialist Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) was undertaken to investigate the potential visual impacts of

the proposed WRSF. The assessment was undertaken by Green Bean Design Pty Ltd (GBD). The full GBD

VIA report is provided in Appendix D and is summarised below.

The methodology employed for the VIA has been prepared with regard to industry standard VIA guidelines

including the:

Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd Ed. (Landscape Institute and

Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2013).

The Environmental Impact Assessment Practice Note – Guideline for Landscape Character

and Visual Impact Assessment EIA–N04 (practice note EIA‐N04).

The VIA has been undertaken to:

Assess the existing visual character within the proposed solar farm site as well as the

surrounding landscape.

Determine the extent and nature of the potential visual impact of the proposed solar farm

on surrounding areas.

Identify measures to mitigate and minimise any potential visual impacts.

The VIA was based on the following solar farm layout design:

The solar farm would consist of groups of arrays of photovoltaic panels which are attached

to a fixed steel framework that is mounted on posts that are rammed into the ground.

The arrays of photovoltaic modules would be electrically connected into approximately

eight power conversion blocks, followed by export via an underground 33 kV cable route to

the substation at the White Rock Wind Farm.

The maximum height of the framework would be approximately three metres, maximum

height of the power conversion blocks approximately four metres, while there may be a

number of monitoring poles onsite that reach five metres in height from the ground.


6589 Final v1.3 79

The solar farm site would be surrounded by a chain link fence approximately two metres in

height.

The VIA included the following tasks:

Desktop study addressing visual character and identification of view locations within the

surrounding area ‐ Topographic maps and aerial photographs were used to identify the

locations and categories of potential receiver locations that could be verified during the

fieldwork component of the assessment. The desktop study also outlined the visual

character of the surrounding landscape including features such as landform, elevation,

landcover and the distribution of residential dwellings.

Fieldwork and photography ‐ A site inspection to determine and confirm the potential

extent of visibility of the proposed solar farm and ancillary structures. Determination and

confirmation of the various view location categories and locations from which the proposed

solar farm structures could potentially be visible.

Assessment and determination of visual impact ‐ The overall determination of potential

visual impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed solar farm

would result from a combination of receiver sensitivity and the magnitude of visual effect.

The sensitivity of visual receptors has been determined and described in the VIA by

reference to:

o The location and context of the view point.

o The occupation or activity of the receptor.

Judging the magnitude of visual effect has considered:

o The scale of the change in the view with respect to the loss or addition of features

in the view and changes in its composition, including the proportion of the view

occupied by the proposed solar farm.

o The degree of contrast or integration of any new features or changes in the

landscape with the existing or remaining landscape elements and characteristics

in terms of form, scale and mass, line height, colour and texture.

o The nature of the view of the proposed solar farm, in terms of the relative amount

of time over which it will be experienced and whether views will be full, partial or

glimpses.

Determination of potential mitigation measures.


Landscape character and visual absorption capability

The landscape character surrounding the Development Envelope has been determined as a singular

landscape unit which generally occurs within a 4 km viewshed of the Development Envelope. For the

purpose of this VIA, the viewshed is defined as the area of land surrounding and beyond the solar farm site

which may be potentially affected by the solar farm. In essence, the viewshed defines this VIA study area.

The landscape unit represents an area that is relatively consistent and recognisable in terms of its key

landscape elements and physical attributes; which include a relatively limited combination of

topography/landform, vegetation/landcover, land use and built structures (including settlements and local

road corridors). The predominant landscape unit within and surrounding the proposed solar farm site has

been identified as ‘sloping and undulating modified agricultural land’.


6589 Final v1.3 80

The Visual Absorption Capability (VAC) of the landscape surrounding the proposed solar farm is generally

high as a result of locally undulating landforms and significant areas of tree cover surrounding the proposed

solar farm site.

The overall sensitivity rating of the landscape (taking into account landform and scale, landcover,

settlement and human influence, movement patterns, rarity and intervisibility) was assessed a quantitative

scale as 14/30; low landscape sensitivity (refer to detailed evaluation, Table 4, in the appended VIA,

Appendix D).

Visual receivers

The VIA identified a total of 12 residential dwellings located within an approximate 4 km viewshed

surrounding the WRSF Development Envelope.

A small number of local roads connect localities and residential dwellings within the surrounding landscape.

The roads from which views may extend toward the proposed solar farm site include:

Gwydir Highway

Ilparran Road

Waterloo Road.

The Sinclair Lookout is located on Waterloo Range approximately 6.3 km to the east of the proposed solar

farm. The lookout is accessible by a single lane and partially washed out unsealed access track from the

Gwydir Highway. The lookout has a westerly aspect looking over and beyond the valley where the proposed

solar farm would be located. The lookout is a very basic facility with no seating or shelter structures and

appears to have low levels of visitation.

The Matheson Church is located approximately 3.15 km to the north east of the proposed solar farm, and

160 m north‐west of the Gwydir Highway on the Waterloo Road.


Potential impacts investigated by the VIA included:

Impacts during construction.

Impacts during decommissioning.

Operational impacts:

o On landscape character

o On residential dwellings

o On roads

o On other sensitive locations.

Potential impact for glare or glint, from proposed infrastructure on nearby receivers.

Cumulative impacts.

Construction / decommissioning activities and potential impacts

The key pre‐construction and construction activities that may be visible from areas surrounding the

Development Envelope include:

Ongoing detailed site assessment including technical investigations.

Various minor civil works at access points.

Construction facilities, including portable structures and laydown areas.

Various construction and directional signage.


6589 Final v1.3 81

Vegetation clearing, excavations and earthworks.

Various construction activities including erection of solar panels with associated electrical

infrastructure works, including power conversion blocks.

The majority of pre‐construction and construction activities would be unlikely to result in an unacceptable

level of visual impact due to their duration and temporary nature.

Decommissioning activities are anticipated to be similar to those during construction. The

decommissioning phase of the proposed solar farm would not result in an unacceptable level of visual

impact.

Operation

Impacts on landscape character

The VIA determined that the characteristics of the landscape surrounding the proposed solar farm are

generally robust, and the degree to which the landscape would accommodate the solar farm would not

significantly alter existing the landscape character.

In consideration of the existing landscape characteristics, the landscape within and surrounding the

Development Envelope is determined to have a low sensitivity to the solar farm development.

Impacts on residential dwellings

Of the 12 residential dwellings located within an approximate 4 km viewshed of the White Rock Solar Farm

site, the VIA determined that:

1 residential dwelling (I40) would experience a potential low visual impact.

11 of the residential dwellings would experience a potential negligible visual impact.

The determination of negligible visual impact for the majority of residential dwellings surrounding the

proposed solar farm site reflects the high degree of localised screening provided by the undulating semi‐

cleared landform extending across this section of the Great Dividing Range, as well as the occurrence of

tree screening alongside local road corridors, around homesteads and within surrounding agricultural land.

Impacts on roads

Available views toward the proposed solar farm site from surrounding local roads will be tend to be indirect

and of a very short duration from moving vehicles. The majority of road corridors also support a significant

amount of tree planting, including tree planting along proximate road locations such as the Gwydir Highway

and Ilparran Road which will generally block and/or filter views toward the WRSF Development Envelope.

A representative visualisation of the proposed infrastructure from the Ilparran Road corridor (photo

location WS12 looking west) is included as Figures 13 and 14 in Appendix D. It illustrates the potential

view toward the proposed solar farm from the Ilparran road corridor and the potential influence of both

distance and existing tree cover on solar farm visibility. The visualisation demonstrates that the overall

visual bulk and scale of the proposed solar farm would not be significant from Ilparran Road following

completion of the construction works.

Impacts on other sensitive locations

The proposed solar farm would be visible from the Sinclair Lookout; however, the proposed structures

associated with the solar farm would not form prominent features within the available view. The visual

magnitude of the proposed solar farm would also be diminished and contained within the context and scale

of view available from the lookout.


6589 Final v1.3 82

A representative visualisation of the proposed infrastructure from Sinclair lookout (photo location WS1

looking west) is included as Figures 11 and 12 in Appendix D. The visualisation demonstrates that the

overall visual bulk and scale of the proposed solar farm would not be significant in the landscape from

Sinclair Lookout following completion of the construction works.

The proposed solar farm would not be visible from the Matheson Church, or from land immediately

surrounding the Church. Views toward the proposed solar farm will be screened by existing tree planting

alongside and beyond the Gwydir Highway corridor.

The WRSF Project has the potential to impact people engaged in predominantly farming activities, where

views toward the proposed solar farm occur from surrounding and non‐associated agricultural areas.

Ultimately the level of impact would depend on the type of activities engaged in as well as the location of

the activities together with the degree of screening provided by local vegetation within individual

properties. Whilst views toward the proposed solar farm could occur from surrounding rural agricultural

land, the VIA has determined that the sensitivity of visual impacts is less for those employed or carrying

out work in rural areas compared to potential views from residential dwellings. The low height of the solar

panel arrays means that even low terrain and vegetation screening can restrict views to proposed solar

farm.

The proposed solar farm does not propose to incorporate external lighting, other than manually operated

safety lighting at main component locations, therefore night time lighting is not expected to give rise to

substantive visual impacts. There may be occasional requirements for night time maintenance works which

may require temporary lighting. Visual impacts resulting from these activities would also be low.

Reflectivity: sunglint and glare

The VIA determined that opportunities for sunglint and glare would be limited due to the properties and

characteristics of the solar panels, which are designed to absorb light rather than reflect it. Sunglint and

glare would also be limited due to the lack of direct visibility and line of sight from surrounding sensitive

receiver locations to the proposed solar farm site. The potential for sunglint impacting motorists travelling

along local roads would largely be mitigated by existing tree planting alongside road corridors, and where

visible, sunglint would tend to be indirect relative to the direction of travel and very short term in duration.

Cumulative impacts

The cumulative assessment determined that the overall very low level of visibility will limit potential for

cumulative visual impacts and specifically those that could result from views toward the approved White

Rock and Sapphire wind farm developments. Constructed elements associated with the proposed solar

farm would be dissimilar in scale, line and form to existing infrastructure associated with the wind farm

development.


Whilst the VIA has determined an overall very low level of visual impact, mitigation measures may be

considered appropriate to minimise any residual or localised visual impacts. Additional mitigation

measures would largely address the selection of appropriate materials, finishes and colours for proposed

infrastructure and some limited landscape treatments to address any specific and localised views from

private property following construction. The following measures are specific to the phase of the WRSF

Project:


6589 Final v1.3 83


C O D

VIA1 In the final design and layout of the proposal, the following should be considered;

o minimise bulk and height of proposed structures, where possible.

o selection and location for replacement tree planting which may provide partial screening or backdrop setting for constructed elements

o review of materials and colour finishes for selected components including the use of non‐reflective finishes to structures where possible

C

VIA2 Retention of grass cover wherever possible. C

VIA3 During operation the facility would be maintained in a manner that ensures the constructed elements, and on‐site vegetation are maintained to an appropriate visual standard.

O

Draft Landscaping Management Plan

The SEAR’s set out a requirement to prepare a draft Landscaping Management Plan developed in

consultation with affected landowners.

The VIA has determined that the vast majority of landowners surrounding the proposed solar farm will not

be visually affected by the WRSF Project as it will be significantly screened by combinations of landform

and/or tree cover extending beyond the proposed solar farm site. Residential dwellings will also tend to be

less affected by the proposed solar farm as the distance between the proposed solar farm site and dwelling

begins to exceed a 2 kilometre distance.

The Proponent has consulted with the neighbouring property owner (at dwelling I40). Results of this

consultation have confirmed that the neighbouring landowner is not concerned about the WRSF Project

given it will be a low level structure and that the dwelling is orientated away from the solar farm.

Given the assessment has determined negligible or low potential visual impact for the majority of

residences, and the results of consultation undertaken, the landscape specialist advised that it not

considered necessary to prepare a draft Landscaping Management Plan for any properties surrounding the

proposed solar farm site.

8.4 NOISE IMPACT

8.4.1 Approach

A specialist Environmental Noise Assessment (ENA) was undertaken by Sonus Pty Ltd to investigate the

potential noise impacts of the WRSF Project. The assessment compares the predicted noise levels at the

closest noise sensitive receivers from the operation of the solar farm with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy

2000 (INP), and noise from construction activity with the Department of Environment & Climate Change

Interim Construction Noise Guideline 2009 (ICN Guideline). The full report is provided in Appendix E and

is summarised below.

The assessment has been based on:


6589 Final v1.3 84

UGL ‘White Rock Solar PV Site Fixed PV Layout Plan’ drawing, numbered TC‐10411‐DP1‐100, and

dated 9 February (an earlier version of the solar farm layout, refer Appendix E).

SMA “White Paper BU‐U‐019: Sunny Central” sound power measurements on SC 2200 (‐US), SC

2500‐EV central inverters.

It includes consideration of construction, operational and cumulative noise impacts (considering the

possible interaction with the existing White Rock Wind Farm).


Noise monitoring

Long term background noise monitoring has previously been conducted for the WRWF and has been used

to calculate the Rating Background Level (RBL). The results presented in the Sonus Report entitled “White

Rock Solar Farm Environmental Noise Assessment: Report No. S4834C1 dated 3rd February 2016, have

been used for the determination of applicable noise limits in the assessment of the solar farm. The noise

monitoring was carried out at seven residences in the vicinity of the wind farm, with R1 being the closest

and most relevant location to the proposed solar farm. The RBL for each of the day, evening and night time

periods is provided in Table 7‐6 below

Table 7‐6 RBL at background monitoring location R1

Day 33

Evening 31

Night 25

Based on the solar farm only operating during daylight hours, the lowest relevant RBL is during the evening,

31 dB(A).

8.4.3 Policy setting and criteria

The NSW Industrial Noise Policy 2000 (The INP) establishes criteria based on existing ambient noise

environment and the envisaged amenity of the area. The INP enables the RBL to be set at 30 dB (A) in quiet

environments and a goal noise criterion of 40 dB (A) for a rural environment. Based on an RBL of 31 dB (A)

the relevant assessment criteria in accordance with INP is 36 dB (A).

Construction noise

To assess construction noise in accordance with the SEARs, the (then) Department of Environment &

Climate Change Interim Construction Noise Guideline 2009 (ICN) is used (Table 7‐7). Management levels

are defined based on the RBL of the environment. For this case an RBL at 33 dB (A) for daytime construction

activity is used.


6589 Final v1.3 85

Table 7‐7 The ICN management levels

Time of day Management Level

Recommended standard hours:

Monday to Friday

7 am to 6 pm

Saturday 8 am to 1 pm

No work on Sundays or public holidays

Noise affected

RBL + 10dB(A)

Highly noise affected

75dB(A)

Outside recommended standard hours Noise affected

RBL + 5dB(A)

Restrictions to the hours of construction may apply to activities that generate noise at residences above

the ‘highly noise affected’ noise management goal.

Operational noise

The Industrial Noise Policy (INP) provides a framework and process from deriving noise criteria for consents

and licences that will enable the EPA to regulate premises that scheduled under the Protection of the

Environment Operations Act 1997. The prediction of environmental noise has been made using the

Conversation of Clean Air and Water in Europe (CONCAWE) noise propagation model and SoundPLAN noise

modelling software. Weather category 5 has been used for the assessment in accordance with the INP.


Construction

The equipment and activities on site will vary throughout the WRSF Project depending on various stages of

construction. The predicted noise from construction activity is presented as a worst case (highest noise

level) scenario, where weather conditions used for the predictions are the most conducive for the

propagation of noise.

The separation distance of the closest dwelling (R1) to any proposed construction activity is approximately

550 m. The results of noise predictions from construction activity at 550 m are presented in Table 7‐8. The

required separation distance in order to achieve the ICN Guidelines 43 dB(A) criterion, 10 dB(A) above the

RBL, is also provided in Table 7‐8.

