Environmental Impact Statement · Project Title: White Rock Solar Farm Environmental Impact...
Transcript of 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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 iii
3.2 ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS ..................................................................................................................15
3.2.1 Option 1: Development Site 1 ............................................................................................................. 16
3.2.2 Option 2: Development Site 2 ............................................................................................................. 16
3.2.3 Option 3: Development Site 3 ............................................................................................................. 16
3.2.4 Option 4: Development Site 4 ............................................................................................................. 16
3.2.5 Option 5: Development Site 5 ............................................................................................................. 17
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
8.2.2 Existing environment ........................................................................................................................... 75
8.2.3 Site survey ............................................................................................................................................ 76
8.2.4 Potential impacts ................................................................................................................................. 77
8.2.5 Environmental safeguards ................................................................................................................... 77
8.3 VISUAL IMPACTS ................................................................................................................................78
8.3.1 Approach ............................................................................................................................................. 78
8.3.2 Existing environment ........................................................................................................................... 79
8.3.3 Potential impacts ................................................................................................................................. 80
8.3.4 Environmental safeguards ................................................................................................................... 82
8.4 NOISE IMPACT ....................................................................................................................................83
8.4.1 Approach ............................................................................................................................................. 83
8.4.2 Existing environment ........................................................................................................................... 84
8.4.3 Policy setting and criteria .................................................................................................................... 84
8.4.4 Potential impacts ................................................................................................................................. 85
8.4.5 Environmental safeguards ................................................................................................................... 87
8.5 LAND USE ...........................................................................................................................................88
8.5.1 Existing environment ........................................................................................................................... 88
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 vi
8.5.2 Potential Impacts ................................................................................................................................. 92
8.5.3 Environmental safeguards ................................................................................................................... 94
9 ASSESSMENT OF ADDITIONAL ISSUES ..............................................................................................95
9.1 SOILS AND LANDFORMS .....................................................................................................................95
9.1.1 Existing environment ........................................................................................................................... 95
9.1.2 Potential impacts ................................................................................................................................. 96
9.1.3 Environmental safeguards ................................................................................................................... 97
9.2 WATER ................................................................................................................................................97
9.2.1 Existing environment ........................................................................................................................... 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
9.3.3 Potential impacts ............................................................................................................................... 103
9.3.4 Environmental safeguards ................................................................................................................. 106
9.4 HEALTH AND SAFETY ....................................................................................................................... 106
9.4.1 Electromagnetic interference ............................................................................................................ 106
9.4.2 Aviation .............................................................................................................................................. 109
9.4.3 Bushfire .............................................................................................................................................. 110
9.4.4 Environmental safeguards ................................................................................................................. 112
9.5 RESOURCE USE AND WASTE GENERATION ..................................................................................... 113
9.5.1 Existing environment ......................................................................................................................... 113
9.5.2 Potential impacts ............................................................................................................................... 115
9.5.3 Environmental safeguards ................................................................................................................. 116
9.6 HISTORIC HERITAGE ........................................................................................................................ 116
9.6.1 Approach ........................................................................................................................................... 116
9.6.2 Existing environment ......................................................................................................................... 116
9.6.3 Potential impacts ............................................................................................................................... 117
9.6.4 Environmental safeguards ................................................................................................................. 118
9.7 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................. 118
9.7.1 Existing environment ......................................................................................................................... 118
9.7.2 Potential impacts ............................................................................................................................... 120
9.7.3 Environmental safeguards ................................................................................................................. 121
9.8 SOCIOECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ............................................................................................. 121
9.8.1 Existing environment ......................................................................................................................... 121
9.8.2 Potential impacts ............................................................................................................................... 122
9.8.3 Environmental safeguards ................................................................................................................. 124
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 vii
9.9 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................................................... 124
9.9.1 Existing environment ......................................................................................................................... 124
9.9.2 Potential 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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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)
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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)
132kV 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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
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)
132kV 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 1.1 WRSF Project Area in relation to WRWF Project boundary
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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).
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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,
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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).
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock 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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
3.2.2 Option 2: Development Site 2
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.
3.2.3 Option 3: Development Site 3
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.
3.2.4 Option 4: Development Site 4
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 17
3.2.5 Option 5: Development Site 5
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
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
5/01/2016
1:50,000 @ A3
STATUS
DATE
SCALE
WRSOL_OVR_017_5A
J.Gardner
I.Mackey
J.Bembrick
APPROVED
PRODUCED
CHECKED
05A
Wind Farm Project Boundary
Lot 99/DP753292
Lot 154/DP753260
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)
132kV 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 Area OptionsSolar Farm - Development Area 1
Solar Farm - Development Area 2
Solar Farm - Development Area 3
Potential Cabling and Access Tracks
Solar Farm - Development Area 4
Solar Farm - Development Area 5
Note: All WRWF infrastructure subject to a 100m micrositing allowance under the WRWF Project Approval
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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:
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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:
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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).
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 64
Figure 7‐1 Constraints map for the WRSF Development Envelope
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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).
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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).
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 68
Figure 7‐2 Endangered ecological community map for the Development Envelope.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
within the Development
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
within the Development
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
Affected by the proposal
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
Unlikely to occur Unlikely
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 70
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
Affected by the proposal
Speckled Warbler / V
Chthonicola sagittata
1/4/0 No Not detected
Unlikely to occur due to habitat condition
Unlikely
Spotted Harrier / V
Circus assimilis
0/2/0 Marginal Not detected
Presumed to occur on occasion. Habitat elements that occur onsite are common in the local area.