Table 7‐8 Predicted construction noise levels

Phase Main Plant and Equipment Predicted Noise Level at 550m

Separation to Achieve 43 dB(A) Criterion

Site Preparation, Clearing & Demolition

ExcavatorBulldozer Chainsaw

Tree Mulcher Light Vehicle

Dump Truck

53 dB(A) 1800m


6589 Final v1.3 86

Phase Main Plant and Equipment Predicted Noise Level at 550m

Separation to Achieve 43 dB(A) Criterion

Establishment Site Compound, Access Roads & Delivery of Materials

Hand ToolsExcavator

Light Vehicles Delivery Truck Bulldozer

Plate Compactor Grader Roller

Asphalt Paver Bobcat

Bored Piling Rig

Mobile Crane

54 dB(A) 2000m

Installation of Foundations

Piling RigMobile Crane

Bobcat Excavator

Concrete Vibrating Needle

Concrete Truck

57 dB(A) 2500m

Installation of Underground Cabling

Bobcat / TrencherTractor & Cable Trailer

Loader

44 dB(A) 600m

Assembly of Panel Frames, Mounts & Transformer Units

TruckCompressor Hand Tools Generator Ratchet Gun

Mobile Crane

51 dB(A) 1400m

Site Rehabilitation / Removal of Temporary Construction Facilities

Light VehiclesExcavator Bulldozer Loader

Dump Truck

Truck

51 dB(A) 1400m

Based on the predicted noise levels, it is expected that at some times, the construction noise would be

greater than 43 dB(A) at a distance of 550 m. The predicted noise levels are, however, significantly less

than the 75 dB(A) upper limit provided in the ICN Guideline.

The ENA concluded that, during construction, it is possible that a dwelling located between 500 m and 2500

m from the site may be defined as “noise affected” but not “highly noise affected” by the ICN Guideline.

WRSFPL is therefore required to mitigate noise impacts that would result during the construction period.

Strategies may include engineering measures such as the construction of temporary acoustic barriers, the

use of proprietary enclosures around machines, the use of silencers, the substitution of alternative

construction processes and the fitting of broadband reversing signals. It may also include administrative

measures such as inspections, scheduling and providing training to establish a noise minimisation culture

for the works. These measures are included in the Draft Noise Management Plan that is included as

Appendix F.


6589 Final v1.3 87

An assessment of the noise generated from construction traffic against the NSW Road Noise Policy

concluded that the day‐time criterion (55 dB(A)) can be achieved a distance 10 m from the highway with

the movement of 10 passenger vehicles and 3 heavy vehicle movements in one hour. The number of

vehicle movements can double for every doubling of distance from the roadside. THE ENA recommends a

series of mitigation measures that should be employed if the criterion outlined in the NSW Road Noise

Policy is exceeded during construction and these are included in the Draft Noise Management Plan. The

direct access from the Gwydir state highway is considered to mitigate the potential impacts of construction

traffic compared with access being required via local roads.

Operation

In order to determine the noise impacts of the operating solar farm, a computer model incorporating all

significant noise sources, the closest potentially affected residential properties, and the intervening terrain

was prepared.

The sound power level used in the assessment is based off the 2.5 MW SMA Sunny Central 2500‐EV

inverter/transformer unit. The sound power level for each 2.5 MW inverter/transformer unit is

summarised in the below table.

Table 7‐9 Assumed sound power spectrum for inverter/transformer units

Inverter/Transformer Rating

SWL (dB) for each Octave Band Centre Frequency Total SWL (dB(A))

63 Hz 125 Hz 250 Hz 500 Hz 1000 Hz 2000 Hz 4000 Hz

2.5 MW 86 90 96 89 85 81 73 92

From the above sound power level data it shows that the current proposal can achieve compliance with

the WRSF Project criteria. Furthermore the predicted noise levels comply with the criteria conservatively

established in accordance with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy 2000, without any specific acoustic

treatment.

Variations to the indicative layout are unlikely to increase operational noise at the nearest residence as it

is understood that movement would most likely be away from the closest residence.

Cumulative noise from wind farm and solar farm

The noise assessment considered the cumulative effect of noise from both the solar farm and the WRWF.

The most onerous criterion for the wind farm is 35 dB(A), and the wind farm Stage 1 layout has been

assessed to be compliant. The predicted noise from the solar farm is more than 10 dB(A) below and

therefore would not result in the total noise level exceeding 35 dB(A).

The ENA concluded that for dwellings which achieve the wind farm criteria, the solar farm noise would not

increase or significantly contribute to the predicted level and for dwellings which have predicted noise

levels which are similar solar and wind farm components the combined level will be approximately 3 dB(A)

higher.


The following mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the noise impacts associated with

construction:


6589 Final v1.3 88


C O D

NO1 Preparation of a final noise management plan based on the Draft Plan provided with this EIS and the final design and arrangements for construction and operation.

C

NO2 Adherence to standard construction hours, unless they do not cause noise emissions to be audible at any nearby residences not located on the site or are otherwise approved.

C

8.5 LAND USE


Land use

The Development Envelope is located within the broader New England North West Region. Land uses

within this region include the following industries:

Agriculture

Mining

Renewable Energy Generation.

The Development Envelope, and all land immediately surrounding it, is zoned RU1 Primary Production.

The objectives of the RU1 zone are:

to encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the natural

resource base

to encourage diversity in primary industry enterprises and systems appropriate for the area

to minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands

to minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones.

The primary land use within the Development Envelope is agriculture. The land is part of a larger 1018 ha

agricultural based property.5

Agriculture

The New England North West Region is one of the State’s most fertile and productive agricultural areas

(DP&I 2012a). Agricultural activities within the region include sheep and cattle grazing, broad acre cereal

crops, irrigated cotton, intensive livestock and plant agriculture and poultry production.

Over 1.5 million ha or 15.3% of the New England North West Region has been mapped as Biophysical

Strategic Agricultural Land (SAL), which is land, recognised by the NSW Government, as having a rare

combination of natural resources highly suitable for agriculture (DP&I 2012a). Lands mapped as SAL are

considered to have the best quality landforms, soil and water resources which are naturally capable of

sustaining high levels of productivity and require minimal management practices to maintain this high

5 Approximations only. Total land areas calculated from cadastre mapping on Six Viewer (DL&PI 2016).


6589 Final v1.3 89

quality. The SAL maps are at a regional scale and are partially derived from land and soil capability data

sets compiled by the OEH. Criteria for SAL land includes the following:

land that falls under soil fertility classes ‘high’ or ‘moderately high’ under the Draft Inherent

General Fertility of NSW (OEH),

land capability classes I, II or III under the Land and Soil Capability Mapping of NSW (OEH)

reliable water of suitable quality, characterised by having:

o reliable rainfall of 350 mm or more per annum (9 out of 10 years);

o properties within 150 m of a regulated river, or unregulated rivers where there are

flows for at least 95% of the time (ie the 95th percentile flow of each month of the

year is greater than zero) or 5th order and higher rivers.

o groundwater aquifers (excluding miscellaneous alluvial aquifers, also known as

small storage aquifers) which have a yield rate greater than 5 L/s and total dissolved

solids of less than 1,500 mg/L.

OR

land that falls under soil fertility classes ‘moderate’ under the Draft Inherent General

Fertility of NSW (OEH), and

land capability classes I or II under the Land and Soil Capability Mapping of NSW (OEH), and

reliable water of suitable quality as described above.

Some of the Development Envelope is located on land that is identified as SAL (refer Figure 7‐3). These

areas contain highly valued pockets of red basalt and experience a reliable annual rainfall of over 700 mm

per annum. Ground‐truthing has not verified that the land meets the criteria for SAL but consultation with

the land owners confirm the land is of high agricultural value.

SAL extends beyond the Development Envelope to the north and east. At the time of the site inspection

the site was being grazed by cattle. A corn crop, with an area of approximately 10 ha, was planted in the

north‐eastern part of the Development Envelope. Following discussion with the landowner that area has

been excluded from the area of the indicative layout. The site is also grazed by sheep. Other crops grown

at the property include soybeans and triticale.


6589 Final v1.3 90

Figure 7‐3. SAL land within and surrounding the Development Envelope (NSW Crown Copyright ‐ Planning and

Environment)

0 1 20.5 Kilometers

°

www.nghenvironmental.com.au


Notes:- Infrastructure data courtesy of Goldwind,received 2016- BSAL data - NSW Crown Copyright –Planning and Environment

Biophysical Strategic Agricultural Land

Proposed solar farmDevelopment envelope

Solar array


6589 Final v1.3 91

Mining

In addition to agriculture, the New England North West region has experienced strong growth in the mining

and coal seam gas industries. The region is rich in a variety of mineral resources including the following:

Coal covers an area of approximately 39.7% of the region. This comprises existing and

approved mines, areas subject to an existing exploration licence, and known areas of

resource potential. No coal deposits are known for the Development Envelope.

Coal seam gas resources cover an area of approximately 3,434,124 ha or 34.4% of the

region. This comprises areas of high, medium and low potential. The area is not expected

to be prospective for Coal Seam Gas.

Other known mineral resources cover an area of approximately 468,335 ha or 4.7% of the

region. This includes resources such as gold, silver, industrial minerals and gemstones. The

Glen Innes Inverell locality has a history of mining for gemstones and heavy metals.

The location of these resources are mapped within the New England North West Region Strategic Land Use

Plan (DP&I 2012a). Coal and coal seam gas resources are generally located in the western part of the region

in the Liverpool Plains, Gunnedah, Boggabri and Narrabri Shire Council areas. Mineral deposits are

scattered across the eastern part of the region. Mapping indicates mineral resources (type unknown) are

located north of the Gwydir Highway approximately 9 km north‐east of the Development Envelope.

A search of Department of Industry’s MinView database (Department of Industry 2016) found there are no

existing Mining Exploration Licences within the Development Envelope. A historical exploration licence

(EL7302) exists which covers the southern portion of the Development Envelope. This was for the

exploration of metallic minerals between 2009 and 2013.

Renewable Energy

The New England North West region has been identified as one of the key renewable energy precincts in

NSW due to suitable weather and high wind speeds. Several wind farms (Figure 9‐5), including the WRWF,

have been approved for construction or are in the planning process. Solar farms are also being considered

as a viable option for renewable energy developers in NSW. Construction of the Nyngan Solar Farm (155

MW capacity) and Broken Hill Solar Farm (53 MW capacity) was completed at the end of 2015. Construction

of the Moree Solar farm, a 56 MW capacity farm, is also nearing completion.

This EIS is for the development of a solar farm which would form a hybrid system with the WRSF. This

would be the first hybrid wind/solar system for the region.

Flood prone land

An ephemeral drainage depression, elevation 970 m ASL, drains in a north‐east direction through the

Development Envelope into Wellingrove Creek. A second drainage depression bounds the eastern side of

the Development Envelope (refer Section 9.2.1 and Figure 9‐3).

There is no mapping of flood prone areas within the GlSC area (pers. comm Greg Doman, Manager of

Regulatory and Planning Services, Glen Innes Severn Council, 16 February 2016).

The Development Envelope is not located on a floodplain, and freely drains to the northeast. It is not within

an area that is the subject of a floodplain management plan developed by OEH under Part 8 of the Water

Act 2000. At the time of the site inspection, there is no indication of elevated flows levels such as debris

on fences across the drainage depression.

At the time of the site inspection, a corn crop was planted on both sides of a section of this drainage

depression.


6589 Final v1.3 92

8.5.2 Potential Impacts

Construction, operation and decommissioning

Agricultural impacts

The development of a solar farm within the Development Envelope would potentially result in the following

agricultural impacts:

Resource loss and fragmentation

Disturbance to farming operations and livestock

A potential increase in biosecurity, pest and weed risks

Potential bushfire risks (DPI 2013)

Upon decommissioning of the WRSF, the site would require rehabilitation to restore it to its pre‐existing

agricultural condition. Bushfire risks are discussed in Section 9.4, rehabilitation in Section 8.1.

RESOURCE LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION

The WRSF Project would take place on land that is identified by the NSW Government as SAL. The WRSF

Project would result in the development of a solar farm with an operational life of 25 years. Construction

works involve only minor excavation works with minimal disturbance to soils and soil profiles, and minimal

risk of soil loss. At the end of the operational period, solar farm infrastructure would be removed, the land

would be rehabilitated to its pre‐existing condition and available for agricultural use. The WRSF Project

would not result in the permanent removal of land that is considered to be of high value agricultural land.

The WRSF Project has been designed to minimise the WRSF Development Footprint, and therefore, impact

on agricultural land by utilising the WRWF infrastructure thus avoiding the need to construct infrastructure

that would normally be required for a solar farm, for example substations and transmission lines. In

addition, the 33 kV electric cable required to connect the solar farm with the WRWF substation would be

located within the WRWF cabling corridors.

DISTURBANCE TO FARMING OPERATIONS AND LIVESTOCK

During construction, agricultural activities within the WRSF Development Envelope would be restricted and

up to 50 ha of Strategic Agricultural Land that would otherwise be used for either grazing and cropping

purposes would be removed from use. Within the broader New England North West region, this is

equivalent to 0.00003% of the land that is currently mapped as SAL. Within the landowner’s property, 50

ha accounts for approximately 4.9% of the entire property. Development in the WRSF Development

Envelope would impact all of the SAL that is identified on the property during the construction, operation

and decommissioning phases.

During operation, the solar farm would be fenced for security and stock exclusion purposes. Cattle grazing

would be restricted from the site. It is possible, however, that a managed regime of sheep grazing would

occur within the solar farm site to assist the management of vegetation biomass and weeds underneath

and surrounding the panels.

The land within the Development Envelope is currently grazed by cattle and in part cropped for corn. Farm

infrastructure includes a farm dam, and a water tank and water troughs that are located on a small rise

within the area. The indicative site layout for the solar farm indicates no disturbance to this infrastructure.

The WRSF Project would not adversely impact the land owner’s access to external road networks or internal

access tracks. There would be no impact on infrastructure such as irrigation systems, power,

communication cables and water. The layout of the solar farm (as shown in Figure 4.1) has been designed


6589 Final v1.3 93

following consultation with the landowner. A corridor has been retained in the southern part of the

Development Envelope to allow for the movement of stock in an east‐west direction. Impact to the land

that currently supports the corn crop has been avoided based on the landowner’s advice that the area

includes some high value land within the property.

INCREASE IN BIOSECURITY RISKS – PEST, DISEASES AND WEED RISKS

The WRSF Project would result in the increased movement of vehicles and people to the WRSF

Development Envelope with higher numbers occurring during the construction and decommissioning

phases. The primary risk to biosecurity is the spread of weeds that may result from the increased

movement of vehicles in and out of the site. Weed seeds can be transported through and from the site on

the tyres and undercarriages of vehicles and on the clothing of staff personnel. The risk of spread would

primarily be mitigated by confining vehicle and machinery movements to formed access tracks during all

phases of the WRSF Project and implementing a wash down procedure for vehicles entering the site.

Noxious weed species within the site include Class 4 weeds Weeping Willow (Salix babylonica) Bathurst

Burr (Xanthium spinosum) and Class 2 weed Chinese celtis (Celtis sinensis).

To assist in the identification and management of weeds at the site, a Weed Management Plan will be

prepared for the construction and decommissioning phases WRSF,based on the plan developed for WRWF

(RPS 2015) and mapping undertaken by NGH Environmental (2016). Management measures would focus

on early identification of invasive weeds and effective management controls. An Operational Weed

Management Plan would also be prepared to manage impacts associated with weeds such as the risk of

weed ingress along the boundary of the Development Envelope and the importation and spread of weeds

through vehicle movements.

Establishment of a temporary construction site compound, specifically rubbish bins containing food, can

potentially increase the risk of pest animals at the site (mostly fox). Fencing of the solar farm site during

construction and operation would minimise this risk by preventing animals (non flying and climbing) from

entering the site. Appropriate management of waste would also minimise the pest animal impacts.

SUMMARY

The removal of high value land from agricultural practices during construction, and the restrictions the

operation of a solar farm would present to the property during operation, has been considered by the

landowners and deemed acceptable. The location of the solar farm has been chosen in consultation with

the landowner and has been designed to avoid the agricultural constraints identified by the land owner.

The landowner would continue to be consulted in the WRSF Project’s planning phase and during all phases

of the WRSF Project’s life.

Any obstruction to farming operations and to the wellbeing of livestock is considered to be manageable

with the implementation of controls. The WRSF Project is reversible and would not result in the permanent

loss of agricultural land.

Mining Impacts

The WRSF Project is not located within an area that has been identified as having any type of mining

resource and there is no current mining exploration licence over the site. Impacts on mining would be

negligible. In the long term (after decommissioning), the solar farm infrastructure would be removed and

the site would be available for alternative land uses, including for mining purposes, if this was desirable.


6589 Final v1.3 94

Renewable Energy impacts

The WRSF Project is for the construction of a wind/solar hybrid solar farm. Only beneficial impacts, such

as increased renewable energy generation, would result from the WRSF Project.

Storm water impact

Surface runoff at the site during construction could result in downstream water pollution through the

generation of sediment, by scouring around the base of equipment and through picking up site equipment

that may be laying within the depression area and transporting it downstream.

The potential for flooding to occur is assessed as being low. This is due to the following:

The drainage depression has a small catchment area

The Development Envelope is located on a gently sloping hill vegetated by grass. The grassy

cover would slow the speed of the water flow down the slope and assist in dissipating the

flow direction. The land to the east is at a lower level and is unlikely to result in backing up

surface water flows.

A farm dam located upslope of the Development Envelope would assist in capturing water

prior to it entering the drainage depressions.

During operation, the likelihood that the site would be impacted by surface flow of water would be low.

The anticipated low flow volumes and the height of the solar panels reduces the risk of damage to the

infrastructure located within or near to the depression where surface flow would be greatest. There may

be some potential for scouring to occur around the base of the support posts during a significant rain event

but the small diameter of the posts would reduce the level of impact.

Despite it being considered a low risk, measures at the site to mitigate against impacts from stormwater

during construction and operation are included below and in Appendix G, draft Erosion and Sediment

Control (E&SC) Plan. With the implementation of these measures, the impacts are considered to be

manageable. Further information is in Section 9.1.


The following additional mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the impacts to land use:


C O D

LU 1 Continued consultation with the landowner regarding the WRSF Project including potential impacts to farm operations and risks to livestock.

C O

LU 2 Construction and operations personnel would drive carefully and below the designated speed limit, to minimise disturbance to livestock, crops and pasture, and dust generation.

C O D

LU 3 Rehabilitation of the site following decommissioning of the WRSF Project.

D


6589 Final v1.3 95

9 ASSESSMENT OF ADDITIONAL ISSUES

9.1 SOILS AND LANDFORMS


The WRSF Project would be located within a valley within the New England Tablelands, that includes,

stepped plateaus, hills and plains with elevations ranging between 700 and 1400 m on Permian

sedimentary rocks, intrusive granites and extensive Tertiary basalts (OEH 2011).

The western portion of the WRSF Development Envelope is a ridge line which forms a catchment divide

between the McIntyre and Severn River catchments. The ridge line rises from less than 1,000 m to over

1,300 m in the vicinity of white Rock Mountain. The northern wind turbines of WRWF will be installed along

the ridge with turbines 1 and 2 at the northern end of the ridge being within the southwestern part of the

WRSF Development Envelope. The bulk of the WRSF Development Envelope is gently sloping with slopes

decreasing from the west to more gently sloping land in the east. The surface elevation for the WRSF

Development Envelope ranges between 970 m ASL and 1,030 m ASL. The highest point in the WRSF

Development Envelope is located in the south‐ west of the site on the crest of the ridgeline at the site of

wind turbine 1. The solar farm would be located east of the ridge on the gently sloping valley land.

The WRSF Development Envelope lies within the New England fold belt which is composed of sedimentary

rocks of Carboniferous and Permian age that were extensively folded and faulted during a period of rapid

continental plate movement associated with granite intrusions in the late Carboniferous (OEH 2011b).

More recent volcanic activity has produced widespread areas of basalt overlying older folded and faulted

strata. The WRSF Development Envelope is located within the Glen Innes‐Guyra Basalts soils landscape in

the New England Tablelands Bioregion (Mitchell 2002). The landscape includes undulating to stepped hilly

plateau with broad ridges, wide shallow valleys and high rounded peaks on Tertiary basalt. The extensive

basalt flows have capped the more complex underlying geology and are associated with flatter tablelands.

Where rivers have eroded through the Basalt layers they often expose more variable geology comprising

granites and folded metasediments and metavolcanics that present a range of topographic forms and

varying soil types.

Basalt soils are usually red, black or chocolate coloured with a high clay content that increases with depth.

They consist of brown structured stony loam and clay loam on the slopes, occasional red structured loam

in gradational profiles and deep dark self‐mulching sticky clay on the valley floors. Soils are sometimes

waterlogged in valley floors (OEH 2011c). Basalt derived soils generally have good natural fertility and are

suitable for most agricultural production, although some may be rocky, limiting or preventing cultivation

(NSW Agriculture 2003). Cultivation of such area has generally required that landowners remove the larger

basalt rocks, generally stockpiling them within paddocks.

A geotechnical investigation to determine the specific soil characteristics at the site is proposed to be

undertaken in March 2016. The results would assist the preparation of the final design layout for the solar

farm. To the west of the indicative layout, there are areas of basalt outcrop on the slightly steeper slopes

and in the east where corn is grown, the soil is described as ‘black soil’ country.

Generally, soils that are high in clay have low soil erodibility. This soil property, combined with the WRSF

Project’s location in the gently sloping valley floor in areas of moister, stickier soils, can suggest erosion risk

at the site is low. There was little evidence of soil erosion occurring at the site during the site inspection.

The site is predominately flat with a uniform vegetation cover. The fertile soils assist vegetation growth


6589 Final v1.3 96

that tends to stabilise soils and its retention as far as possible will reduce erosion risk. There are no incised

waterways within the WRSF Development Envelope. The site is, however, subject to sheet flow which may

lead to erosion where groundcover is removed and extent of clearing should be minimised.

The site is situated a considerable distance from the coastline (c. 175 kilometres) and as such the potential

for acid sulphate soils to occur is negligible. A search of the EPA contaminated lands register (OEH 2016)

returned one record within the Glen Innes Severn Council area located within the township of Glen Innes.


Construction and decommissioning

Risks to soil include soil loss through erosion, soil compaction or contamination. Topsoils are critical for

agriculture and cannot be easily replaced within a human time scale. Adverse soil impacts can also have

ecological impacts, affecting habitat condition, water quality and riparian ecosystems. Risks to soils are

influenced by landscape position, slope, soil type, hydrology and land use.

General construction activities, such as excavation and trenching, have the greatest potential to cause soil

erosion and subsequent sedimentation at the site. Soil erosion could potentially occur when trenches for

underground cables are excavated and during construction and deconstruction of the access road into the

WRSF Development Envelope and the internal access tracks.

Large scale bulk earth works would not be required as part of the works. There may be some land shaping

works, including localised cut and fill areas, to construct the concrete foundations for the PCB’s, achieve

more consistent gradients beneath the array and clear and level the site compound and laydown area.

The localised excavation activities would remove vegetation cover and disturb soils, potentially decreasing

their stability and increasing susceptibility to erosion. Soil disturbance areas would be relatively small and

isolated and site rehabilitation following installation would aim to stabilise these areas. Support posts for

the solar panels would be pile driven into the ground with much of the surrounding groundcover retained

across the site. Most of the works would take place on ground that is relatively flat to gently sloping,

reducing the potential for downslope sedimentation. A short section of trenching works for 33 kV

underground cable to link to the WRWF collection circuit route would be undertaken on marginally steeper

land. Impacts are considered manageable with the implementation of works in accordance with provisions

of the Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction series, in particular:

Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction, Volume 1, 4th edition (Landcom

2004), known as ‘the Blue Book’.

Volume 2A Installation of Services (DECC 2008a).

Volume 2C Unsealed Roads (DECC 2008b).

A draft Construction Erosion and Sediment Control Plan has been prepared for the WRSF Project and is

included in Appendix G of this EIS. The plan would be incorporated into the White Rock Solar Farm

Construction Environmental Management Plan.

Soil compaction would occur as tracks are constructed and when driving the steel posts supporting the PV

modules into the ground. Compaction reduces soil permeability thereby increasing run off and the

potential for concentrated flows and reduced vegetative cover.

The use of fuels and other chemicals on site pose a risk of soil contamination in the event of a spill.

Chemicals used onsite would include fuels, lubricants and herbicides.


6589 Final v1.3 97

It is possible that contamination associated with past agricultural activities (e.g., pesticides) could be

present on the site, however, given no contaminated sites are recorded on or adjacent to the proposed

development, it is unlikely that significant contamination exists at the proposed site. Furthermore,

construction activities would not significantly disturb soil or groundwater at the site. If contamination is

identified during site construction, it would be managed in accordance with a Construction Environmental

Management Plan (CEMP).

Operation

Minimal operational impacts to soils would occur. Maintenance activities and vehicles would be largely

confined to the formalised access tracks. There would remain a minor risk of soil contamination in the

event of a chemical spill (fuels, lubricants, herbicides).

Concentrated runoff from the PV modules could lead to increased soil erosion below the modules during

significant rain events. The runoff would generally be directed to the drainage depression. Retaining

vegetation cover would assist in reducing potential for erosion from rainfall run‐off. Monitoring the solar

farm for scouring following significant rain events and undertaking works to stabilise any bare soil would

also minimise the impact.


The following mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the impacts to soils and landforms:


C O D

SL 1 Preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan for the site (based on the draft plan in Appendix G) which includes measures for flood management at the site.

C

SL 2 Preparation of a Spill Response Plan consistent with the Spill Response Plan for the WRWF to:

o Manage the storage of any potential contaminant onsite

o Mitigate the effects of soil contamination by fuels or other chemicals (including emergency response and EPA notification procedures).

o Prevent contaminants affecting adjacent pasture and dams.

C O

9.2 WATER


The WRSF Development Envelope is located in the south‐eastern part of the Border Rivers‐Gwydir

Catchment Area, an area of 5,000 ha that is part of the Murray Darling Basin Area. Closest major

watercourses in proximity to the WRSF Project are the Macintyre River, located approximately 20 km

south‐west of the area and the Severn River which is approximately 30 kilometres north. The WRSF Project

is located outside the town water catchment for the Glen Innes.

There are no major rivers or creeks in the WRSF Development Envelope. Waterbodies are limited to a

single farm dam and a shallow, ephemeral drainage depression which drains in a north‐easterly direction

into Wellingrove Creek, a tributary of the Severn River. At the time of the site inspection, the drainage


6589 Final v1.3 98

depression was dry. The banks are vegetated and stable with no signs of erosion. There are no definable

channel banks or a channel bed and no signs of any fluvial bedforms such as pools, riffles or sediment bars.

The drainage depression varies in width and is up to 45 metres wide in some sections. It runs for a distance

of 800 metres through the WRSF Development Envelope (refer Figure 9‐1, Figure 9‐2 and Figure 9‐3).

Figure 9‐1 Drainage depression looking towards the north of the WRSF Development Envelope.

Figure 9‐2 View to the south showing general path of drainage depression


6589 Final v1.3 99

Figure 9‐3 Waterbodies, drainage depressions and groundwater bores within and surrounding the WRSF Development Envelope.

Gwydir Highway

GW050147

GW031259

°0 0.5 10.25 Kilometers

www.nghenvironmental.com.au


Notes:- Bore data Copyright NSW DPI 2016- Infrastructure data and aer ial courtesyof Goldwind, received 2016

Groundwater bores

Drainage depression

Farm dam

Proposed solar farm


Solar array

Wellingrove Creek


6589 Final v1.3 100

The WRSF Project is located within the Border Rivers water management area. It is located in an area that

is not subject to any water sharing plans. The drainage depression drains into Wellingrove Creek which

flows into the Severn River and then into the Pindari Dam. The water sharing plan for the NSW Border

Rivers Regulated River Water Source begins below Pindari Dam.

The WRSF Development Envelope includes one small farm dam, total capacity approximately 1.5‐2.0 ML.

There are three more farm dams just outside the south‐western and southern boundary of the WRSF

Development Envelope located on land belonging to the same landowner. Subject to landowner

agreement, the dams may be used as a water source for the WRSF Project. An alternate water source may

be a dam located on a neighbouring property which is likely to be one of the water supply dams used during

construction of the WRWF.

The closest groundwater bores to the WRSF Development Envelope, as indicated by the Department of

Primary Industries groundwater data website are: GW031259 – located approximately 590 metres north‐

west of the site. The bore was drilled to 12.20 metres. No water bearing zone was recorded.

GW050147 located approximately 750 metres from the site, north of the Gwydir Highway.

The bore was drilled to 15.20 metres. No water bearing zone was recorded.

Both bores were drilled in the early 1960’s. Their location is shown on Figure 9‐3.



During construction, earthworks would take place within and near to (within 40 metres) the drainage

depression. Most of the works would be limited to the driving of steel posts into the ground but there may

be some additional activities such as the excavation works to level a pad for the concrete foundation of the

PCB’s or for trenching works to connect the solar panel arrays to the PCB’s. The PCB’s would not be located

in the drainage depressions.

Advice from the NSW Office of Water (pers. comm. Bob Brittan, Senior Water Regulation Officer, DPI 11

February 2012), confirmed that the depression does not meet the definition of a river for the purposes of

defining waterfront land in the Water Management Act 2000. No CAA would be required for these works.

There is potential however for sediment to be generated during the works to install the infrastructure, and

for that sediment to be mobilised if a rainfall event occurs. Containment of sediment is one of the goals of

the erosion and sediment control plan. Mitigation measures are included in the draft Erosion and Sediment

Control Plan (refer Appendix G).

The solar farm would be constructed on gently sloping land. The WRSF Development Envelope is not

located within an area that is the subject of a floodplain management plan and no flood prone land

mapping is available for the WRSF Development Envelope. Land within the WRSF Development Envelope

would however, be subject to sheet water flow during and after significant rainfall events. The risk of

flooding has been assessed as low given the small catchment, gently sloping topography and lack of debris

on fences crossing drainage depression which suggest low flow levels.

The WRSF Project would remove vegetation for the construction of a gravel access track. The site

compound area would be levelled and spread with crushed gravel to provide a hard surface for machinery

and site offices. Introducing impervious surfaces into a vegetated area can change water flow across the

site, altering direction and increasing velocity. During construction, runoff control would be managed


6589 Final v1.3 101

through the implementation of the erosion and sediment control plan. Measures are detailed in the draft

plan that is included as Appendix G. The farm dam that is located on the proposed south‐west boundary

of the solar farm development would intercept some of the water that would flow down the ridgeline

before it entered the construction site.

Water usage during construction would be mainly for dust suppression on unsealed roads. Dependant on

landowners consent, the water would be extracted from local farm dams. The volume required is likely to

vary dramatically depending on temperature and rainfall.

Under normal climatic conditions, and when used for stock watering only, the existing dam would be

unlikely to go dry. However, under extended drought conditions, and with the extraction of water for dust

control during construction, it is possible that the dam could go dry. A nearby tank also draws water from

further east on the property. The tank currently supplies watering troughs used by grazing stock within the

WRSF Development Envelope. Restriction of stock in this area during construction will temporarily reduce

the water supply requirements for stock and existing sources may be able to supply all or part of the needs

during WRSF construction. If additional water supply is required during construction, this would be

addressed at the necessary time. It may include bringing water to the site in trucks or pumping from a

more distant location.

No concrete batching, requiring large volumes of water, would be undertaken onsite. Concrete would

most likely be supplied from Glen Innes and be brought to site in concrete agitator trucks via the Gwydir

Highway and WRWF northern site entry point. The volume of concrete required for WRSF is expected to

be low relative to that needed for WRWF and retention of a batch plant used for WRWF is unlikely.

Based on the type of construction proposed and the relatively flat and stable landforms, the above water

impacts are considered to be of low risk and highly manageable.

Impacts on soil during decommissioning would be similar to those during construction. Removal of pile

driven posts and other infrastructure would cause some disturbance to soil. All areas of soil disturbed

during decommissioning would be rehabilitated. Site rehabilitation is considered in more detail in Section

8.1. Risks to soil and water during decommissioning are considered highly manageable.

Operation

Water use volumes during operation would be minimal. Water is not required for toilets, as the staff will

use the wind farm facilities. PV panel cleaning is required. The frequency of cleaning is dependent on the

amount of soiling and the rain fall experienced. Water would be sourced from onsite sources such as roof

drainage and, if required, offsite or from rainwater tanks on the wind farm site.

Concentrated runoff from the PV modules could lead to increased soil erosion below the modules during

significant rain events. Surface water would flow to the drainage depression area and water flows in this

area could increase. There may be an increased erosion risk through scouring around the support posts in

these instances.

During operation, the gravel track providing access to and from the solar farm would remain. Impacts to

water flow as a result of this increased area of hard surface would be minor when considered in the context

of the vegetation within the existing WRSF Development Envelope and downslope of the road. Drainage

controls would be installed along the access track particular for the short sections on steeper slopes.

There is low potential for oil spills to occur during maintenance works associated with vehicles or plant. It

is unlikely that any oil or fuel would be stored on site other than at the WRWF Operations and Maintenance

area and in that case, it would be stored appropriately in the bunded containers. A spill response plan


6589 Final v1.3 102

would be incorporated into the Operational Environmental Management Plan and spill kits carried on

vehicles.

Operational risks to soil and water resources are considered highly manageable with the implementation

of mitigation measures.


The following mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the impacts to water:


C O D

WA 1 Drainage controls to deal with any concentrated flows off panels, if required.

C

WA 2 Ongoing consultation with landowners in relation to the use of water from farm dams.

C O

9.3 TRAFFIC, TRANSPORT AND ROAD SAFETY

9.3.1 Existing Environment

The WRSF Development Envelope is located immediately south of the Gwydir Highway approximately 20

km west of Glen Innes. The site is located partly within and adjacent to the WRWF boundary. It would be

accessed from the highway via the upgraded site entry approved by Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)

and internal access track constructed as part of the WRWF Project.

The Gwydir Highway is a State Highway Road that is owned and maintained by the Roads and Maritime

Services. It is 567 kilometres long and runs in an east‐west direction through the New England Region.

Towns serviced by the Gwydir Highway include Moree, Inverell, Glen Innes and Grafton. Gwydir Highway

is an approved route for High Mass Limit (HML) B‐double vehicles of 25/26m. The intersection point of the

Highway and the WRWF access track would be upgraded as part of the WRWF development in accordance

with Roads and Maritime requirements and well before commencement of WRSF construction.

Glen Innes is located on the New England Highway which is part of the National Land Transport Network,

a defined network of important road and rail infrastructure links and their intermodal connections, defined

under the National Land Transport Act 2014. The highway links Glen Innes with the ports of Brisbane and

Newcastle and performs a vital role in servicing key regional centres, servicing key industries and for the

distribution of regional freight. The highway would be used as the major transport haulage route for the

delivery of materials for the construction of the WRWF and the WRSF.

9.3.2 Traffic and the WRWF Project

Traffic management and access requirements for the WRWF have been initially assessed as part of the

development application for the WRWF and more recently as part of pre‐construction planning for WRWF

Stage 1. A Construction Traffic and Access Management Plan (CTAMP) has been prepared as part of the

approved WRWF Stage 1 Construction Environmental Management Plan for that project.

Many of the traffic issues raised in the WRWF Stage 1 CTAMP (ERM 2015) for the WRWF are relevant for

the WRSF, but the WRSF would involve a lesser volume of transport vehicles and does not require transport

of long loads ( greater than 60m). As required by the SEARs, a draft WRSF Traffic Management Plan (TMP)


6589 Final v1.3 103

has been prepared and is attached as Appendix H. Construction and operation of the WRSF would utilise

the northern transport route and access point that will be used for the WRWF (Appendix H, Figure 1).


Construction

Traffic generation

Key traffic and transport impacts for the WRSF Project mostly relate to the generation of additional traffic

on the external road network.

WRSF Project activities with the potential to generate traffic include the following:

Construction of a new access track between the WRWF internal track and the WRSF


Delivery of the site compound materials, temporary buildings and compound set up.

Delivery of construction materials including PV modules, posts, mounting frames, cabling

and inverter substations and fencing.

Delivery of materials, e.g. gravel, jute mesh, etc.

Dust suppression activities involving use of a water cart.

Foundation excavation and construction activities.

Worker and staff personnel access to the site.

Table 9‐1 estimates the number and type of vehicle movements during the peak construction period (3

months). Build period is assumed for 3 months from the end of August 2017.

Table 9‐1 Predicted traffic management volumes during construction

Item No. Duration Average per day

Timing during build

Vehicle Notes.

Compound Setup

8 2 days 4 Start & End 10m rigid

Provision if additional compound is required or if WRWF compound is unable to be used.

Access Tracks

113 3 weeks 7Start & Mid

Build10m tipper trucks

Access track construction at the start of the build plus any repairs required during the build.

Mounting Frame

70 3 weeks 5 Early15.4m articulated

Once laydown established.

PV Modules 110 3 weeks 7 Mid

15.4m articulated or Class 2 (B‐Double) 19‐25m

Assuming 28 modules per pallet, 26 pallets per shipping container, approx. 80000 modules.

Cabling 20 2 weeks 2 Mid15.4m articulated


6589 Final v1.3 104

Item No. Duration Average per day

Timing during build

Vehicle Notes.

Foundation excavation and construction

10 1 week 2 Mid 10m rigid

For inverter substations and any monitoring equipment required onsite.

Power Conversion Block Modules

9 1 week 2 Late15.4m articulated

PCBs would be located onsite by either a crane mounted on the delivery truck (hiab) or a separate crane unit.

Workers and site staff

3600 3 months 40 Duration Light vehicles

Bearing in mind that site staff will peak at times, up to a max of approx. 100 staff at peak times, less at other times. Staff would be encouraged to car pool where possible.

Dust suppression

30 As required

2 As required

8.8m service vehicle (water tanker)

Main dust creating activities would be access track construction and piling, water tankers to be used as required to suppress any dust.

The number of vehicle movements is considered to include a return trip. A total of 400 vehicle movements

(ranging from trucks to light vehicles) is estimated as a result of construction activities over a three month

‘peak’ construction period. Another 3600 movements accounting for site personnel entering and exiting

the site is also expected. Increased vehicle numbers on the public road network during the WRSF Project’s

construction phase could potentially result in impacts to:

Traffic efficiency including:

o Disruption to existing public transport services including school bus routes along the

Gwydir Highway.

o Minor delays to trip times caused by movements of vehicles through Glen Innes and

along the major transport routes.

o Delays as a result a result of road closures. It should be noted that no road closures are

currently planned during construction and decommissioning of the WRSF.

Safety, particularly increased collision risks with other vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians, stock

and wildlife.

Amenity, associated noise and dust (where traffic is on unsealed roads) may adversely affect

nearby residents, however closest neighbours are greater than 550m distant from the

works.

Road pavement life or damage to local road infrastructure is avoided as deliveries are on

State Highways.


6589 Final v1.3 105

Measures to mitigate traffic and transport impacts are included in the Draft Traffic Management Plan which

is attached as Appendix H of this EIS. Impacts are considered manageable with the implementation of

these controls.

Traffic routes

The Traffic Impact Study (Epuron 2011) and the WRWF CTAMP (ERM 2015) identify the transport routes

that would be utilised during construction of the WRWF Stage 1. The proposed accessed routes were

considered in terms of providing safe access of construction and operational vehicles associated with the

WRWF project, having appropriate sight distances at intersection points, having suitable capacity for

carrying over‐mass or over‐dimensional transport and for safety with other road users. The transport

routes were deemed suitable for use for the WRWF and are considered suitable for the WRSF operations.

The WRWF CTAMP also outlines the work required to upgrade roads and road infrastructure along these

routes. These upgrade works would have been undertaken prior to the construction works for the solar

farm commencing. As a result, the capacity of the roads to manage the additional traffic generated by the

solar farm is considered to be sufficient.

The draft WRSF Traffic Management Plan is consistent with the CTAMP for the WRWF Stage 1. Traffic

impact types for the WRSF would be similar to those assessed for the WRWF, but overall impact is

considered to be less given the following:

Shorter construction period and smaller size of the WRSF Project which would generate

smaller volumes of additional traffic.

There would be no requirement for the transportation of loads greater than 60 metres.

Solar farm infrastructure would be transported to site via standard articulated vehicles.

Impacts associated with the transportation of long loads such as road safety and road

capacity are not relevant to the WRSF Project.

The co‐use of the WRWF substation means that an additional 33 kV/132 kV transformer is

not required to be transported to the site.

Operation

During solar farm operations, it is expected an additional two workers on a weekly basis, would access the

property to operate and maintain the solar farm. These are likely to be staff employed at the operational

wind farm and therefore may not require additional traffic numbers. In any case, traffic volumes for the

operational period will be low.

There may be the occasional requirement for delivery trucks to access the site, to replace equipment or

deliver supplies. Additionally, security personnel may also access the site.

The anticipated volume of staff would result in a very minimal increase in traffic flow on local roads, if any.

It is considered highly unlikely that operational traffic would obstruct public or private access. Risks to road

safety from operational traffic would be very minimal and no additional safeguards are proposed.

Decommissioning

Decommissioning would involve the removal of all infrastructure associated with the solar farm and

rehabilitation of the site. Traffic generated during decommissioning and associated impacts would be

similar to the construction phase. Mitigation measures would be addressed in a Decommissioning

Environmental Management Plan (DEMP) including traffic management measures.


6589 Final v1.3 106


The following measures would be incorporated in the WRSF Project implementation:


C O D

TT 1 Preparation of a traffic management plan (based on draft provided in Appendix H)

C D

TT 2 Ongoing consultation with stakeholders including Roads and Maritime Services, GISC, local landholders, emergency services, business owners, school bus companies to inform them of changes to road use and conditions during construction and decommissioning.

C D

TT 3 Availability of a direct contact phone number to enable any issues or concerns to be rapidly identified and addressed.

C O D

9.4 HEALTH AND SAFETY

9.4.1 Electromagnetic interference

Background

Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) consist of electric and magnetic fields and are produced whenever electricity

is used. EMFs also occur naturally in the environment, e.g., from a build‐up of electric charge in thunder

storms and Earth’s magnetic field (WHO 2012).

Electric fields are produced by voltage whereas magnetic fields are produced by current. When electricity

flows, EMFs exist close to the wires that carry electricity and close to electrical devices and appliances while

operational (WHO 2007). Electric and magnetic field strengths reduce rapidly with distance from the

source, and while electric fields are insulated by air and insulation material, magnetic fields are not.

Fields of different frequencies interact with the body in different ways. EMF field sources to which people

may be exposed are predominately in three frequency ranges. The Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) range

of 0‐300 Hz incorporates the 50 and 60 Hz frequencies of the electric power supply and of electric and

magnetic fields generated by transmission lines and other electrical devices and infrastructure (Repacholi

2003).

Over decades of EMF research, no major public health risks have emerged but uncertainties remain (WHO

undated). While it is accepted that short‐term exposure to very high levels of electromagnetic fields can

be harmful to health, the International EMF Project, established by the World Health Organisation, has

thus far concluded that there are no substantive health consequences from exposure to ELF electric fields

at the low levels generally encountered by the public (WHO 2007), such as those that would be produced

by electricity generation at the WRSF.

Exposure to ELF magnetic fields is mostly considered to be harmless, however a policy of prudent avoidance

has been taken as a result of any doubt. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency

(ARPANSA 2015) advises that ‘the scientific evidence does not establish that exposure to ELF EMF found

near power lines is a hazard to human health’.


6589 Final v1.3 107

The International Commission on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNPR) published Guidelines for

limiting exposure to time‐varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300GHz) in 1998. The

guidelines were updated in 2010. The objective of the paper was to establish guidelines for limiting EMF

exposure that will provide protection against known adverse health effects. To prevent health‐relevant

interactions with Low Frequency fields, ICNIRP recommends limiting exposure to these fields so that the

threshold at which the interactions between the body and the external electric and magnetic field causes

adverse effects inside the body is never reached. The exposure limits, called basic restrictions, are related

to the threshold showing adverse effects, with an additional reduction factor to consider scientific

uncertainties pertaining to the determination of the threshold. They are expressed in terms of the induced

internal electric field strength in V/m. The exposure limits outside the body, called reference levels, are

derived from the basic restrictions using worst‐case exposure assumptions, in such a way that remaining

below the reference levels (in the air) implies that the basic restrictions will also be met (in the body)

(ICNIRP 2016). Reference levels for occupational and general public exposure are shown in Table 9‐2.

Table 9‐2 ICNIRP reference levels (ICNIRP 2010)

Exposure characteristics Electric field strength

(kVolts per metre ‐ kV/m) Magnetic flux density (microteslas

‐ µT)

Occupational 10 1000

General public 5 200

Research into electric and magnetic fields undertaken at utility scale photovoltaic installations in California6

by Chang and Jennings (1994), indicated that magnetic fields were significantly less for solar arrays than

for household applications. Chang and Jennings (1994) found magnetic fields from solar arrays were not

distinguishable from background levels at the site boundary, suggesting the health risk of EMFs from solar

arrays is minimal.

Potential impacts

Potential for EMF impacts occurs only during the operational phase of the solar farm when electrical

infrastructure is capable of generating EMFs. Due to the type and configuration of the solar farm

infrastructure proposed, the electromagnetic fields would vary in different locations onsite, as discussed

below.

Underground 33 kV cable

The WRSF Project would require the installation of an underground 33 kV cable to link the solar farm output

to the WRWF collections circuits.

Cables used in the 33 kV onsite reticulation cabling would contain three core conductors in trefoil (three

lobed) arrangements to reduce the effects of magnetic fields from adjacent conductors.

Results of an electromagnetic field assessment undertaken for a cable, considered to be indicative of what

would be used at the WRSF, indicate the electric and magnetic fields produced by the cable are much lower

than the ICNIRP reference levels. The modelled results indicate that the magnetic field on the surface of

the ground directly above the cable is expected to be approximately 4.7µT, which is significantly less than

the ICNIRP 200µT exposure limit for general public. The magnetic field strength is inversely proportional to

6 Note the U.S.A electricity supply operates at 60 Hz frequency.


6589 Final v1.3 108

the distance from the conductor squared and as such the magnetic field is expected to decay to zero with

increased distance from the conductor (UGL 2016). The electric field produced is contained in the cable

between the core and the metallic screen and does not affect the surrounding environment.

Based on these results, the electromagnetic interference as a result of the 33 kV underground cable are

considered to be negligible and well within the ICNIRP reference levels.

Inverters

Typically eight PCBs with a total output 20 MW (AC) would be installed as part of the solar farm. The

inverters would have an AC power frequency range between 47 and 63 Hz and fall into the Extremely Low

Frequency (ELF) range of 0‐300 Hz. Within this range, the EMFs are not considered to be a hazard to human

health. In addition, the PCBs would be located within the fenced solar farm site with no public access and

would operate only during the day time reducing the total time that EMFs are generated by the

infrastructure.

Substation

The WRWF substation at the approved location would be utilised. Connection of the solar farm to the

substation would require minimal additional infrastructure in this substation that would increase the

electromagnetic effect from the substation. In any event, the fenced exclusion area around the substation

components is sufficient to reduce the EMF to negligible levels.

Solar array

The WRSF Project would require installation of DC wiring between panels and the PCBs. This cabling would

be underground and would conduct about 6.85A at between 30 and 50 V. Electromagnetic interference

as a result of the underground cable are considered to be negligible.

Receptors – public safety

There are two residences located between 550 metres and one kilometre of the solar farm site. The areas

proposed for installation of the solar farm infrastructure would have no public access. Access would be

restricted to appropriately trained and qualified maintenance staff. Property owners accessing the sites

for ongoing agricultural use would have no reason to spend extended periods near the infrastructure,

which has been located at a distance from frequent use areas such as sheds, yards and residences. Should

property owners require access to control building or other solar farm infrastructure, they would be

accompanied by an appropriately trained and qualified maintenance staff member.

Receptors – electrical devices

The PCB’s to be used for the WRSF Project would behave similar to other typical electrical and household

devices. Additionally, they are designed to reduce all possible interference emissions via the circuit’s

technical avoidance of high frequency currents, the deployment of filters and the use of grounded metal

housings.

Summary of impacts

Acute impacts are not anticipated as a consequence of the low exposure rates in combination with the low

likelihood that people or stock would be within range of high exposure levels for extended periods.

Onsite, underground cabling with conductors in a trefoil (three lobed) arrangement would be used where

practicable which would assist in shielding EMFs. Use of an existing substation would result in negligible

additional emissions from this structure and would ensure that the EMF exposure to receptors including


6589 Final v1.3 109

the public, property owners and workers are well below the 200µT levels considered prudent for public

health.

Overall research has not shown to date that long‐term low‐level low frequency exposure has detrimental

effects on health. Using the Principle of Prudent Avoidance to design and site this infrastructure, exposure

to EMFs and potential for adverse health impacts can be avoided or reduced. Adverse health impacts from

EMFs are therefore unlikely as a result of the proposal.

Environmental safeguards

The following mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the impacts from EMFs.


C O D

EMF 1 All electrical equipment would be designed in accordance with relevant codes and industry best practice standards in Australia.

C

9.4.2 Aviation

Existing environment

Glen Innes Airport is located 16.5 km north‐east of the WRSF Development Envelope, 9.3 km north‐west

of Glen Innes. The airport is a small airport that is used by light aircraft, the Glen Innes hospital and two

freight companies. A development application for an international aviation flying college was approved in

2012. Construction for the development has not yet begun.

A local grassy airstrip, 600 m in length, is located approximately 300 m south‐east of the WRSF

Development Envelope. The airstrip is on land that is owned by the WRSF Development Envelope

landowner. It is predominately used by agricultural aircraft for the purposes of crop protection activities.

Potential impacts

The identified risk to aviation from the WRSF Project is glint and glare. Glint is a quick reflection that occurs

when the sun is reflected on a smooth surface. Glare is a longer reflection.

Onsite infrastructure that may cause glare or reflections depending on the sun angle, include:

Solar panels.

Steel array mounting ‐ array mounting would be steel or aluminium.

Temporary construction site buildings.

The potential for glint or glare associated with non‐concentrating PV systems which do not involve mirrors

or lenses is relatively limited. PV solar panels are designed to absorb as much solar energy as possible in

order to generate the maximum amount of electricity or heat. As such, they reflect only around 2% of the

light received (Spaven Consulting 2011).

A comparative reflection analysis against other surfaces is shown in Figure 9‐4. The figure shows that in

relation to water and snow, a solar panel (with a reflectivity coating) reflects a much lower percentage of

light. In addition, The Department of Planning (2010) in their discussion paper on planning for renewable

energy generation, stated that solar panels will not generally create noticeable glare compared with an

existing roof or building surfaces. This issue is also discussed in Appendix D.


6589 Final v1.3 110

Figure 9‐4 Comparative reflection analysis (Spaven 2011)

With regard to aviation, the largest glare hazard is the sun (Spaven 2011).

For other infrastructure on site such as the buildings and steel support posts, impacts from glint and glare

is considered minor due to their small size and low surface area. Careful design and colour schemes can

further reduce any potential reflection problems.

Impacts of glare and glint on aviation as a result of the WRSF Project infrastructure are considered to be

minor and can be effectively managed with the implementation of the mitigation measure outlined below.

Environmental safeguards

The following mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce aviation impacts.


C O D

AV 1 The materials and colour of onsite infrastructure (other than the solar panels) will, where practical, be non‐reflective and in keeping with the materials and colouring of the landscape.

C

9.4.3 Bushfire

The solar farm would be located on gently sloping land at an elevation between 970 and 980 m ASL. The

land is currently grazed and cropped and has been largely cleared of overstorey vegetation.

Treed corridors exist to the north of the site along the southern boundary of the Gwydir Highway. Several

isolated stands of trees are located on the adjoining property within 500 m of the site.

The western boundary of the WRSF Development Envelope is defined by a ridgeline with moderately steep,

mostly treeless slopes which grade into the valley where the proposed solar farm would be located.

Woodland vegetation is present on the eastern side of this ridge.

The WRSF Project is not located on land mapped as Bushfire Prone Land (pers comm Greg Doman, Manager

of Regulatory and Planning Services, Glen Innes Severn Council, 11 February 2016). The bushfire danger

for the WRSF Development Envelope and wider region is generally between 1 October and 31 March, but

can vary subject to local conditions. Summer conditions can be dry and hot with high wind speeds


6589 Final v1.3 111

producing local grassfires (Epuron 2011). Ignition sources for the site could include machinery movement

in long grass, hay storage, lightning strikes, storage of fuel and farm chemicals, and cigarette butts thrown

from cars travelling along the Gwydir Highway.

All NSW Fire Brigade fire stations are equipped with trained personnel and resources for dealing with

hazmat incidents. The closest NSW fire brigades to the site are Glen Innes Fire Station (23 km from the site)

and Inverell Fire Station (44 km from the site).

Potential impacts


Activities associated with construction that may cause or increase the risk of bush fire include:

Smoking and careless disposal of cigarettes on site.

Hot works activities such as welding, soldering, grinding and use of a blow torch.

Use of petrol powered tools.

Operating a petrol, LPG or diesel powered motor vehicle over land containing combustible

material.

Operating plant fitted with power hydraulics on land containing combustible material.

Electrical faults during testing and commissioning.

Storage of chemicals and hazardous materials.

Considering the sparse and fragmented nature of the woodland and forest remnants flanking the WRSF

Development Envelope, it is considered unlikely that the WRSF Project would pose a significant bush fire

risk. Bush fire hazards associated with the activities listed above are considered highly manageable and

would be minimised through the implementation of fire and bush fire mitigation measures outlined below.

In addition, site access would be formalised at the beginning of the construction phase which would

increase the ability to access and suppress any fire onsite or on adjoining sites if required.

Potential impacts from decommissioning activities would be similar to those for construction. As for

construction and operation activities (below), any bush fire risk associated with decommissioning of the

WRSF Project would be highly manageable.

Operation

In addition to the activities listed above, which also apply to the operational phase, repairs and

maintenance activities could increase bush fire risk.

All electrical components would be designed to minimise potential for ignition. Asset protection zones

would also be maintained around buildings at the site.

Bush fire risks during operation of the solar farm are considered highly manageable. A managed grazing

regime would assist in reducing fuel loads at the site.


6589 Final v1.3 112


The following mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce bushfire impacts:


C O D

BF 1 All electrical equipment would be designed in accordance with all applicable codes and industry best practice standards in Australia.

C

BF 2 Buildings would comply with the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

C

BF 3 Safety management processes to highlight to all staff and contractors through an induction process the potential hazards of activities onsite. This should include preparation and compliance with job‐specific WMSs and emergency preparation/response drills.

C O D

BF 4 The NSW RFS be provided with a contact point for the WRSF Project, during construction and operation.

C O D

BF 5 Designation of a WRSF onsite safety representative responsible for ensuring implementation of safeguards. This representative would also regularly consult with the local NSW RFS to ensure familiarity with the WRSF Project and assist the RFS and emergency services as much as possible if there is a fire on‐site during construction of the WRSF Project.

C O D

BF 6 Basic training of all staff in the use of fire‐fighting equipment. C O D

BF 7 Appropriate fire‐fighting equipment would be held on site to respond to any fires that may occur at the site during construction of the WRSF Project. This equipment will include fire extinguishers, a 1000 litre water cart retained on site as a precautionary basis, particularly during blasting and welding operations. Equipment lists would be detailed in Work Method Statements (WMS’s).

C O D

BF 8 Slashing of vegetation on construction site before construction starts and as required to manage fuel loads.

C O D

BF 9 Maintain vegetation (eg. allow sheep to graze) to a low level amongst solar panels to control vegetation on the solar farm site.

O

BF 10 All access and egress tracks on the site would be maintained and kept free of parked vehicles to enable rapid response for firefighting crews and to avoid entrapment of staff in the case of bush fire emergencies.

C O

BF 11 Confirm agreement of local property owners to use dams on site as water sources in the event of fire.

C O D

BF 12 The use of a Hot Works Permit system to ensure a number of pre‐requisites are satisfied prior to works commencing. Fire extinguishers would be present during all hot works.

C O

BF 13 Where possible restrict the performance of Hot Works to specific areas (such as the Construction Compound temporary workshop areas).

C O

BF 14 Adequate site communications to ensure a fire event is communicated quickly. Measures would include:

o Use of mobile phones.

C O


6589 Final v1.3 113


C O D

o Use of two‐way radios.

o Fire Danger Warning signs located at the entrance to the site compounds.

BF 15 Specific management activities/controls for hot works, vehicle use, smoking, use of flammable materials, blasting.

C O D

BF 16 The BRMP will include consultation with the NSW Rural Fire Service during construction, operation and decommissioning.

C O D

9.5 RESOURCE USE AND WASTE GENERATION


Resource use

Key resources and estimated quantities (pending the completion of the detailed project design) required

to construct the WRSF Project include:

Structural metal components for mounting system, PV boxes and delivery system

containers, fencing and site buildings.

Masonry products, including concrete for slabs and footings.

Glass for panels.

Packing for transporting solar panels.

Aluminium for underground cables and inter‐panel wiring.

Fuels and lubricants associated with operation of machinery and motor vehicles minimal.

Gravel for work and service tracks and backfill.

Sand for burying cables.

Water, for cleaning and dust suppression.

During operation and decommissioning, resources used would be associated with maintenance activities

and use of machinery and vehicles.

Lifecycle analysis

Life cycle analysis (LCA) assesses and quantifies the energy and material flows associated with a given

process to identify the resource impacts of that process and potential for resource recovery. LCA estimates

of energy and emissions based on the total life cycle of materials used for a project, i.e., the total amount

of energy consumed in procuring, processing, working up, transporting and disposing of the respective

materials (Schleisner 2000).

A life cycle inventory of polycrystalline PV panels has been undertaken by European and US photovoltaic

module manufacturing companies over the 2005/2006 period. The ‘energy payback time’ for

polycrystalline PV modules has been estimated at 2 years for a solar installation in Southern Europe. This

is consistent with the estimation that the WRSF Project would have an energy payback period of

approximately two years (refer 2.1.2). Over the panels 30 year lifetime is expected to produce 28g of

greenhouse gas per kWh generated (Fthenakis et al, 2011).

The purification of the silicon, which is extracted from quartz, accounts for 30% of the primary energy to

produce the module. This stage also produces the largest amount of pollutants with the use of electricity


6589 Final v1.3 114

and natural gas for heating (Fthenakis et al, 2011). The waste produced during production of the modules

which can be recycled include graphite crucibles, steel wire and waste slurry (silicon and polyethylene

glycol). However, silicon crystals cannot be recycled during this stage (Fthenakis et al, 2011). The

production of the frames and other system components including cabling would also produce emissions

and waste but less than the production of modules.

Solar farms are favourable in a number of aspects when compared to the major electricity generating

methods employed in Australia:

CO2 emissions generated per kilowatt hour of energy produced.

Short energy payback time in comparison to the life span of the WRSF Project.

Potential to reuse and recycle component parts.

Waste generation

Legal requirements for the management of waste are established under the Protection of the Environment

Operations (POEO) Act 1997 and the POEO (Waste) Regulation 2005. Unlawful transportation and

deposition of waste is an offence under section 143 of the POEO Act.

The Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001 establishes a hierarchy for which resource

management options should be considered against. The order of this hierarchy is as follows:

Avoidance of unnecessary resource consumption,

Resource recovery (including reuse, reprocessing, recycling and energy recovery),

Disposal.

Adopting the above principles would encourage the most efficient use of resources, and reduce costs and

environmental harm in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development.

Construction

Solid waste is one of the major pollutants caused by construction. A number of different construction

activities would produce solid wastes, such as:

Packaging materials.

Excess building materials.

Scrap metal and cabling materials.

Plastic and masonry products.

Vegetation clearing.

Waste from toilets on site (pump out and transport to Council treatment facility).

Overall, volumes of waste would be low, short term and manageable.

Operation

During operation the solid waste streams would be associated with maintenance activities and presence

of employees. Some materials such as, fuels and lubricants, metals may require replacement over the

operational life of the WRSF Project. WRSF will use WRWF amenities at the Operations and Maintenance

Building.


6589 Final v1.3 115

Decommissioning

Decommissioning of the site would involve the recycling or reuse of materials including:

Solar panels and mounting system.

Metals from posts, cabling, fencing.

Buildings and equipment such as the inverters, transformers, switch gear and similar

components would be removed for resale or reuse, or for recycling as scrap.

Items that cannot be recycled or reused, such as excess of above, would be disposed of in accordance with

applicable regulations and to appropriate facilities. All above ground infrastructure would be removed from

the site during decommissioning.



Resources

While increasing scarcity of resources and environmental impacts are emerging from the use of non‐

renewable resources, the supply of the materials required for the WRSF Project are not currently limited

or restricted. In the volumes required, the WRSF Project is unlikely to place significant pressure on the

availability of local or regional resources. The use of the required resources is considered reasonable in

light of benefits of offsetting fossil fuel electricity generation.

Temporary water supplies would be required during construction for activities including watering of roads.

Water use is considered in Section 9.2.2.

Waste and applicable Guidelines

In accordance with definitions in the POEO Act and associated waste classification guidelines, most waste

generated during the construction and decommissioning phases would be classified as building and

demolition waste within the class general solid waste (non putrescibles). Ancillary facilities in the site

compound would also produce sanitary wastes classified as general solid waste (putrescibles) in accordance

with the POEO Act.

During decommissioning, all infrastructure and materials would be removed from the site and recycled or

otherwise disposed of at approved facilities. The WRSF Project is considered highly reversible in its ability

to return to the pre‐existing land use or alternative land use.

Operation

Electricity production using photovoltaics emits no pollution, produces no greenhouse gases, and uses no

finite fossil‐fuel resources (US Department of Energy, 2004). Only limited amounts of fuels would be

required for maintenance vehicles during operation of the solar farm. Operational waste streams would be

very low as a result of low maintenance requirements of the solar farm.

Some balance of system electrical components (e.g., PCB’s, transformers, electrical cabling) would likely

need replacement over the proposed life of the solar farm, requiring further use of metal and plastic based

products. Repair or replacement of infrastructure components would result in some waste during plant

operations; however, such activities would occur very infrequently and there would be a high potential for

recycling or reuse of such items.


6589 Final v1.3 116

9.5.3 Environmental Safeguards

The following mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the impacts on resource use and the

generation of waste:


C O D

RW 1 Waste and energy management would be incorporated into the Construction Environmental Waste Management Plan, this would cover the risks associated with construction of the WRSF.

C

9.6 HISTORIC HERITAGE

9.6.1 Approach

A desktop study was undertaken to identify any historic heritage (non‐Aboriginal) items or places in

proximity to the WRSF Development Envelope. In Australia, there are heritage registers protecting places

of heritage significance at the Commonwealth, State and local levels. Heritage databases were searched

on 2 February 2016 as part of this assessment and included:

The NSW State Heritage Inventory (includes heritage items such as State Heritage Register, Interim

Heritage Orders, State Agency Heritage Registers and LEPs) to identify any items currently listed

within or adjacent to the WRSF Development Envelope. The Glen Innes Severn LGA was searched.

The Australian Heritage Database (includes items on the National and Commonwealth Heritage

Lists) to identify any items that are currently listed within or adjacent to the WRSF Development

Envelope.

Heritage schedule of the Glen Innes Severn LEP for locally listed heritage items that are within or

adjacent to the WRSF Development Envelope.


The results of the heritage searches listed above indicate that no known historic items or places occur

within the WRSF Development Envelope. The results of the heritage searches are shown in Table 9‐3.

Table 9‐3 Summary of total heritage listings.

Name of register Number of listings

World Heritage 1

National Heritage List 1

Commonwealth heritage List 1

NSW State Heritage Register 8

NSW State Agency Heritage Register (Section 170) 23

Glen Innes Severn Local Environment Plan 194


6589 Final v1.3 117

World heritage

The Gondwana Rainforests of Australia is the only World Heritage item that is listed within the Glen Innes

Severn Council LGA. The Washpool and Gibraltar Range, comprising the Gibraltar National Park and the

Washpool National Park is included in this listing. The Washpool and Gibraltar Range is located 53 km

north‐east of Glen Innes, well outside the WRSF Development Envelope.

National Heritage List

The Myall Creek Massacre and Memorial site is the closest item to the WRSF Development Envelope that

is listed on the National Heritage List. This item is located west of Inverell, approximately 60 km from the

WRSF Development Envelope.

Commonwealth Heritage

The Glen Innes Post Office is the closest item to the WRSF Development Envelope that is listed on the

Commonwealth Heritage list. The post office is located within the town of Glen Innes, approximately 20

km from the WRSF Development Envelope.

State heritage

Eight items are listed on the NSW State Heritage Register within the Glen Innes Severn LGA. None of these

items are located close to the WRSF Development Envelope.

Section 170 NSW State agency heritage registers

A search of places listed by State Agencies under s.170 of the NSW Heritage Act 1977 identified 23 listed

heritage items in the Glen Innes Severn LGA. These items include fire stations, bridges, power stations,

railway stations and police stations, located within Glen Innes and the towns of Deepwater, Dundee and

Emmaville.

All of the items are located outside of the WRSF Development Envelope.

Local heritage

The majority of local heritage items listed in the Glen Innes Severn Council LGA are buildings, churches and

residences that are located within the towns and villages. Some items such as homesteads, cemeteries,

weirs, tramlines, ruins and bridges are found within the more rural areas of the LGA. The closest listed

item to the WRSF Development Envelope is the Balaclava Station and station gardens which is located at

Lot 14, DP 753319, approximately 3.5 kilometres south‐east of WRSF Development Envelope.

The Gibraltar Range National Park, Guy Fawkes River National Park and Washpool National Park, all located

to the east of Glen Innes, are also listed are heritage items in the Glen Innes Severn Council LEP.



A number of local heritage items were identified from the desktop study. The majority of these items are

located within the townships and villages of the LGA, and are located well outside of the WRSF



6589 Final v1.3 118

The increased number of heavy vehicles on roads during the construction and decommissioning phases

may increase levels of dust and vibration impacts at heritage places that are located along the major

transport route. This is not expected to be a significant issue given the capacity of the transport routes to

handle large volumes of traffic and the temporary nature of the works.

The construction works would take place within 3.5 km of the Balaclava Station for which the landowner is

the same as for WRSF. The property would not be directly impacted, but noise and dust generated during

the works could potentially be a nuisance. Given the distance of the property to the WRSF Development

Envelope and the measures that would be implemented to manage noise and dust impacts during

construction works, no indirect impact on this heritage item would result.

The WRSF Project is not likely to have a significant impact on heritage items listed on the Commonwealth,

State and local heritage registers during construction. No heritage approvals are required.

Operation

No impacts are considered likely during the operational phase. No heritage approvals are required.


To appropriately manage the historic heritage issues identified above during the construction phase, the

following measure is recommended:


C O D

HH 1 In the event of an item of heritage significance being uncovered within the WRSF Development Envelope after works commence, the NSW Heritage Division should be contacted prior to further work being undertaken at the particular location.

C

9.7 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY


Air quality

Air quality within the Glen Innes Severn LGA is generally considered to be good (GISC 2015). A combination

of a relatively small and diffuse population, a lack of major pollution generating industries and a regular

rainfall pattern helps control the output of air pollution within the LGA.

Local air quality within the LGA can be affected by agriculture, mining, transport, residential development

and burning (GISC 2015). At the WRSF Development Envelope, agriculture and transport fumes from the

Gwydir Highway are the primary air polluting activities. These activities can lead to emissions of

greenhouse gases, vehicle emissions, dust, odours, spray drift of pesticides and herbicides and emissions

of pollutants such as nitrogen and phosphorus. The closest facility that is required to report their emissions

as part of the National Pollution Inventory is located over 30 km away (Australian Government 2016).

There are two non‐involved residences north and east of the WRSF Development Envelope that are within

two kilometres of the site. Dust or exhaust emissions, if they were excessive could reduce local air quality.


6589 Final v1.3 119

Climate

The New England Tableland bioregion lies mainly in the temperate to cool temperate climate zone of NSW,

which is characterised by warm summers, with uniform rainfall generally occurring in summer (OEH 2011).

The following climate data7 for the Glen Innes Airport Weather Station (the closest to the WRSF

Development Envelope, elevation 1044m) is available from the Bureau of Meteorology:

The mean maximum temperature is 20.2°C with a range between 26.3° C (January) and

13.2°C (July).

The mean minimum temperature is 6.0°C with a range between 12.8° C (January) and ‐1.1°C

(July).

The annual mean rainfall is 886.5 mm (decreases slightly to the west toward Inverell).

Highest rainfalls generally occur during November and average 127.2 mm. Lowest rainfalls

occur during the winter months, particularly May and August and average 46.5 mm.

Wind speeds average between 15 and 20 km per hour at 9am, generally increasing to

between 18 and 22 km per hour at 3pm.

In addition, regular frosts and occasional snow occurs in the region during the coldest months. The most

recent snowfalls occurred in 13 July 2015 with 8 cm recorded within the region.

Climate change

Climate change refers to the warming of temperatures and altered climatic conditions associated with the

increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Climate change projections for Australia

includes more frequent and hotter hot days and fewer frost days, rainfall declines in southern Australia

and more extreme weather events including intense rainfall, severe drought and harsher fires (CSIRO,

2015).

It is now generally accepted that the release of certain gases including, most notably carbon dioxide,

contribute to global climate change. These gases are collectively referred to as ‘greenhouse gases’.

Construction and maintenance activities where plant and equipment uses diesel, gasoline and other

hydrocarbons, result in greenhouse gas emissions and are likely to contribute to climate change. The

construction, operation and decommissioning of the WRSF Project would produce minimal CO2 emissions

when compared to conventional coal and gas fired powered stations; refer to Table 9‐4.

Table 9‐4 Comparison of CO2 equivalent emissions produced per kilowatt hour

Generation method Emissions produced (grams CO2 equivalent per kWh)

Source

Solar PV plant 19‐59 Wright and Hearps (2010)

Coal‐fired power station 800‐1000 Wright and Hearps (2010)

Combined cycle gas turbine 400 Alsema et al. (2006)

Operation of the WRSF would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and move towards cleaner electricity

generation. Approximately 36,900 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per annum would be avoided while the WRSF

Project is operational, as compared to fossil‐fuel based energy generation.

7 Available data is between 1996‐2015


6589 Final v1.3 120


Construction

Dust is likely to be generated from excavation activities and other earthworks as well as the movement of

trucks and work vehicles along the unsealed access track. Earthworks associated with construction would

be relatively minor and mostly involve levelling the ground to construct the access road and laydown area,

and trenching works for cable installation. Posts for the solar array framework would be pile driven into

the ground and generate little dust. No extensive cut and fill earthworks are proposed.

Air emissions would be generated from the use of construction machinery including earth‐moving

equipment, diesel generators, trucks, cranes and pile driving equipment. Vehicles accessing the site,

including the daily construction labour force and haulage traffic delivering construction components, would

also generate air emissions.

Dust and air emissions can be a nuisance to nearby receivers including residences, farm workers and traffic.

The degree of impact can be influenced by weather and climate. Works carried out during long periods of

dry weather and high winds have greater potential to generate dust which can impact air quality. The

WRSF Development Envelope is located within a region that tends to experience the lowest rainfall during

the winter months but rates of evaporation are lower. Construction works during times when site

conditions are drier may require greater dust suppression measures to manage any increased impacts.

The construction phase is expected to last approximately six to nine months with a peak period lasting

three months. Given the location of the WRSF Project within a rural setting (only two residences within a

two km setting) and a set back from the Gwydir Highway by approximately 700 m, the impacts of the WRSF

Project during the construction and decommissioning phases are considered manageable with regard to

air quality. Mitigation strategies that would be employed during these phases to manage the potential for

adverse air quality impacts are presented in the section below.

Construction activities for the solar farm would not impact on climate. Haulage traffic and plant and

equipment would generate emissions however, the short duration of the work and the scale of the WRSF

Project suggests this contribution would be negligible in a local or regional context. Intense storm events

with strong winds and/or rain during periods of earthworks increase risk of erosion through dust or surface

water flows.

Operation

Operation of the WRSF would require daily traffic movements on the access track and tracks internal to

the solar arrays mostly due to maintenance staff accessing and working on the site. Occasional trucks

delivering supplies and equipment may also access the site. No solar farm infrastructure would generate

emissions that would impact air quality in operation. Therefore, negligible air quality impacts are

anticipated to be generated during the operational phase of the solar farm.

The WRSF Project would make a positive contribution to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by

providing an alternative to electricity sourced from fossil fuels. This constitutes the chief environmental

benefit of the WRSF Project. The WRSF Project would represent a renewable method of electricity

generation to meet increasing demand of non‐greenhouse gas producing electricity generation. Given

stable demand, every megawatt‐hour of electricity generated by the solar farm could prevent one

megawatt‐hour of electricity being generated at a coal fired power station, as well as potentially preventing

losses within the electricity transmission system.


6589 Final v1.3 121


The following mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the impacts to air quality and climate:


C O D

CA 1 The CEMP would include protocols to minimise and control dust. Measures may include:

o Use of a water cart (truck) to wet the access track and exposed dusty surfaces as appropriate to the conditions of the site.

o Stabilisation of any disturbed areas that expose soil and increase erosion risks.

C D

CA 2 The CEMP and DEMP would include protocols to guide vehicle and construction equipment use to minimise emissions produced on the site.

C D

9.8 SOCIOECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY


Industries

The regional economy of the New England North West region has traditionally been dominated by

agriculture. The region is one of the most productive agricultural areas in Australia with a large variety of

agricultural commodities produced (DPI 2012).

The Strategic Regional Land Use Plan (DPI 2012) for the region states the agricultural industry is worth

around $1.8 billion annually to the regional economy, with sheep and cattle grazing, broad acre cereal

crops, irrigated cotton, intensive livestock and plant agriculture and poultry production being the main

contributors. 30,000 people are directly or indirectly employed as a result of agriculture in the New

England North West region. This equates to 42 percent of the region’s employment.

Other industries providing employment in the region include education, health care, food processing,

tourism, manufacturing, transport and logistics. Coal and coal seam gas extraction are emerging industries,

as discussed in Section 8.5.1. The renewable energy industry is also an emerging industry. In addition to

the WRWF, there are two other approved wind farms (Glen Innes and Sapphire Wind Farms) and the Ben

Lomond wind farm proposal in proximity to the WRSF Development Envelope (refer Figure 9‐5).

Renewable energy solar projects and the Glen Innes Severn LGA community

Research indicates there is widespread support for solar energy as a source of energy for electricity

generation in Australia (ARENA n.d); 78% of respondents are in favour of large scale solar energy facilities

and 87% are in favour of domestic installations. The large scale solar energy sector is still at a relatively

early stage of development in Australia, however. While most members of the community are aware of

large scale solar energy, many do not know a great deal about their impacts (ARENA n.d.). This EIS

addresses the associated impacts and mitigation measures to reduce the impact on the local community

and the environment.


6589 Final v1.3 122

Figure 9‐5 Renewable energy projects in proximity to the WRSF Development Envelope (base map: Epuron 2011)

Community feedback on the Project

A Community Engagement Plan has been prepared for the WRSF to guide all community engagement

activities (refer Section 5). To date, response from the community regarding the WRSF Project has been

positive. This is consistent with the overall community response for the WRWF Project which has generally

been received very well within the community.


Construction

The local area is predominantly rural with no large scale industries. The introduction of WRWF and then

WRSF would change the character of the locality to a rural landscape with electricity generation from

renewable energy sources. The WRSF site would be briefly visible to the people travelling in vehicles along

the Gywdir Highway during construction and operation.

The WRSF Project would represent a local economic and direct economic benefit to some. The

construction of the WRSF Project would utilise up to 100 staff at peak construction. Many of these could

be drawn from the local area. Additional workers moving to the area temporarily may stimulate local

economic activity. Accommodation and retail services would be stimulated. Conversely, the temporary

Project Area


6589 Final v1.3 123

influx may place pressures on local services such as accommodation and health services. Additional

demands for accommodation and additional traffic may present an adverse effect on local tourism, if

coinciding with local festivals for example. Additional traffic may be noticeable along with the additional

hazards that accompany construction traffic (refer to Section 9.3). Mitigation strategies to address these

impacts centre on consultation with the community, so that benefits can be maximised and conflicts

resolved where possible.

Operation and decommissioning

The development of rural land uses compatible with agricultural activities, such as solar power generation,

have potential to provide increased economic security to rural economies through diversification of

employment opportunities and income streams. The New England North West Strategic Land use plan (DPI

2012) recognises that importance of identifying opportunities that can, in the short and medium term, help

to diversify the regional economy, making it more resilient to change in the longer term. The development

of the WRSF would not be in conflict with this plan.

Considering the local economy is dominated by agriculture, it is relevant to note that projected global

warming will increase potential evaporation and water demand, potentially reducing the capacity of the

arable land.

The website ‘AdaptNSW’ maintained by OEH shows forecast changes to various climate characteristics. For

the New England Region, indications are generally as follows:

Table 9‐5 Forecast changes to various climate characteristics within New England Region

Parameter 2030 2070

Max temps +0.7 +2.2

Rainfall +0‐5% +5‐10%

Cold nights (<2oC) ‐10 ‐20

Source: Modified from http://www.climatechange.environment.nsw.gov.au/

Pittock (AGO, 2003) observed that a significant proportion of Australian exports are agricultural products

sensitive to global warming impacts. Federal Government publications note that failure to adequately

mitigate increases in emissions will lead to greater costs for adaptation to consequences of climate change.

Minimal impacts are anticipated during operation and decommissioning. During operation, maintenance

staffing and activities would be at low levels. The additional accommodation and traffic impacts of a

number of operational staff are not likely to be noticeable.

Decommissioning is likely to require less staff onsite than for construction. It would offer similar economic

benefits to construction in terms of opportunities for local staff and industries. It may also include local

recycling of infrastructure components.


6589 Final v1.3 124


The following mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the socio‐economic impacts that may

arise from the Project.


C O D

SOE 1 Community consultation would be undertaken in accordance with the WRSF Project’s specific Community Engagement Plan (refer Section 5.

C O D

9.9 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS


Cumulative impacts, for the purpose of this assessment, relate to the combined potential effects of

different impact areas of the WRSF Project (i.e. construction traffic combined with visual impact) as well as

the potential interaction with other projects in the local area (e.g. the combined effects of the adjacent

wind farm, during construction, operation and decommissioning). Cumulative impacts can occur

concurrently or sequentially.

In terms of cumulative impacts, the most relevant interaction for the WRSF, is the WRWF Stage 1. The wind

farm construction is scheduled to begin in March 2016. Commencement of construction on WRSF is

proposed to begin in the first quarter of 2017, when the construction of WRWF is expected to be nearing

completion and construction activities are scaling down (refer Section 4.12). WRSF is a smaller scale project

than WRWF but construction of WRSF is condensed into a relatively short period. Specific impacts are

discussed below.


Construction

Visual impact

In the early stages of construction during the overlap period with the WRWF, the WRSF Project would result

in additional machinery and construction activities that would be noticeable to people travelling in vehicles

along the Gywdir Highway and to the neighbouring properties. The level of impact would depend on the

duration of overlap with the construction schedule of the WRWF and the visibility of those works to the

highway and neighbouring property. Due to the different phases of construction activities for the two

projects, the cumulative effect is unlikely to be of such magnitude to result in any significant impacts.

Noise impact

Noise impacts through the use of plant machinery and vehicles would be heightened during the early

construction phase when the works would be undertaken concurrently with the works at the WRWF.

However, WRWF works would be well advanced with all access tracks and site clearing works complete.

Noise generation in the later part of the WRWF construction would be expected to be a lower impact as a

result of less plant machinery. For the WRSF, plant would be limited to a small number of mobile plant and

light vehicles. Overall, cumulative noise impacts are expected to be minor and would be managed within


6589 Final v1.3 125

a Noise Management Plan, that considers both the solar and wind farm construction process, where

relevant.

Biodiversity

The clearing of native vegetation, which is a key threatening process at both State and Commonwealth

level, is considered a major factor in the loss of biological diversity. At least 61 per cent of the native

vegetation in NSW has been cleared or highly modified since European settlement (NSW Scientific

Committee 2001), and the removal of vegetation for this WRSF Project is contributing to this process. The

cumulative impact of similar renewable energy projects, particularly where EECs are involved, can be

considerable given that many poorly‐conserved vegetation communities have a substantial portion of their

extents represented on private land where the majority of renewable energy projects are proposed. Small

losses of such communities, which may be insignificant at a project level, may accumulate over time to

cause a significant reduction in the extent of remnant patches.

Cumulative impacts are considered best addressed by avoiding and minimising. Where avoidance is not

possible, the impacts of each contributing project is assessed on a case by case basis. Long term

mechanisms like offsetting through the BioBanking assessment methodology, are structured to address

the ongoing impacts of multiple projects in a cohesive manner. For this WRSF Project, no credits were

generated through the BCC, therefore offsetting of biodiversity impacts is not considered necessary for the

WRSF Project.

Traffic impacts

Cumulative traffic impacts are only relevant to the early WRSF construction phase when the construction

may overlap with WRWF construction and transport phases. During this time, increased vehicle

movements associated with the WRSF Project may place additional pressure and contribute additional

traffic risks to the local road network. No vehicles carrying long loads (greater than 60 metres) are required

for the WRSF Project and all traffic that is associated with the WRSF Project would be managed through

the Construction Traffic Management Plan (refer Appendix H for draft). By coordinating the WRSF Project

transport activities to avoid peak phases of WRWF transport activities, minimal cumulative traffic impacts

are anticipated.

Economic and resource impacts

There is potential for positive cumulative economic effects of the WRSF Project during the construction

phase. The WRSF Project would potentially generate more jobs for local residences and income for local

business suppliers. The cumulative impacts are expected to be favourable to the local community but it is

noted that the peak construction period for WRSF is a relatively short period.

Operation

During operation of the WRSF, cumulative impacts would be minimal. Impacts are identified as follows:

Visual

The VIA determined the WRSF to have an overall low level of visual impact. Cumulative visual impacts

resulting from the operation of WRSF are therefore also considered to be low. The WRWF would be more

prominent in the landscape due to the height of the wind turbine structures. Both developments would

form the White Rock Renewable Energy precinct and are compatible in development type. The hybrid

wind/solar arrangement avoids additional grid connection works and the visual impacts that would

otherwise be associated with the WRSF.


6589 Final v1.3 126

Noise

Noise impacts during operation of the solar farm would be minimal. Noisy equipment is restricted to the

PCB’s and predicted noise levels comply with the criteria conservatively established in accordance with the

NSW Industrial Noise Policy 2000 without any specific acoustic treatment. Cumulative impacts as a result

of operational noise are not expected for this WRSF Project.

Biodiversity

The solar farm would pose minimal operational risks to biodiversity; specifically, no impacts to bird and

bats during the solar farm operation are anticipated; this being the key wind farm operational impact on

biodiversity. Cumulative impacts to biodiversity would not be significant.

Economic impacts

The solar farm would result in additional staff being employed within the White Rock Renewable Energy

Precinct. Impacts would be minor with the generation of two or more additional jobs but that would be

favourable through the expanded workforce and diversification of skill set of operational staff.

Greenhouse gas emissions and air quality impacts

For each megawatt‐hour of electricity generated by a renewable energy generator, coal fired generation is

reduced by approximately 1 megawatt‐hour. Every megawatt‐hour of electricity generated by the solar

farm would prevent one megawatt‐hour of electricity being generated at a coal fired power station, as well

as preventing losses within the electricity transmission system.

The cumulative impact of additional renewable energy generator in the region would have positive impacts

for NSW in terms of provision of electricity to meet increasing demand as well as the reduction of coal fired

electricity generation with the associated environmental benefits. This is a key benefit of the WRSF Project.


6589 Final v1.3 127

10 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FRAMEWORK

The environmental risks associated with the WRSF Project would be managed by implementing a project‐

specific suite of mitigation measures detailed in Sections 8 and 9 and summarised in Section 10.2 of this

EIS.

All commitments and environmental safeguards would be managed through the implementation of a

Project Environmental Management Plan (PEMP) adapted to the phase of development (construction,

operation, decommissioning).

These plans would detail the environmental management responsibilities of specific staff roles, reporting

requirements, monitoring requirements, environmental targets and objectives, auditing and review

timetables, emergency responses, induction and training, environmental work method statements,

complaint response procedures and adaptive management mechanisms to encourage continuous

improvement.

A CEMP has been prepared for the WRWF which addresses many issues and management measures which

would be also be relevant to the WRSF Project. The WRWF project and the WRSF Project may be

constructed by different contractors and, while the WRSF CEMP may draw on some of the management

processes developed for WRWF, it will focus on the specific risks and identified mitigation measures

applicable to the WRSF Project. Nevertheless it is expected that the management of environmental impacts

for the two projects will be undertaken in a consistent manner.

10.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS

The construction and operational environmental management plans and subplans required would be

finalised reflecting both the risks identified in this EIS and the final infrastructure layout.

Note, where a measure is relevant to more than one EIS section, it is mentioned only at the first occurrence,

to minimise duplication.


C O D

8.1 Biodiversity

BIO 1 Preparation of Flora and Fauna Management Plan (FFMP) that would incorporate mitigation strategies below. The FFMP would form part of the White Rock Solar Farm Construction Environmental Management Plan.

C

BIO 2 Areas to be retained (indicated areas of EEC and indicated trees) would be delineated (fencing or other method), and construction activities would be excluded from these areas. Clearing and construction contractors would be given inductions that make clear the importance of these features.

C


6589 Final v1.3 128


C O D

BIO 3 A ‘Clearing and Grubbing Plan’ would be developed. This would include best practice methods for the removal of woody vegetation and non‐woody vegetation including provision for:

o Mulch reuse onsite, particularly to stabilise disturbed areas

o An unexpected threatened species finds procedure

C

BIO 4 Stockpile and compound sites would be located using the following criteria:

o Within the WRSF Development Envelope. o At least 40 metres away from the nearest

waterway. o In areas of low ecological conservation significance

(i.e. pasture land).

C

BIO 5 The location of the underground power cable from the solar farm to the wind farm would be micro‐sited to avoid hollow bearing trees.

C

BIO 6 Use non barbed‐wire on exterior fencing, unless required for public safety.

C

BIO 7 Rehabilitation would be undertaken in all areas disturbed during construction. In native areas, it would include species that are representative of the EECs occurring within the WRSF Development Envelope to increase the diversity of the existing vegetation, as well as to improve the connectivity between patches in the landscape.

C

BIO 8 Prepare a weed management plan that; o Is consistent with DPI’s Prime Fact 1063

Infrastructure proposals on rural land (DPI 2013) o Allows for management of declared noxious weeds

in accordance to the requirements stipulated by the Noxious Weeds Act 1993

o Develops a protocol for weed hygiene in relation to plant, machinery and importation and management of fill.

BIO 9 Vegetation groundcover, particularly beneath the low edge of the panels, would be monitored and any bare areas or erosion addressed (ie.planting, jute mesh armouring etc.) to resist erosion and weed infestation.

O

BIO 10 Carry out refuelling of plant and equipment, chemical storage and decanting at least 50 m away from aquatic habitats in impervious bunds. Ensure that dry and wet spill kits are readily available

C

BIO 11 Dust control measures (ie. water cart) would be implemented in response to visual cues to prevent dust spreading to nearby habitats.

C

BIO 12 If night work is unavoidable, ensure lights are directed away from wildlife or habitat corridor (biodiversity links).

C

BIO 13 Develop a pest management plan drawing on the White Rock Wind Farm Stage 1 Construction Flora and Fauna Management Plan, to cover all pest management issues at the WRSF site.

C O


6589 Final v1.3 129


C O D

8.2 Aboriginal heritage

AH 1 If removal of mature trees in relation to installation of the 33 kV cable is required, these would be checked for scars prior to removal, and if present the scar should then be examined by a qualified heritage practitioner and RAPs to assess if the scar is cultural.

If any culturally scarred trees are identified by the above process, avoidance by redesign of the cable alignment should be undertaken.

C

AH 2 WRSFPL would prepare a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) to address the potential for finding Aboriginal artefacts during the construction of the WRSF. The CHMP will outline an unexpected finds protocol to deal with construction activity. Preparation of the CHMP should be undertaken in consultation with the RAPs.

C

AH 3 In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered during the construction, all work must cease. OEH, the local police and the appropriate LALC should be notified. Further assessment would be undertaken to determine if the remains are Aboriginal or non‐Aboriginal.

C

AH 4 Continued consultation with the RAPs for the WRSF Project should be undertaken. RAPs should be informed of any major changes in project design or scope, further investigations or finds.

C

8.3 Visual impact

VIA 1 In the final design and layout of the proposal, the following should be considered;

o minimise bulk and height of proposed structures, where possible.

o selection and location for replacement tree planting which may provide partial screening or backdrop setting for constructed elements

o review of materials and colour finishes for selected components including the use of non‐reflective finishes to structures where possible

C

VIA 2 Retention of grass cover wherever possible. C

VIA 3 During operation the facility would be maintained in a manner that ensures the constructed elements, and on‐site vegetation are maintained to an appropriate visual standard.

O

8.4 Noise impact

NO 1 Preparation of a final noise management plan based on the Draft Plan provided with this EIS and the final design and arrangements for construction and operation.

C

NO 2 Adherence to standard construction hours, unless they do not cause noise emissions to be audible at any nearby residences not located on the site or are otherwise approved.

C

8.5 Land use

LU 1 Continued consultation with the landowner regarding the WRSF Project including potential impacts to farm operations and risks to livestock.

C O


6589 Final v1.3 130


C O D

LU 2 Construction and operations personnel would drive carefully and below the designated speed limit, to minimise disturbance to livestock, crops and pasture, and dust generation.

C O D

LU 3 Rehabilitation of the site following decommissioning of the WRSF Project.

D

9.1 Soils and landforms

SL 1 Preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan for the site (based on the draft plan in Appendix G) which includes measures for flood management at the site.

C

SL 2 Preparation of a Spill Response Plan consistent with the Spill Response Plan for the WRWF to:

o Manage the storage of any potential contaminant onsite

o Mitigate the effects of soil contamination by fuels or other chemicals (including emergency response and EPA notification procedures).

o Prevent contaminants affecting adjacent pasture and dams.

C O D

9.2 Water

WA 1 Drainage controls to deal with any concentrated flows off panels, if required.

C

WA 2 Ongoing consultation with landowners in relation to the use of water from farm dams.

C O

9.3 Traffic, transport and road safety

TT 1 Preparation of a traffic management plan (based on draft provided in Appendix H).

C D

TT 2 Ongoing consultation with stakeholders including Roads and Maritime, GISC, local landholders, emergency services, business owners, school bus companies to inform them of changes to road use and conditions during construction and decommissioning.

C D

TT 3 Availability of a direct contact phone number to enable any issues or concerns to be rapidly identified and addressed.

C O D

9.4 Health and safety

EMF 1 BF 1

All electrical equipment would be designed in accordance with relevant codes and industry best practice standards in Australia.

C

AV 1 The materials and colour of onsite infrastructure (other than the solar panels) will, where practical, be non‐reflective and in keeping with the materials and colouring of the landscape.

C

BF 2 Buildings would comply with the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

C

BF 3 Safety management processes to highlight to all staff and contractors through an induction process the potential hazards of activities onsite. This should include preparation and compliance with job‐specific WMSs and emergency preparation/response drills.

C O D


6589 Final v1.3 131


C O D

BF 4 The NSW RFS be provided with a contact point for the WRSF Project, during construction and operation.

C O D

BF 5 Designation of a WRSF onsite safety representative responsible for ensuring implementation of safeguards. This representative would also regularly consult with the local NSW RFS to ensure familiarity with the WRSF Project and assist the RFS and emergency services as much as possible if there is a fire on‐site during construction of the WRSF Project.

C O D

BF 6 Basic training of all staff in the use of fire‐fighting equipment. C O D

BF 7 Appropriate fire‐fighting equipment would be held on site to respond to any fires that may occur at the site during construction of the WRSF Project. This equipment will include fire extinguishers, a 1000 litre water cart retained on site as a precautionary basis, particularly during blasting and welding operations. Equipment lists would be detailed in Work Method Statements (WMS’s).

C O D

BF 8 Slashing of vegetation on construction site before construction starts and as required to manage fuel loads.

C O D

BF 9 Maintain vegetation (eg. allow sheep to graze) to a low level amongst solar panels to control vegetation on the solar farm site.

O

BF 10 All access and egress tracks on the site would be maintained and kept free of parked vehicles to enable rapid response for firefighting crews and to avoid entrapment of staff in the case of bush fire emergencies.

C O

BF 11 Confirm agreement of local property owners to use dams on site as water sources in the event of fire.

C O D

BF 12 The use of a Hot Works Permit system to ensure a number of pre‐requisites are satisfied prior to works commencing. Fire extinguishers would be present during all hot works.

C O

BF 13 Where possible restrict the performance of Hot Works to specific areas (such as the Construction Compound temporary workshop areas).

C O

BF 14 Adequate site communications to ensure a fire event is communicated quickly. Measures would include:

o Use of mobile phones.

o Use of two‐way radios.

o Fire Danger Warning signs located at the entrance to the site compounds.

C O

BF 15 Specific management activities/controls for hot works, vehicle use, smoking, use of flammable materials, blasting.

C O D

BF 16 The BRMP will include consultation with the NSW Rural Fire Service during construction, operation and decommissioning.

C O D


6589 Final v1.3 132


C O D

9.5 Resource use and waste generation

RW 1 Waste and energy management would be incorporated into the Construction Environmental Waste Management Plan, this would cover the risks associated with construction of the WRSF.

C

9.6 Historic heritage

HH 1 In the event of an item of heritage significance being uncovered within the WRSF Development Envelope after works commence, the NSW Heritage Division should be contacted prior to further work being undertaken at the particular location.

C

9.7 Climate and air quality

CA 1 The CEMP would include protocols to minimise and control dust. Measures may include:

o Use of a water cart (truck) to wet the access track and exposed dusty surfaces as appropriate to the conditions of the site.

o Stabilisation of any disturbed areas that expose soil and increase erosion risks.

C D

CA 2 The CEMP and DEMP would include protocols to guide vehicle and construction equipment use to minimise emissions produced on the site.

C D

9.8 Socioeconomic and community

SOE 1 Community consultation would be undertaken in accordance with the WRSF Project’s specific Community Engagement Plan (refer Section 5.

C O D


6589 Final v1.3 133

11 CONCLUSION The WRSF would be located in the New England Tablelands of NSW, approximately 20 km west of Glen

Innes, about 500 km north of Sydney and about 400 km south‐west of Brisbane.

The WRSF would have a nominal capacity of up to approximately 20 megawatts (MW) (AC) and would be

developed as a hybrid wind/solar facility, exporting electricity generated to the grid through the

infrastructure to be constructed for the WRWF. The objective of the WRSF Project is to maximise the

amount of renewable electricity through a cost effective hybrid wind/solar project that shares

infrastructure and reduces the overall impact of the two operations.

NGH Environmental has prepared this EIS on behalf of the proponent, WRSFPL. This EIS has assessed the

broader WRSF Development Envelope (150ha) where infrastructure may be located, to allow for some

flexibility in the solar farm design. When quantifying impacts in this assessment, the indicative WRSF

Development Footprint of approximately 50 ha has been used. Infrastructure within the includes the solar

panel arrays, associated inverter, transformer and monitoring equipment, 33 kV cabling and access tracks.

Development of the solar farm would also make use of infrastructure that will be installed for WRWF and

that have been separately assessed for Project Approval MP10_160.

Overall, WRSF will represent a further contribution, at this locality, to Australia’s transition to a low

emission energy generation economy. The WRSF Project is considered compatible with existing land uses

and highly reversible upon decommissioning, returning the site to its previous agricultural capacity.

The key environmental risks have been investigated through specialist investigations:

Biodiversity impacts – the BA concluded that no significant impacts to threatened species and

ecological communities would result and no offsets would be required. No referrals under the

EPBC or TSC Act are considered to be required.

Aboriginal heritage impacts – the ACHAR concluded the WRSF Project should be able to proceed

with no additional archaeological investigations. No areas of potential archaeological deposits or

scarred trees have been identified within the WRSF Development Envelope and the potential for

Aboriginal heritage objects within the WRSF Development Envelope has been assessed as low. A

CHMP will be developed for WRSF.

Visual impact ‐ the VIA concluded that the construction, activities and operations would have a

very low visual impact on the majority of people living in or travelling through the landscape

surrounding the proposed solar farm. A landscape plan is not considered to be required for WRSF.

Noise impacts – the noise assessment concluded that noise impacts during construction,

operation and decommissioning would generally be within the accepted noise criterion.

Occasional noise exceedances may occur during construction and will be managed under a Noise

Management Plan. A draft Noise Management Plan is provided with this EIS).

A suite of management measures have been developed to address environmental impacts and risks to

these and other physical, social and environmental impact areas. Key management strategies centre on

the development of management plans and protocols minimise impacts and manage identified risks. This

EIS includes draft management plans for noise, traffic and erosion and sediment control. Final management

plans, reflecting the final project layout, mitigation measures within this EIS and all conditions of approval,

would be submitted to the DP&E, prior to construction.

The impacts and risks identified are considered manageable with the effective implementation of the

measures stipulated in this EIS. Impacts are considered justifiable and acceptable.


6589 Final v1.3 134

12 REFERENCES

Acil Allen Consulting (2015) Electricity Bill Benchmarks for residential customers. Report prepared for the

Australian Energy Regulator

http://www.aer.gov.au/system/files/ACIL%20Allen_%20Electricity%20Benchmarks_final%20report

%20v2%20‐%20Revised%20March%202015.PDF accessed 17 February 2016.

Alsema, E.A. de Wild‐Scholten, M.J, Fthenakis, V.M, (2006). Environmental Impacts of PV Electricity

Generation ‐ A Critical Comparison of Energy Supply Options. 21st European Photovoltaic Solar

Energy Conference, Dresden, Germany, 4‐8 September 2006.

ARENA (n.d) Establishing the social licence to operate large scale solar facilities in Australia: insights from

social research for industry http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/ipsos‐arena_solarreport.pdf accessed

18 February 2016.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2012). Australian Household Energy Survey 2012.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/4670.0main+features100052012 accessed 17

February 2016

Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) (2015). National Electricity Forecasting Report ‐ For the

National Electricity Market (NEM) 2015,

http://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/Planning/Forecasting/National‐Electricity‐Forecasting‐

Report, accessed January 2016.

Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO). (2003). Climate change: An Australian Guide to the Science and

Potential Impacts. Australian Greenhouse Office, edited by B Pittock, 2003.

Australian Government (2016) National Pollutant Inventory

http://www.npi.gov.au/npidata/action/load/map‐search;jsessionid=50A28D3D44C5AA

19C4BEA62526871D7F, accessed 10 February 2016

Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) (2015). Fact Sheet: Electricity and

health, http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/Factsheets/is_electricity.cfm accessed 28

February 2016.

Chang, G.J. and Jennings, C. (1994). Magnetic Field Survey at PG&E Photovoltaic Sites,

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/82309‐WOEtJb/webviewable/82309.pdf, accessed

3 August 2012.

Clean Energy Regulator (2015) Renewable Energy Target, Annual targets webpage,

http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/RET/About‐the‐Renewable‐Energy‐Target/The‐

certificate‐market/The‐renewable‐power‐percentage/Annual‐targets, accessed 25 January 2016

CSIRO. (2015). Climate Change in Australia. Accessed January 2016 from

http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/

NSW Agriculture (2003), The Graziers guide to pastures,

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/87270/graziers‐guide‐pastures‐full‐version.pdf

accessed 10 February 2016

Department of Environment (DoE) (2014), The Quarterly update of the National Greenhouse Gas

Inventory: March 2014. https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/7d5f76fe‐3128‐

44dd‐bef1‐f6fa008f686f/files/nggi‐quarterly‐update‐mar‐2014_0.pdf accessed 12 February 2016.


6589 Final v1.3 135

Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) (2008a). Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and

Construction Volume 2A –Installation of Services. DECC, Sydney South.

Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) (2008b). Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and

Construction Volume 2C –Unsealed Roads, DECC, Sydney South.

Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) (2009). Interim Construction Noise Guidelines.

Sydney.

Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) (2010) Impacts of climate change,

webpage, http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate‐change/impacts.aspx, accessed 23 January

2016

Department of Industry, Resources and Energy (2016) MinView home page,

http://www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.au/miners‐and‐explorers/geoscience‐

information/services/online‐services/minview#_features‐of‐_min_view accessed 23 January 2016

NSW Department of Planning (2010). Discussion Paper On Planning For Renewable Energy Generation ‐

Solar Energy, prepared April, 2010.

Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) (2012a) Strategic Plan Regional Land Use Plan,

http://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/initiatives/strategicregionallandusepolicy‐

brochure_sd_v01.pdf accessed 5 February 2016

Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) (2012b) New England North West Strategic Plan

Regional Land Use Plan, http://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/initiatives/newengnw‐

strategic‐plan_sd_v01.pdf accessed 5 February 2016

Department of Primary Industries (DPI) (2013) Prime Fact, Infrastructure proposals on rural land.

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/359030/infrastructure‐proposals‐on‐

rural‐land.pdf accessed 6 February 2016.

Department of Primary Industries (DPI)(2016) Key Fish Habitat

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/habitat/publications/protection/key‐fish‐habitat‐maps

accessed 14 February 2016

Epuron (2011) White Rock Wind Farm Environmental Assessment prepared for Goldwind

ERM 2015, White Rock Wind Farm Stage 1 Construction Environmental Management Plan

Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems (ISE). (2015). Photovoltaics Report. Accessed 26 November

2015, from https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/downloads/pdf‐files/aktuelles/photovoltaics‐report‐

in‐englischer‐sprache.pdf

Fthenakis, V.M. (2003). Life cycle impact analysis of cadmium in CdTe PV production Renewable &

Sustainable Energy Reviews No. 8, p. 303‐334.

Fthenakis, V.M., Kim, H.C. and Alsema, E. (2008). Emissions from Photovoltaic Life Cycles Environment

Science & Technology, 2008, 42 (6), pp 2168–2174,

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es071763q, accessed 12 February 2016.

Fthenakis, V., Kim, H.C., Frischknecht, R., Raugei, M., Sinha, P., Stucki, M. (2011). Life Cycle Inventories

and Life Cycle Assessment of Photovoltaic Systems, International Energy Agency (IEA) PVPS Task

12, Report T12 ‐ 02:2011


6589 Final v1.3 136

Glen Innes Severn Council (2015) State of the Environment Report 2015,

http://www.gisc.nsw.gov.au/sites/gleninnes/files/public/images/documents/gisc/council/Council

%20Meetings/2015‐11/Annexure%20C%20‐

%20State%20of%20the%20Environment%20Report%202015.pdf accessed 10 February 2010

RPS Australia East Pty Ltd (2015) White Rock Wind Farm Stage 1, Construction Flora and Fauna

Management Plan,

Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) (2013) : Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change

2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.‐K. Plattner, M. Tignor,

S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

International Commission on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNRP 1998) ICNRP Guidelines for

limiting exposure to time ‐ varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 ghz)

http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf accessed 14 February 2016.

International Commission on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNRP 2010) Fact Sheet on the

Guidelines for limiting exposure to time ‐ varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (1hz

to 100kHz) http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPFactSheetLF.pdf accessed 28

February 2016.

International Commission on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNRP 2016) Low Frequency 1Hz to

100kHz webpage http://www.icnirp.org/en/frequencies/low‐frequency/index.html accessed 28

February 2016

Mitchell , P (2002). Descriptions for NSW (Mitchell) Landscapes. Report prepared for the NSW National

Parks and Wildlife Service.

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/conservation/LandscapesDescriptions.pdf

accessed 10 February 2016.

NSW Environment Protection Authority (2016) Contaminated lands register.

https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/prclmapp/searchregister.aspx accessed 10 February 2016

NSW Government (2011) NSW 2021: A plan to make NSW Number one, accessed 19 January 2016

http://www.ipc.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/file_manager/NSW2021_WEBVERSION.pdf

NSW Land and Property Information (2016) Six Maps https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/ accessed between

December and March 2016.

NSW Government (2013) NSW Renewable Energy Action Plan, accessed 19 January 2016.

NSW Government Planning and Environment (DP&E)(2016) Planning portal.

https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/find‐a‐

property/property/1861427_459_Kelleys_Road_99_Maybole_DP753292/99/dp753292/ , accessed

27/01/2016

NSW Government Planning and Environment (DP&E)(2015) Safeguarding our Agricultural Land

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Policy‐and‐Legislation/Mining‐and‐Resources/Safeguarding‐our‐

Agricultural‐Land accessed 27 January 2016


6589 Final v1.3 137

NSW Trade and investment (NSW T&I) (2015). Electricity generation, webpage,

http://www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.au/energy‐consumers/energy‐sources/electricity

accessed 19 January 2016.

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) (2011a) New England Tableland maps, webpage,

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/newEnglandTableland.pdf accessed 2 February

2016

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) (2011b) New England Tableland – landform webpage,

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/bioregions/NewEnglandTableland‐Landform.htm accessed 10

February 2016

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH)(2011c) The New England Tableland Bioregion

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/newEnglandTableland.pdf accessed 1 February

2016

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) (2016). Record of EPA notices website

https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/prclmapp/searchresults.aspx?&LGA=52&Suburb=&Notice=&Name=

&Text=&DateFrom=&DateTo= accessed 22 January 2016

NSW Office of Water (2016) Groundwater monitoring page,

http://allwaterdata.water.nsw.gov.au/water.stm accessed 10 February 2016.

Repacholi M (2003) An overview of WHO’s EMF Project and the Health Effects of EMF Exposure

http://www.who.int/peh‐emf/meetings/archive/en/keynote4repacholi.pdf accessed 11 January

2016

RPS Australia East Pty Ltd (2015) White Rock Wind Farm Stage 1, Construction Flora and Fauna

Management Plan.

Schleisner L. (2000). Life cycle assessment of a wind farm and related externalities Renewable Energy, vol.

20, pp. 279‐288.

Soil and Landscape Grid of Australia, http://www.clw.csiro.au/aclep/soilandlandscapegrid/ViewData‐

Portal.html accessed 10 February 2016.

UGL (2016) 33 kV Cable Electromagnetic Field Assessment. Prepared by UGL for Goldwind Capital

Australia.

U.S. Department of Energy (2004). PV FAQs, http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf, accessed 3

August 2012.

Weisser, D (n.d) A guide to life‐cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies.

International Atomic Energy Agency,

https://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Pess/assets/GHG_manuscript_pre‐

print_versionDanielWeisser.pdf accessed 25 January 2016.

White Rock Wind Farm Pty Limited (WRWFPL)( 2015) Bushfire Risk Management Plan, prepared for the

White Rock Wind Farm Stage 1

World Health Organisation (WHO) (2007). Electromagnetic fields and public health: Exposure to extremely

low frequency fields, Fact sheet N°322, June 2007.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs322/en/index.html, accessed 01 August 2012.


6589 Final v1.3 138

World Health Organisation (WHO) (2012). Electromagnetic Fields http://www.who.int/peh‐

emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/, accessed May and August 2012.

World Health Organisation (WHO) (undated). The International EMF Project brochure,

http://www.who.int/peh‐emf/about/emf_brochure_webversion.pdf, accessed 01 August 2012.

Wright, M. and Hearps, P. (2010). Australian Sustainable Energy Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy

Plan, University of Melbourne Energy Research Institute‐ Beyond Zero Emissions.


6589 Final v1.3 A‐I

APPENDIX A SEARS


6589 Final v1.3 B‐I

APPENDIX B BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT


6589 Final v1.3 C‐I

APPENDIX C ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT


6589 Final v1.3 D‐I

APPENDIX D VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT


6589 Final v1.3 E‐I

APPENDIX E NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT


6589 Final v1.3 F‐I

APPENDIX F DRAFT NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN


6589 Final v1.3 G‐I

APPENDIX G DRAFT EROSION AND SEDIMENT

CONTROL PLAN


6589 Final v1.3 H‐I

APPENDIX H DRAFT TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN

environmental impact statement · project title: white rock solar farm environmental impact...

Documents