Unlikely
Varied Sittella / V
Daphoenositta chrysoptera
0/1/2 No Not detected
May occur on occasion. Habitat elements that occur onsite are poor quality and common in the local area.
Unlikely
Hooded Robin V
Melanodryas cucullata
1/1/0 No Not detected
Unlikely to occur, habitat elements that occur onsite are poor quality
Unlikely
Flame Robin / V
Petroica phoenicea
0/7/0 No Not detected
Unlikely to occur, habitat elements that occur onsite are poor quality
Unlikely
Scarlet Robin / V
Petroica boodang
0/5/0 No Not detected
Unlikely to occur, habitat elements that occur onsite are poor quality
Unlikely
Black‐throated Finch (southern sub‐species) / E, E
Poephila cincta cincta
0/1/0 Marginal Not detected
Unlikely to occur Unlikely
Diamond Firetail / V
Stagonopleura guttata
0/9/0 Marginal Not detected
Unlikely to occur, habitat elements that occur onsite are poor quality
Unlikely
Little Lorikeet / V
Glossopsitta pusilla
0/3/0 No Not detected
Unlikely to occur, habitat elements that occur onsite are poor quality
Unlikely
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 71
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
Affected by the proposal
Spotted‐tailed Quoll / V, E
Dasyrurus maculatus
1/1/0 No Not detected
Unlikely to occur Unlikely
Koala / V, V
Phascolarctos cinereus
0/0/0 Marginal Not detected
Unlikely to occur Unlikely
Eastern Bentwing‐bat V
Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis
0/0/12 Marginal Not detected
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
Development Envelope.
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 73
Impact Frequency Intensity Consequence
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.
Impact Frequency Intensity Consequence
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 75
No. Environmental Safeguard Solar farm
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).
8.2.2 Existing environment
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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:
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
8.2.4 Potential impacts
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.
8.2.5 Environmental safeguards
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’.
No. Environmental Safeguard Solar farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 78
No. Environmental Safeguard Solar farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
8.3.2 Existing environment
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’.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
8.3.3 Potential impacts
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
8.3.4 Environmental safeguards
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:
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 83
No. Environmental Safeguard Solar farm
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:
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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).
8.4.2 Existing environment
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
8.4.4 Potential impacts
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
8.4.5 Environmental safeguards
The following mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the noise impacts associated with
construction:
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 88
No. Environmental Safeguard Solar farm
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
8.5.1 Existing environment
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).
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Ref: 6589 8.4 v3Author: JB
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
8.5.3 Environmental safeguards
The following additional mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the impacts to land use:
No. Environmental Safeguard Solar farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 95
9 ASSESSMENT OF ADDITIONAL ISSUES
9.1 SOILS AND LANDFORMS
9.1.1 Existing environment
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
9.1.2 Potential impacts
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
9.1.3 Environmental safeguards
The following mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the impacts to soils and landforms:
No. Environmental Safeguard Solar farm
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
9.2.1 Existing environment
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Ref: 6589 9.3 v3Author: JB
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
Development envelope
Solar array
Wellingrove Creek
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
9.2.2 Potential impacts
Construction and decommissioning
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
9.2.3 Environmental safeguards
The following mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the impacts to water:
No. Environmental Safeguard Solar farm
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)
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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).
9.3.3 Potential impacts
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
Development Envelope.
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 106
9.3.4 Environmental safeguards
The following measures would be incorporated in the WRSF Project implementation:
No. Environmental Safeguard Solar farm
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’.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
No. Environmental Safeguard Solar farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
No. Environmental Safeguard Solar farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Construction and decommissioning
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 112
9.4.4 Environmental safeguards
The following mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce bushfire impacts:
No. Environmental Safeguard Solar farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 113
No. Environmental Safeguard Solar farm
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
9.5.1 Existing environment
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
9.5.2 Potential impacts
Construction and 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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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:
No. Environmental Safeguard Solar farm
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.
9.6.2 Existing environment
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
9.6.3 Potential impacts
Construction and decommissioning
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
Development Envelope.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
9.6.4 Environmental safeguards
To appropriately manage the historic heritage issues identified above during the construction phase, the
following measure is recommended:
No. Environmental Safeguard Solar farm
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
9.7.1 Existing environment
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 120
9.7.2 Potential impacts
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 121
9.7.3 Environmental safeguards
The following mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the impacts to air quality and climate:
No. Environmental Safeguard Solar farm
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
9.8.1 Existing environment
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
9.8.2 Potential impacts
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 124
9.8.3 Environmental safeguards
The following mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the socio‐economic impacts that may
arise from the Project.
No. Environmental Safeguard Solar farm
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
9.9.1 Existing environment
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.
9.9.2 Potential impacts
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
No. Environmental Safeguard Solar farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 128
No. Environmental Safeguard Solar farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 129
No. Environmental Safeguard Solar farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 130
No. Environmental Safeguard Solar farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 131
No. Environmental Safeguard Solar farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 132
No. Environmental Safeguard Solar farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
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.
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 A‐I
APPENDIX A SEARS
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 B‐I
APPENDIX B BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 C‐I
APPENDIX C ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 D‐I
APPENDIX D VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 E‐I
APPENDIX E NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 F‐I
APPENDIX F DRAFT NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 G‐I
APPENDIX G DRAFT EROSION AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL PLAN
Environmental Impact Statement White Rock Solar Farm
6589 Final v1.3 H‐I
APPENDIX H DRAFT TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN